Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:17 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:15 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Thomson, Ga
Likes: 0
Liked: 1
Jac3510 wrote:
I have no problem believing that some people would be taken across state lines. But ALL of them? Of course not. Most of them? Probably not. We have thousands of abortions happening per day. You also have to assume that the state next to you isn't like GA. You also have to assume that you live near the edge of your state.

The bottom line is that it is completely absurd to say that if some states were able to recriminalize abortion that lives would not be saved. And once you admit that lives would be saved, then my original argument stands full force. Better to save human lives and live with the effects of an activist judiciary than insist on a constructionist judiciary that leaves people being murdered by the truckloads on a daily basis.


I cede that my point that "Few lives, if any, would be saved" was overstated. But I maintain that overturning Roe v Wade would still only save some lives, maybe most, given that the states most likely to keep abortion legal are also the ones with the highest # of abortions.

_________________
Donate To HuckPAC: R23593

"Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar."
- Abraham Lincoln


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:19 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
ecwoodrow wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:
I have no problem believing that some people would be taken across state lines. But ALL of them? Of course not. Most of them? Probably not. We have thousands of abortions happening per day. You also have to assume that the state next to you isn't like GA. You also have to assume that you live near the edge of your state.

The bottom line is that it is completely absurd to say that if some states were able to recriminalize abortion that lives would not be saved. And once you admit that lives would be saved, then my original argument stands full force. Better to save human lives and live with the effects of an activist judiciary than insist on a constructionist judiciary that leaves people being murdered by the truckloads on a daily basis.


I cede that my point that "Few lives, if any, would be saved" was overstated. But I maintain that overturning Roe v Wade would still only save some lives, maybe most, given that the states most likely to keep abortion legal are also the ones with the highest # of abortions.

That's fine. And I'll draw again from your point that SOME lives would be saved. And on the basis that the overturning of THOUSANDS of lives would be saved, I say it's more than worth it to allow an activist judge on the court (if that is what it took) to do so. Even ONE life would be worth that. If you don't think so, then imagine it was the life of your child.

So, I stand by my original argument. If we knew for sure Sotomayer was pro-life and would overturn Roe, then we have the moral obligation to fight tooth and nail for her confirmation, regardless of her otherwise activistic approach to judging.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:53 pm 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 9:20 am
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Liked: 2
ecwoodrow wrote:
I think some of you are missing the point. Even if she were pro-life, all she'd be able to do is overturn Roe v Wade, which would leave it up to the individual states to decide if abortion is legal or not.


Thanks for making my point. The argument still stands that currently Abortion is allowed by law (granted under a false argument by the liberal judges in the 70's as the progressive view was growing in the courts). No matter what your personal stance is on the issue, that should not be reflected in your judicial decision. This is my concern with Sotomayor. She does not believe in the letter of the law, but more of a "fairness" of the law. The law is not always fair, but it is the law and it is not the Judges job to change the law on a case by case situation.

What we need to do is to educate the people on truly what is wrong with abortions. Ecwoodrow is right that even though many people are against abortion, they want to leave it up to the state's to decide. That whole small localized government thing the founding fathers wanted. This was in part to how slavery was brought down. It took years of educating people of the harshness and truly barbaric ways these men and women were treated for the country to finally say this needs to be abolished.

Jac3510 - I understand what you are saying about "interpreting" the constitution and that being the part of the SCJ's job, however, her decisions have been inconsistent based on different reasoning. This is not interpreting the Constitution, but based on "fairness". Also, when you look at cases like the Dred Scot case, it came down to property vs individual rights. Even though we can not imagine how that a person could ever be property, there was a time not only in the US, but around the world, where that was such a case. The judges got it wrong from a "fairness" point then, but it took an amendment to ablolish slavery and not a Judicial decision. Same thing is needed for Abortions, an amendment and not a judicial decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:12 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Thomson, Ga
Likes: 0
Liked: 1
Jac3510 wrote:
That's fine. And I'll draw again from your point that SOME lives would be saved. And on the basis that the overturning of THOUSANDS of lives would be saved, I say it's more than worth it to allow an activist judge on the court (if that is what it took) to do so. Even ONE life would be worth that. If you don't think so, then imagine it was the life of your child.

So, I stand by my original argument. If we knew for sure Sotomayer was pro-life and would overturn Roe, then we have the moral obligation to fight tooth and nail for her confirmation, regardless of her otherwise activistic approach to judging.


