AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

The week judicial liberalism gave up

I do not agree with the conclusions your author came to. Specifically, I think he misses the fact that Republicans regularly use outrage towards Liberal judges as a fund-raising tool and rallying point for their voters.

By denying them the ability to do this, the Democrats defuse what potentially would have been a winning issue for the Republicans. As your author stated, she was due to be confirmed no matter what - why make it a fundraiser for your opponents at the same time?

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

The week judicial liberalism gave up

I do not agree with the conclusions your author came to. Specifically, I think he misses the fact that Republicans regularly use outrage towards Liberal judges as a fund-raising tool and rallying point for their voters.

By denying them the ability to do this, the Democrats defuse what potentially would have been a winning issue for the Republicans. As your author stated, she was due to be confirmed no matter what - why make it a fundraiser for your opponents at the same time?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The week judicial liberalism gave up

I do not agree with the conclusions your author came to. Specifically, I think he misses the fact that Republicans regularly use outrage towards Liberal judges as a fund-raising tool and rallying point for their voters.

By denying them the ability to do this, the Democrats defuse what potentially would have been a winning issue for the Republicans. As your author stated, she was due to be confirmed no matter what - why make it a fundraiser for your opponents at the same time?

Cycloptichorn

Well if that was her/their intent--to deny the GOP a propaganda tool--she defiitely shot them/her in the foot if they wanted a liberal judge. Now she has to be the sensible, pragmatic, and honorable judge she claimed to be in the hearings--a winning proposition for those of us who want the kind of judge-- or she gives the GOP a HUGE propaganda tool to use by flip flopping and going against everything she now claims to believe. If she goes against her word given in the hearing, all they have to do is play her words in the hearing against her actions on the bench to show that we cannot let another liberal President appoint anybody to anything.

From what I've been reading about Obama's health plan, I'm against it

Ican's impeachment petition is looking better all the time, isn't it.

I still don't think we have a 'high crimes and misdemeanors' case that would stick, even with Republicans, as yet, so our best bet is to keep doing whatever we can to inform the people so those with something of a brain left will put and keep the pressure on their elected officials. And we have to vote the numbnuts out of office and put in some people who actually care about this country. That has to begin in 2010 because I am no longer confident we can survive four years of this without incurring irreversible damage.

Foxfyre wrote:

Ican's impeachment petition is looking better all the time, isn't it.

I still don't think we have a 'high crimes and misdemeanors' case that would stick, even with Republicans, as yet, so our best bet is to keep doing whatever we can to inform the people so those with something of a brain left will put and keep the pressure on their elected officials. And we have to vote the numbnuts out of office and put in some people who actually care about this country. That has to begin in 2010 because I am no longer confident we can survive four years of this without incurring irreversible damage.

The way things are going now with Obama's program, 2010 will be too late to reverse the damage he's doing by merely electing Republican majorities in both houses.

Ican we do not have time to impeach him even if we could build a sufficient case to do so, which we simply cannot do. Cap & Trade will be done before we could get a call for impeachment into committee, much less out of committee. The Healthcare system will already be in the clutches of government. The banks will be nationalized as effectively will be most of our largest corporations.

You're right about health care and cap-and-trade.

1. Provide evidence of Obama taking "foreign money" Snopes debunks foreign money claims

I provided that in 2008!

2. provide evidence he is doing things for this foreign money while not doing anything for American citizens (If you can find evidence of 1.)

I did not provide that! But Obama did provide that when he directed that Hamas--the shooters at Israel--be given millions of dollars in aid.

3. Lacking 1 and 2 above and the argument about Obama's lack of citizenshipmakes the second paragraph moot. There is no "defrauding" to be found since there is nothing there for evidence of the 3 points used to claim he defrauded anyone.

We're. not lacking 1 and 2 above, but we are lacking evdence that Obama was born in America!

4. Provide evidence of legislation passed by Congress and signed by Obama that has violated the constitution.

I provided a plethora of evidence of that!

5. Provide evidence of a court deciding that legislation violated the constitution

I did not provide that!

You haven't provided any evidence ican. You have made up a lot of **** but when pressed you can't support it.

I have provided a plethora of evidence that Obama's presidential actions are unconstitutional!

If Obama is taking money from others in violation of the constitution but not you then tell us why their taxes are unconstitutional but yours are constitutional.

So far as I know, no one's income tax rate rules now are different from what they were 2003 to 2008! Until TARP, I lacked sufficient evidence to show that Bush spending of income taxes was unconstitutional. However, when Bush signed TARP on Obama's recommendation, Bush had only a few more months to be president. Impeaching Bush after his term ended seemed nonsensical to me. But impeaching Obama for his continuation and expansion of TARP with his Stimulus plan is essential for the rescue of our country from the damage Obama is doing now.

Explain why your income taxes that are graduated like everyone elses don't violate your silly 'uniform' argument.

Currently, I'm paying income taxes that total less than 10% of my gross income--including taxes on the incomes of corporations in which I have invested. I think the tax rate for everyone should be 10% of gross income--no corporate taxes, no inheritance taxes, no deductions, no exemptions, no refunds, no paybacks, et cetera. A uniform tax rate for others as well as me would result as follows:
If your annual gross income were $10, you'd be required to pay $1 in income tax;
If your annual gross income were $10,000, you'd be required to pay $1,000 in income tax;
If your annual gross income were $10, 000,000, you'd be required to pay $1,000,000 in income tax;
If your annual gross income were $10, 000,000, 000 you'd be required to pay $1,000,000,000 in income tax.

Foxfyre wrote:

Ican we do not have time to impeach him even if we could build a sufficient case to do so, which we simply cannot do. Cap & Trade will be done before we could get a call for impeachment into committee, much less out of committee. The Healthcare system will already be in the clutches of government. The banks will be nationalized as effectively will be most of our largest corporations.

You're right about health care and cap-and-trade. But, 'nationalization of the banks and most of our largest corporations?' Don't you think you're being a little, I don't know, crazy by stating that? Obama has done nothing of the sort, not even when he had the opportunity to do so during the worst part of the banking crisis.

A little less hyperbole would do your argument a load of good.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Ican we do not have time to impeach him even if we could build a sufficient case to do so, which we simply cannot do. Cap & Trade will be done before we could get a call for impeachment into committee, much less out of committee. The Healthcare system will already be in the clutches of government. The banks will be nationalized as effectively will be most of our largest corporations.

You're right about health care and cap-and-trade. But, 'nationalization of the banks and most of our largest corporations?' Don't you think you're being a little, I don't know, crazy by stating that? Obama has done nothing of the sort, not even when he had the opportunity to do so during the worst part of the banking crisis.

A little less hyperbole would do your argument a load of good.

Cycloptichorn

Depends on what terminology you use. The US government is already the biggest shareholder in Bank of America and Citibank as well as General Motors and Chrysler and has presumed to dictate who shall run them. If there is no upturn in the economy, these could easily need another masive infusion of federal aid and almost certainly increased control. In the soft facism that has been happening, the government doesn't have to officially own major financial institutions and corporations. It only has to own those who run them and/or regulate them or bribe them or coerce them in a way that the government maintains effective control.