What would be the point in allowing them to live, only to die by:

Terrorism (due to an activist SCOTUS enabling terrorists)
Crime (due to an activist SCOTUS taking away gun rights, increasing crime)
Universal Healthcare (due to an activist SCOTUS declaring it constitutional)

Among other things. And not only those children that would've been saved from abortion, but everyone else would be subject to those things as well.

Not only that, but as dmacdaddy30 pointed out, her activism is based off her feelings. She's prone to change her mind.

_________________
Donate To HuckPAC: R23593

"Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar."
- Abraham Lincoln


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:29 am 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:47 am
Posts: 252
Location: Wisconsin
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
Jac3510 wrote:
mentalhead wrote:
I agree that being pro-life is very important, but judges are supposed to be picked based on how well they follow the Constitution. I highly doubt that she is pro-life though since almost no liberals are.

I doubt she's pro-life, too. But what is more important to you? The lives of millions of children or men's tradition?

edit: being pro-life isn't just very important. It is before all else. If one is not in favor of life, then it does not matter what else one is in favor of. Likewise, if one is in favor of life, then all else is political posturing and economics, certainly things worth fighting for, but none worth the life of a single human being.


Well it is still wrong for them to not play by the rules regardless of the outcome. Otherwise, for instance, we could go to abortion clinics and kidnap women who are going to abort their babies and save them.
But I do think she is probably only as bad as any other picks Obama would make... but if I was a senator I couldn't vote for her with a clear conscience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 10:11 am 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
ecwoodrow wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:
That's fine. And I'll draw again from your point that SOME lives would be saved. And on the basis that the overturning of THOUSANDS of lives would be saved, I say it's more than worth it to allow an activist judge on the court (if that is what it took) to do so. Even ONE life would be worth that. If you don't think so, then imagine it was the life of your child.

So, I stand by my original argument. If we knew for sure Sotomayer was pro-life and would overturn Roe, then we have the moral obligation to fight tooth and nail for her confirmation, regardless of her otherwise activistic approach to judging.


What would be the point in allowing them to live, only to die by:

Terrorism (due to an activist SCOTUS enabling terrorists)
Crime (due to an activist SCOTUS taking away gun rights, increasing crime)
Universal Healthcare (due to an activist SCOTUS declaring it constitutional)

Among other things. And not only those children that would've been saved from abortion, but everyone else would be subject to those things as well.

Not only that, but as dmacdaddy30 pointed out, her activism is based off her feelings. She's prone to change her mind.

I'm sorry. I just disagree. Like I said, let God bring back the people who would have survived abortion. Then YOU look them in the face and make a choice whether or not their life is worth living under the type of government you want. I think about my child, and I could NEVER do that.

Look people, I understand the politics behind it. But WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HUMAN LIFE. No form of government is worth the life of innocent human life. There is NOTHING that comes before the life of a child, and, again, if you think there is, you go to one of the graves of these murdered children, put flowers on their grave, and say, "Your life wasn't worth defending, because the price--an activist judiciary--is too high. I'd rather you be dead and me have the kind of judiciary I want than you be alive and both of us have to live under judicial activism."

There is absolutely no way to justify that position. Human life comes FIRST. People, not forms of government, are made in the image of God.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 2:54 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:14 am
Posts: 104
Location: Colorado Springs
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
I don't think she's pro-life. I think the notion that she might be, is a ruse to try and quiet opposition to her. Even if she were pro-life I think her other positions with regard to gun control, affirmative action and judicial activism would be compelling enough to merit opposition to her confirmation.

Strategically I also believe it is of great importance to use this confirmation process to illustrate the vast differences between conservatives and liberals. Likewise we have a tremendous opportunity to reaffirm basic American principles of justice and educate the public about the rule of law and the role of the Supreme Court in the American System of checks and balances in Government. In all likelihood she will be confirmed regardless of what we do, but there is the opportunity to make the most of the confirmation process so that in losing the battle we might win the greater cultural/political war.

Finally I think a real strong case can be made that Sotomayor simply isn't intellectually qualified to sit on the Roberts Court. Please read and share this outstanding article that lays out the case with a number of unreported facts that illustrate that point:

http://townhall.com/columnists/Column2.aspx?UrlTitle=miss_affirmative_action,_2009&ns=PatBuchanan&dt=06/12/2009&page=full&comments=true&submitted=true

While you're at it post it on your facebook wall, copy and send it to your email list, your local Republican or Conservative Grassroot's leaders, and your Representatives in Washington.

_________________
Brently Keen
http://www.greatrancheswest.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:01 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 1:21 am
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
I'll just say the following, my two cents, then I'll be done.

1) I do not believe Judge Sotomayor is a racist. I do not know her, and know that the media alone is an unfair judge of character.

2) Although we, as republicans, would have liked to see a more moderate candidate, this is how it works. If republicans were in office, we would probably nominate a very conservative candidate. We lost in the election, so sometimes you just have to take what is given.

3) She has one of the more impressive resumes coming into this position as anyone. We should at least respect that fact.

4) HOWEVER, all that being said, I think Senator McConnell is right when he said we need to take our time on this. This isn't an everyday thing--it's the SUPREME COURT. I think that democrats have been VERY wrong about trying to push this thing through and rush conformation. From a political standpoint, that is obviously ideal for them. But for the sake of getting things right the first time and one of the Top 15 most important positions in America, especially with someone with the record of Sotomayor, this process needs to take time and careful consideration.

That's just my two cents.

_________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DerekKing6


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:13 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
I don't know why, but I have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps Sotomayor might not be as liberal as her allies think she is.

I've dreaded the day that Obama would pick someone to the SCOTUS as much as anyone here - mainly because of the issue of abortion. But I think this is a situation in which I think the President certainly could have picked somone much worse. The very fact that we're not sure if she could possibly not be full-steam pro-abortion is a better scenario than I had feared. And if in the worst case she turns out to be as liberal as Souter, the guy she's replacing, that still would be better than the worst case scenario.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:02 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
This woman has been reversed by the Supreme Court something like 60+% of the time. That is hardly an impressive judicial resume.

And I don't know if y'all have followed it much, but she is contradicting her own words in this hearing - making it clear that she is willing to lie for this.

Additionally, while I also would love for a surprise to break in our favor for a change, I don't hold out a lot of hope. The odds of someone being a closet liberal are much greater than someone being a closet conservative. And if you think about the nature of the two ideologies & the respect each holds for Truth (belief that it exists vs. relativism), it makes perfect sense.
Which is why I don't think it is very likely...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:32 am 
Offline
*** General

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:30 am
Posts: 1350
Location: Conroe, TX
Likes: 93
Liked: 14
I don't have much hope of her being pro-life. I'm not impressed with what I've heard her say the past two days. They seem to have done a good job teaching her to dance around the problems & the republican senators haven't done a good enough job of follow-up questions when they had good opportunities.

I tried to pick up on what she said as well as didn't say. While many issues still bother me, what I got on abortion hasn't convinced me she is pro-life. When she sat on the board of the Latino version of the ACLU (Geraldo coined the phrase) she did not protest their push to force taxpayers to fund abortions or even the language that those who are against it are enslaving women. She stumbled over saying the words termination of a pregnancy. The exchange with Coburn was good in giving hints that she doesn't believe that the "right to life" is clearly stated but vague privacy rights are. When she does discuss the issue, she says "pro-choice" & "anti-abortion". That is generally seen a a tactic by those want to portray "pro-life" supporters in a negative light. Just using the word anti makes it seem less desirable.

I hope I am wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:44 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1599
Location: Richmond, VA
Likes: 146
Liked: 215
miracleshappen wrote:
I don't have much hope of her being pro-life. I'm not impressed with what I've heard her say the past two days. They seem to have done a good job teaching her to dance around the problems & the republican senators haven't done a good enough job of follow-up questions when they had good opportunities.

I tried to pick up on what she said as well as didn't say. While many issues still bother me, what I got on abortion hasn't convinced me she is pro-life. When she sat on the board of the Latino version of the ACLU (Geraldo coined the phrase) she did not protest their push to force taxpayers to fund abortions or even the language that those who are against it are enslaving women. She stumbled over saying the words termination of a pregnancy. The exchange with Coburn was good in giving hints that she doesn't believe that the "right to life" is clearly stated but vague privacy rights are. When she does discuss the issue, she says "pro-choice" & "anti-abortion". That is generally seen a a tactic by those want to portray "pro-life" supporters in a negative light. Just using the word anti makes it seem less desirable.

I hope I am wrong.


I agree, things still don't look too good. However, we probably won't know absolutely for sure until she gets on the Court and has the case before her. Until then, I'm holding out the tiniest bit of hope that your screen name might just hold true here, though I'm prepared to be proven the fool.

_________________
ATTENTION GUESTS: Thanks for checking out our Discussion Forum. Before you go, please take a minute to click on the image below and get registered to join the discussion. You'll enjoy all the perks, such as being able to track which posts you've read already. It will also allow us to contact you with important news and information. Plus, we'd just love to hear what you have to say!

MEMBERS: Want to put the "Get Registered" image in your signature? Learn how here.

______________________Image______________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:55 am 
Offline
General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:45 am
Posts: 1175
Likes: 0
Liked: 3
I thought Dennis Miller had a good point on O'Riley last night. He said Republicans should just give Sotomayor a pass (paraphrased) and see it as replacing a liberal with a liberal and then take a stand on the next appt. His reasoning? Republicans need to start re-building their relationship with Hispanic voters.

_________________
______________________Image______________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:01 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
kuphoff wrote:
I thought Dennis Miller had a good point on O'Riley last night. He said Republicans should just give Sotomayor a pass (paraphrased) and see it as replacing a liberal with a liberal and then take a stand on the next appt. His reasoning? Republicans need to start re-building their relationship with Hispanic voters.


I think this is true. I haven't had a chance to watch the confirmation hearings over the past couple of days. But, she's going to get confirmed no matter what. The dems have 60 Senators. Do the math. And she's probably at the minimum not much more liberal than the Justice she's replacing. What's more, I think it is a strategic error to oppose her based on the foolish comment she made in 1991.

I oppose her ruling in the case of the firefighters - I think that it was wrong to dismiss a test out of hand and deny the guys a promotion. A test is a test. But, I can't help but notice some hypocrisy in some of the people who are doing the most complaining.

Some of the very people who have been taking her apart about her stupid comment have been either strongly alleged or proven to have made racially insensitive remarks themselves in the past. A lot more of them have implicitly supported friends of theirs who have definitely made racially insensitive remarks by refusing to criticize their remarks in any way and continuing to embrace them. And for all the talk about reverse-discrimination (by the way, all discrimination is discrimination, period), I can't help but notice that the people who complain incessantly about it don't seem to notice the perception of possible discrimination in the other direction - and this applies to both sides. It's hypocritical to complain about discrimination and not have a problem with the fact that some guys were denied a promotion just because they're white. And it's also hypocritical to talk constantly about reverse-discrimination, as they do on Fox, and not notice that Fox is the only broadcast network that seems to have no black anchors or other key talent. It's glaring. So, I think that nobody wins when a food fight starts about stupid comments or attitudes about fairness. People on both sides have made them and people on both sides have embraced things that aren't fair. There is definite hypocrisy on both sides.

In all of this, with the emphasis on her questions and on the firefighter case, I've missed out on the questions that I actually care about. I don't care one way or another about her background and her life story. I care about what kind of judge she is. That's really what matters and it hasn't been the focus through now.

By taking the path that the party has taken toward Sotomayor, they've probably lowered their standing in the Hispanic community - which is just the type of thing that will would greatly aide Obama in getting another four years in office and getting a chance to name a bunch of other Justices. Furthermore, by expending so much fire on a candidate who probably is at least not much worse than the person she's replacing, people will tune them out when Obama nominates someone much worse to the High Court. Someone who is unabashedly pro-abortion, for example. And when people hear the GOP complain about that person, they'll think "those Republicans ... that's what they said the last time. They're just out to oppose whatever Obama does." Wrong strategy.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 10:11 am 
Offline
General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:45 am
Posts: 1175
Likes: 0
Liked: 3
It's hypocritical to complain about discrimination and not have a problem with the fact that some guys were denied a promotion just because they're white. And it's also hypocritical to talk constantly about reverse-discrimination, as they do on Fox, and not notice that Fox is the only broadcast network that seems to have no black anchors or other key talent. It's glaring. So, I think that nobody wins when a food fight starts about stupid comments or attitudes about fairness. People on both sides have made them and people on both sides have embraced things that aren't fair. There is definite hypocrisy on both sides.

So true, TVV and I would add, that in order to be a woman anchor you have to have been a past beauty queen (or the equiv) and only wear dresses on camera that show your legs.

_________________
______________________Image______________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:24 am 
Offline
Lieutenant

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:52 pm
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
Liked: 5
True TVV. Discrimination is just that. To use the term "reverse racism" is to subscribe to the liberal agenda of reciprocity.

I've actually enjoyed this thread. To see the exchange of different ideas and views presented passionately yet with civility. This is one reason I love this site. You can have real discussions without getting hostile.

If memory serves me right, Souter was nominated by the 1st Bush and he was supposed to be conservative. It would be nice if Sotomayer turned out to be Obama's "Souter".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:40 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
kdscott wrote:
If memory serves me right, Souter was nominated by the 1st Bush and he was supposed to be conservative. It would be nice if Sotomayer turned out to be Obama's "Souter".


That's what I'm hoping as well. Or Kennedy's "White" - as in the late Justice Byron White, who JFK appointed in 1962, and, along with the late Justice Rehnquist, opposed Roe v. Wade while three Nixon appointees cast the deciding votes that made this barbarism law. Kennedy's surviving appointee cast the only other dissenting vote in the Roe case - something that the Kennedy family probably wouldn't be happy about. But without three of Nixon's four appointees on the Court at that time voting to make Roe law, Roe would have been defeated 5-4 and we would have a lot more babies who would be alive to read this.

Sometimes people surprise the people who appointed them. I'm hoping that this is one of those times.

But, to the earlier point, the Republican leadership continues to amaze me in their propensity to do the things that cause them more damage than benefit. I keep thinking about that episode of Seinfeld in which George learns that since his instincts are always wrong, if he only did "the opposite" of it, all of his instincts are right.

Think of this confirmation as a battle that is part of a larger war - and the war I'm talking about and hopefully everyone else is is a spiritual war - one in which we're not fighting against flesh and blood but against the devil. The war to protect unborn life and allow God's Word to be preached to all for as long as possible. That war. Well, there is a concept of counting the cost of a battle. If a battle leaves your side so damaged that you can't fight in subsequent battles and you ultimately lose the war, was it worth fighting the battle? Even if you could claim to win that battle?

The GOP is widely perceived as being a racist and exclusively white party with a few "token" non-white members put out for decoration. You may disagree with that perception but the majority of non-white and Hispanic Americans see it that way and that's the reality that partially occupies their minds as they go to the voting booth. That's a big part of the reason that 95% of blacks and 67% of Hispanics voted for Barack Obama - tipping the balance in a countless number of states and dumping electoral votes by the bucketfull into his pile. Don't blame ACORN without taking a good hard look at the way people see the GOP and some people in the party who help perpetuate this perception. Does this mean that they shouldn't have opposed her? Absolutely not. Race shouldn't be a factor one way or the other. But by taking the track of really hitting her left and right and up and down and then left and right again and again with the firefighter case, with her stupid comment from 1991, calling her a racist, etc., they've sort of tried the stategy of making race an issue, which, given the GOP's history over the past 50 years, does not benefit them at all.

And so, if next time around, Hispanics feel that the questioning wasn't so much about Sotomayor's judicial credentials, which is a fair subject of focus, but more about trying to fire up people about the idea that a radical anti-white racist who happens to be Hispanic (and I'll give a penny for every time "Hispanic" or "Peurto Rican" get mentioned in the confirmation questions - eh, wait ... can't afford it), there will likely be consequences in the voting booth that will not positively affect any Republican running in 2012.

Which would only make it more likely that Obama would have plenty of time left to make some really truly bad SCOTUS appointments. And it might make it even possible that the Dems would get an even wider padding in Congress.

So, if all of this were to happen, is engaging in this battle full-steam and with angry vigor in the best interest of doing well in the overall war?

If I'm mentioning a sort of unique perspective in this identity stuff, and if you've been getting fueled up with resentment by all the talk about discrimination or "reverse-discrimination," maybe you could hear more people with perspectives like mine on Fox. Oh, wait. We don't work there.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:32 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:52 pm
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
Liked: 5
TheValuesVoter wrote:
If I'm mentioning a sort of unique perspective in this identity stuff, and if you've been getting fueled up with resentment by all the talk about discrimination or "reverse-discrimination," maybe you could hear more people with perspectives like mine on Fox. Oh, wait. We don't work there.


Very good point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:44 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:08 pm
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Liked: 8
If her "testimony" is the guide, she is one who has No opinions at all on Anything and will follow "precedent" all the time.

Might as well, just put in a clerk in here supreme court slot to look up the cases and cast her precedent keeping vote. No need for any actual thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:39 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
A while back, Indiana4Huck had an excellent post in the following thread that I think is well worth repeating:

viewtopic.php?f=141&t=19896&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30

Quote:
The only way I can respond...is by echoing Huckabee, "NEVER sacrifice my principles for ANYBODY's politics"...especially the GOPs! Why are we even considering supporting the nomination of this kind of jurist-biased and racist (against white males at least), just so the GOP can reach out to so called minorities? I can't believe the rationale for this. Why are we resigned to just let it go? Why aren't we encouraging calls to our representatives? Why are we losing, from even respected sources, the will to fight for what is right? And not for what is politically expedient? Trying to salvage the GOP which is all but dead anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY