The Liberal Supermajority...

[OklahomaTuba]

This little peak into the future should just about scare the crap outta everyone, except the libz that is.


If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Soonerfans lefties who read that article will be overjoyed by it.

[LesNessman]

Good article by Coulter showing how the media and their polling are biased to the dem candidates since 1976.

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/10/15/eighty-four_percent_say_theyd_never_lie_to_a_pollster

FTA:

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.

---

Disagree with her beliefs if you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Also read an article couple of years ago showing how Gore would have won handily in 2000 except for his embrace of abortion. Kerry would have had a better chance in 2004 as well. Seems since 1973, pro-ilfe voters (usually conservatives/religious) have been having more babies than pro-abortion voters (usually liberal/not so religious). And those pro-lfers have been raising them to be mostly pro-life. Go figure.

Heard last night that current demography in the U.S. that is the most pro-life percentage-wise is the 35 and under crowd. Coincidentally they are all Roe v Wade survivors.

Post-modern, pro-abortion liberalism is the ideology that's in decline. And by their own hand.

[Sooner5030]

Pelosi - "I recommend ---"

Reid - "Me Too"

Obama - "Approved"

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[OklahomaTuba]

I guess we will all know soon enough how correct the polls are.

The left is too hungry for this win, and frankly, I think we US Americans are ripe for a nice painful reminder of why the liberal ideology was thrown out 30 years ago.

If there is a recession, or Lord help us a depression, it will be the increase in government spending and increase in taxes that will do it. Not a good plan to ensure a long term electoral success IMO.

[SoonerProphet]

As if the GOP hasn't participated in "activist" government since 1968 or so.

[leavingthezoo]

This little peak into the future should just about scare the crap outta everyone, except the libz that is.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

you know, i know you guys are scared. i get it. but i can't help but feel this is a direct result of all three houses holding a strong far right agenda (first 6 years of bush presidency). it's natural to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction when the originating direction is so abysmal.

that being said, i'm one who doesn't like complete control. i like the idea of at least one house being strongly held by the minority party. it will even out eventually. i just hope you guys can survive barack like the rest of us will. :P

[King Crimson]

let the persecution complex begin....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

As if the GOP hasn't participated in "activist" government since 1968 or so.as if a not so conservative congress since Bush became pres. is anything close to as full blown commie as the dems.

[SoonerProphet]

as if a not so conservative congress since Bush became pres. is anything close to as full blown commie as the dems.

Right, since 1968 I'd say both brands of the same product have given us "activist' governments wrapped up in the welfare/warfare state that we see today. To claim otherwise is delusional.

[Stoop Dawg]

If there is a recession, or Lord help us a depression, it will be the increase in government spending and increase in taxes that will do it. Not a good plan to ensure a long term electoral success IMO.

So you are saying that the recession/depression will be Bush's fault, and that his policies are why no Republican could possibly win the White House this year?

To be fair, Bush did remove some of Clinton's tax hikes, but he also ballooned spending. GWB - alone - is the one who took this country's budget from a *surplus* to a *deficit*.

So, yeah, I'm afraid of the Dems having control. But only slightly more so than the Reps.

[SoonerProphet]

So you are saying that the recession/depression will be Bush's fault, and that his policies are why no Republican could possibly win the White House this year?

To be fair, Bush did remove some of Clinton's tax hikes, but he also ballooned spending. GWB - alone - is the one who took this country's budget from a *surplus* to a *deficit*.

So, yeah, I'm afraid of the Dems having control. But only slightly more so than the Reps.

well, you know what you are going to get when you elect the Dems, big government statism...the gop on the other hand likes to talk the talk, they just can't back it up.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

well, you know what you are going to get when you elect the Dems, big government statism...the gop on the other hand likes to talk the talk, they just can't back it up.so, voting FOR "down the shi*ter" is better than voting "maybe we won't go down the shi*ter"?

[SoonerProphet]

Sorry Rush, those folks you cheer for have not given me any inclination about the "maybe" part. Can't vote for either one.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sorry Rush, those folks you cheer for have not given me any inclination about the "maybe" part. Can't vote for either one.You can't be taken seriously. The only conservatives in either house are republicans.

[NormanPride]

Yeah, there's just like, three of them, though.

[soonervegas]

let the persecution complex begin....

So true. I can't even watch Glenn Beck anymore. He was talknig to some analysts yesterday and said something to the effect of "With Obama in office, gains by Dems in the House and Senate....we may be looking at a full blown dictatorship in America!"

Some repubs are scared to death the Dems might do a good job in the American publics eye. Hell they don't have a high standard to meet after the last 8 years.

[SoonerProphet]

You can't be taken seriously. The only conservatives in either house are republicans.

I can't be taken seriously? Dude, you are a partisan shill who holds on to a false notion that republicans somehow represent conservative values of limited government and fiscal restraint. I know one, Ron Paul.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

the Dems might do a good JOB...Haha

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I can't be taken seriously? Dude, you are a partisan shill who holds on to a false notion that republicans somehow represent conservative values of limited government and fiscal restraint. I know one, Ron Paul.Are you a liberal, or an anarchist?

[SoonerProphet]

Are you a liberal, or an anarchist?


I am beyond your simple minded pigeon holing worldview.

[LesNessman]

You can't be taken seriously. The only conservatives in either house are republicans.

Or dems running for re-election that need to appear to be conservatives.


As for Bush being responsible for turning a surplus into a deficit, Congress is solely responsible for all government spending and taxing. The pres can only suggest either or both, and then sign or veto either or both. That said, he did not veto any spending for the first few years, and did work (with the dems for crying out loud) for the medicare/medicaid expansion and NCLB, and those were huge mistakes. So he did allow huge increases in congressional spending, but getting congress to pass his tax-cuts was a huge plus. If Obama gets a dem congress to flush that down the toilet, it could get very bad.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am beyond your simple minded pigeon holing worldview.Sig material...somebody?

[SoonerProphet]

Or dems running for re-election that need to appear to be conservatives.


As for Bush being responsible for turning a surplus into a deficit, Congress is solely responsible for all government spending and taxing. The pres can only suggest either or both, and then sign or veto either or both. That said, he did not veto any spending for the first few years, and did work (with the dems for crying out loud) for the medicare/medicaid expansion and NCLB, and those were huge mistakes. So he did allow huge increases in congressional spending, but getting congress to pass his tax-cuts was a huge plus. If Obama gets a dem congress to flush that down the toilet, it could get very bad.

Really, the executive doesn't submit a budget request to Congress. Interesting.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/overview.pdf

[SoonerProphet]

Sig material...somebody?

Nice, not going to refute the points that the gop spends just a lavishly as the dems then are you. Thought not.

[Stoop Dawg]

As for Bush being responsible for turning a surplus into a deficit, Congress is solely responsible for all government spending and taxing. The pres can only suggest either or both, and then sign or veto either or both. That said, he did not veto any spending for the first few years, and did work (with the dems for crying out loud) for the medicare/medicaid expansion and NCLB, and those were huge mistakes. So he did allow huge increases in congressional spending, but getting congress to pass his tax-cuts was a huge plus. If Obama gets a dem congress to flush that down the toilet, it could get very bad.

Who was in control of congress for the first 6 years of the Bush presidency? And when did the deficits start?

The bottom line is, you can't pin the current deficit budget on the Dems. That's not to say that they wouldn't have done the same thing - or maybe even worse. Who knows?

But the fact of the matter is this: The Reps took a surplus budget and turned into a deficit one. All by themselves. Period.

[Stoop Dawg]

Are you a liberal, or an anarchist?

I have a serious question.

Do you post here purely for entertainment, or do you really want to exchange ideas and express your political views to others? Because if it's the latter, I think pretty much everyone agrees that you are not doing it constructively.

I think if you take a moment to look around, the majority of people in this country are neither left-wing liberal tree-huggers NOR right-wing religious nut jobs. The vast majority are somewhere in the middle.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Nice, not going to refute the points that the gop spends just a lavishly as the dems then are you. Thought not.Talking to a brick wall (at best) is sorta a waste of time. When you see the wall is making no effort to understand, or deliberately trying to mislead, then there's no point in continuing the charade.

[SoonerProphet]

Talking to a brick wall (at best) is sorta a waste of time. When you see the wall is making no effort to understand, or deliberately trying to mislead, then there's no point in continuing the charade.

Nice dodge. Is the gop just as guilty as spending like sailors? Does the gop stand for fiscal restraint? Does the gop stand for limited government? Can you answer any of these three questions objectively or will you continue to dodge?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Nice dodge. Is the gop just as guilty as spending like sailors? Does the gop stand for fiscal restraint? Does the gop stand for limited government? Can you answer any of these three questions objectively or will you continue to dodge?Maybe I didn't say it clearly the first time. The only fiscal restraint people in congress are republicans. We all know this...even you.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Hell they don't have a high standard to meet after the last 8 years.

See this is what I don't get. Who has had Congress for the past 2 years? Who has done absolutely nothing so far in Congress? Who has a lower approval rating than Bush?

All we heard was how the Dems were going to make leaps and strides when they took over in '06. I have yet to see it.

Do they need total control to actually do something or what?

[soonervegas]

Ardmore

They haven't done much....which kind of plays into my point. If you are a repub...why are you so scared of them running it for four years? If you believe in the repub principles they should fall flat on their face. I don't think every repub believes what they truly spit out each day. They are in panic mode that they are gonig to lose control for good after the Bush debacle.

[Echoes]

Rush, just being a straight up dick :/ Hard to talk to anyone constructively like that.

[Stoop Dawg]

Maybe I didn't say it clearly the first time. The only fiscal restraint people in congress are republicans. We all know this...even you.

A simple Google search for "fiscal restraint democrat" turns up this link as the top result:

http://www.coxwashington.com/news/content/reporters/stories/2007/02/04/BC_BOYD_BLUEDOGS03_COX.html

Now, whether people actually DO what they SAY is a different matter completely. That's true of both parties (which is what SP and I have both been saying). But your claim that "The only fiscal restraint people in congress are republicans" is demonstrably false.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

[QUOTE=Stoop Dawg;2448156]I have a serious question.

Do you post here purely for entertainment, or do you really want to exchange ideas and express your political views to others? Because if it's the latter, I think pretty much everyone agrees that you are not doing it constructively.

QUOTE]I am here to aggravate Dolemite.

[Stoop Dawg]

I am here to aggravate Dolemite.

That explains a lot.

Good luck, and God bless. :D

[Edmond Sooner]

When I was in college, I wrote William F. Buckley Jr. a letter telling him how much I admired all he had done for the conservative movement, particularly during the dark days when "conservatism" was considered a cranky joke.

Much to my surprise, he wrote back a very warm letter, encouraged me to keep after my studies, and join the next generation of up and coming conservative activists, or words to that effect. I still have the letter buried away in an attic somewhere.

I was more interested in making money and drinking beer than becoming some kind of politico, so the range of my "activism" is limited to posting on the internets. But I was reminded of how far gone conservatism seems to be gone, when his son endorsed Obama the other day.

It would be nice to be able to blame all this on those crafty libs and Dems (well, they're mostly the same thing, I guess), but reality intrudes.

Trillions of dollars of new debt. Medicare prescription drug benefit - largest new entitlement since LBJ's "Great Society." Largest non-USSC Federal intervention in local school policy in history (NCLB). Ten billion dollars a month headed out the door overseas with no end in sight. It wasn't a liberal Democrat who oversaw all that.

All that said, I'm afraid we ain't seen nothing yet, especially with a liberal "supermajority." Depressing time to be a conservative.

Oh, well. At least Neil Boortz will have plenty of fresh material over the next few years.

[SoonerProphet]

When I was in college, I wrote William F. Buckley Jr. a letter telling him how much I admired all he had done for the conservative movement, particularly during the dark days when "conservatism" was considered a cranky joke.

Much to my surprise, he wrote back a very warm letter, encouraged me to keep after my studies, and join the next generation of up and coming conservative activists, or words to that effect. I still have the letter buried away in an attic somewhere.

I was more interested in making money and drinking beer than becoming some kind of politico, so the range of my "activism" is limited to posting on the internets. But I was reminded of how far gone conservatism seems to be gone, when his son endorsed Obama the other day.

It would be nice to be able to blame all this on those crafty libs and Dems (well, they're mostly the same thing, I guess), but reality intrudes.

Trillions of dollars of new debt. Medicare prescription drug benefit - largest new entitlement since LBJ's "Great Society." Largest non-USSC Federal intervention in local school policy in history (NCLB). Ten billion dollars a month headed out the door overseas with no end in sight. It wasn't a liberal Democrat who oversaw all that.

All that said, I'm afraid we ain't seen nothing yet, especially with a liberal "supermajority." Depressing time to be a conservative.

Oh, well. At least Neil Boortz will have plenty of fresh material over the next few years.

Your Mencken quote offers great insight into the issue as well.

[SicEmBaylor]

You know Bush had a difficult time dealing with Congress and getting his agenda passed because his legislative relations and ability to work and compromise with GOP Congressional leaders doomed a LOT of what he wanted to do.

It's possible that Obama will suck as bad as Bush at dealing with a Congress -- controlled by his party or not.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Good article by Coulter...
This sentence has never been said by a non-crazy person.

[Fraggle145]

This whole thread gives me a woody.

[King Crimson]

Talking to a brick wall (at best) is sorta a waste of time.

Comrades, this is actually the "irony alert" sig material winner.

[Whet]

Unbridled spending is not the problem with libs in control. The real and lasting damage to this country would be their ability to appoint Federal judges. It will be those nitwits that will cause the greatest and longer term damage to the citizens of this country. A point of reference is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There may be a couple of Supremes that will retire, but they will most likely be the libs, so the messiah would not be able to do too much damage there. But, the District and Appeals court appointments would be the most damaging!

[LosAngelesSooner]

Talking to a brick wall (at best) is sorta a waste of time. When you see the wall is making no effort to understand, or deliberately trying to mislead, then there's no point in continuing the charade.Talking to a brick wall and expecting it to understand you and possibly even DELIBERATELY MISLEAD you is another sign of being completely insane.

[LesNessman]

This sentence has never been said by a non-crazy person.

You want try to and disprove any poll stats in that article?

[LosAngelesSooner]

No need.

Anne Coulter is a crazy, evil, Nazi **** who has earned a well placed bullet to the temple. :)

And anyone who quotes or cites her has earned their degree from Crazy Fringe University.

[Chuck Bao]

Unbridled spending is not the problem with libs in control. The real and lasting damage to this country would be their ability to appoint Federal judges. It will be those nitwits that will cause the greatest and longer term damage to the citizens of this country. A point of reference is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There may be a couple of Supremes that will retire, but they will most likely be the libs, so the messiah would not be able to do too much damage there. But, the District and Appeals court appointments would be the most damaging!

I agree. Judicial appointments are key and that is why we must elect Obama.

These are not your father’s judges and the activist judges are now the ones supported by the busybody religious right.

They are suddenly ‘fraid that liberties may not be such a good thing if their son happens to have a boyfriend.

What am I saying? These people are still in denial when their high school daughter gets knocked up by the high school jock.

I have no problem with constitutionalists and states rights judges.

Be it as it may.

I think the younger generation is more open minded and pragmatic. We will see with the proposition 8 in California.

[Condescending Sooner]

When 9-11 happened, it changed a lot of plans. Everyone talks about increased spending, but never acknowledge that a large portion of it was caused by 9-11 and our response.

[Fraggle145]

Dont stop... Ya I like it. Ohhh yeah.

[Condescending Sooner]

I agree. Judicial appointments are key and that is why we must elect Obama.

These are not your father’s judges and the activist judges are now the ones supported by the busybody religious right.

They are suddenly ‘fraid that liberties may not be such a good thing if their son happens to have a boyfriend.

What am I saying? These people are still in denial when their high school daughter gets knocked up by the high school jock.

I have no problem with constitutionalists and states rights judges.

Be it as it may.

I think the younger generation is more open minded and pragmatic. We will see with the proposition 8 in California.

You are in some serious denial. What laws have the "Activist" right wing judges changed?

[LosAngelesSooner]

I agree. Judicial appointments are key and that is why we must elect Obama.

These are not your father’s judges and the activist judges are now the ones supported by the busybody religious right.

They are suddenly ‘fraid that liberties may not be such a good thing if their son happens to have a boyfriend.

What am I saying? These people are still in denial when their high school daughter gets knocked up by the high school jock.

I have no problem with constitutionalists and states rights judges.

Be it as it may.

I think the younger generation is more open minded and pragmatic. We will see with the proposition 8 in California.I hate to say it, but Prop 8 is gonna pass out here in Cali.

My sister is really quite sad. And so am I, for her. :(

[LosAngelesSooner]

You are in some serious denial. What laws have the "Activist" right wing judges changed?You're in denial if you think there is no such thing as "activist right wing judges."

You're also in denial if you think that judges aren't intended to be part of the law making process.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

You're also in denial if you think that judges aren't intended to be part of the law making process.

You must have learned something different than I did in "P SC 1113".

[Vaevictis]

You must have learned something different than I did in "P SC 1113".

Then whoever taught you didn't know what they were talking about. (Assuming what you learned was in fact what you were taught.)

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Then whoever taught you didn't know what they were talking about. (Assuming what you learned was in fact what you were taught.)

I was taught that the judiciary branch was created to interpret the laws. Do they do that, of course not, which is what makes me cringe. All three levels of the government are so jacked up it's not even funny.

[Vaevictis]

I was taught that the judiciary branch was created to interpret the laws. Do they do that, of course not, which is what makes me cringe. All three levels of the government are so jacked up it's not even funny.

Interpreting the law in a common law system (which is our system) creates law.

[Vaevictis]

IOW, you may disagree with the extent to which judges create law, but the fact is, the founders intended a common law system. In such a system judges create law by the act of interpreting it.

[SicEmBaylor]

IOW, you may disagree with the extent to which judges create law, but the fact is, the founders intended a common law system. In such a system judges create law by the act of interpreting it.

I'm not an attorney, but you seem to be saying that common law would trump the written constitution. As I've always understood it, our legal practices and procedures are based on common law but I don't recall the Framer's ever stating that the Constitution was subordinate to the Supreme Court who were free to create law based on common law. I mean I have read a HELL of a lot on the Constitutional Convention and debates and that's major news to me.

Common law is absolutely subservient to the Constitution.

[SicEmBaylor]

I was taught that the judiciary branch was created to interpret the laws. Do they do that, of course not, which is what makes me cringe. All three levels of the government are so jacked up it's not even funny.

It's VERY debatable if the Supreme Court was created to interpret law (judicial review). I have found myself going back and forth on whether I agree with the premise of judicial review, but I tentatively favor it. I'd like it much more if there were an easier check on judicial review than the amendment process but that's how things work.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

IOW, you may disagree with the extent to which judges create law, but the fact is, the founders intended a common law system. In such a system judges create law by the act of interpreting it.

I agree that by interpretation you get what the laws mean, not the creation of new laws. They should not be making laws from the bench. The process of adjudication should not equal law creation.

[SicEmBaylor]

You're in denial if you think there is no such thing as "activist right wing judges."

You're also in denial if you think that judges aren't intended to be part of the law making process.

There are certainly activist right-wing judges, but a strict constructionism(which that term is misleading and even Scalia doesn't consider himself a constructionist but for lack of a better term we'll go with it) does NOT make a judge right-wing.

Let me give you an example, an activist left-wing justice of the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Roe v. Wade. An activist right-wing judge would overturn Roe v. Wade and declare that abortion was totally illegal. A constructionist would see that abortion regulation is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a state matter, and would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the decision making process to the state legislatures.

[Vaevictis]

I'm not an attorney, but you seem to be saying that common law would trump the written constitution.

Well, that is certainly not what I'm trying to say.

In our system, you have this thing called stare decisis, which means that if an issue has been decided one way or the other, you're generally supposed to stand by it. Thus, the act of interpreting a law for the first time tends to create a semi-binding precedent on how that law will be interpreted -- that is creating law, no matter which way you cut it.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

All in all, what Sic'em posted should be what is followed today. The state's do not have enough powers and matters such as gay marriage and abortion should be left up to the states. I feel that is what was originally intended and feel that in the last 140 years we keep distancing ourselves further and further away from it.

[SicEmBaylor]

Well, that is certainly not what I'm trying to say.

In our system, you have this thing called stare decisis, which means that if an issue has been decided one way or the other, you're generally supposed to stand by it. Thus, the act of interpreting a law for the first time tends to create a semi-binding precedent on how that law will be interpreted -- that is creating law, no matter which way you cut it.

Right, and I'm still trying to say that common law should not be a substitute for the written letter of the Constitution regardless of prior precedent or how long that precedent has been in place. Even Scalia himself has indicated that he doesn't think it's a good idea for the Supreme Court to go out of its way to reverse prior decisions even when he believes the decision to have been wrong.

Now, I happen to disagree with that. If you accept judicial review then the Supreme Court should be free to overturn any law at any time based on its unconstitutionality regardless of prior precedent or any respect they may have for prior courts.

This is honestly why I have so many problems with judicial review. I'd feel much better about it if the states were free to nullify.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

that being said, i'm one who doesn't like complete control. i like the idea of at least one house being strongly held by the minority party. it will even out eventually. i just hope you guys can survive barack like the rest of us will. :P


I thought the combination of clinton and a pub congress worked pretty well (minus the battle over perjury about puussiemongering).

[Vaevictis]

Let me give you an example, an activist left-wing justice of the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Roe v. Wade. An activist right-wing judge would overturn Roe v. Wade and declare that abortion was totally illegal. A constructionist would see that abortion regulation is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a state matter, and would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the decision making process to the state legislatures.

Not necessarily. It is entirely possible to read the right of privacy from the Constitution if you're an honest strict constructionist. The Constitution itself states that rights exist that are not enumerated within the Constitution (cf 9th Amendment).

This is the gaping hole you can drive a Roe v. Wade right through -- even if that's not the particular hole that the justices chose to go through.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

if the donks get a filibuster proof senator, does anyone think they''ll try to make D.C. the 51st state?

Two more donk U.S. senators would be a lock.

[Vaevictis]

I feel that is what was originally intended and feel that in the last 140 years we keep distancing ourselves further and further away from it.

This is just about when the 14th Amendment was put in place. I don't think it's a coincidence, or an accident.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not necessarily. It is entirely possible to read the right of privacy from the Constitution if you're an honest strict constructionist. The Constitution itself states that rights exist that are not enumerated within the Constitution (cf 9th Amendment).

Yes, but those rights are reserved to the states or if the states don't rule, to the people themselves. To me, this means that abortion is a reserved matter of the state and if the state doesn't act on the issue then its a personal right.

A strict constructionist would be hard pressed to find a right to privacy in the Constitution. Personally, I think it's there but again privacy would be the purview of the state not the Federal government and privacy certainly doesn't automatically mean a right to abortion which is a bit of a stretch on an interpretation of the constitution that is, itself, a big stretch.

[SicEmBaylor]

This is just about when the 14th Amendment was put in place. I don't think it's a coincidence, or an accident.

The 14th Amendment, in addition to being illegally ratified, is the worst amendment in the Constitution. The 17th amendment is the 2nd worst.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

This is just about when the 14th Amendment was put in place. I don't think it's a coincidence, or an accident.

Now don't get me wrong, 14-16 were necessary to move forward as was the 19th amendment. But I don't think our founding fathers intended the government to have as much control as it does today. But I guess that is what amendments are for huh?

[SicEmBaylor]

Now don't get me wrong, 14-16 were necessary to move forward as was the 19th amendment. But I don't think our founding fathers intended the government to have as much control as it does today. But I guess that is what amendments are for huh?

The 13th and 15th amendments are just fine aside from the fact that they too were ratified illegally. The 14th Amendment is the one that has caused all of the problems. And the 17th of course...

[Vaevictis]

Yes, but those rights are reserved to the states or if the states don't rule, to the people themselves. To me, this means that abortion is a reserved matter of the state and if the state doesn't act on the issue then its a personal right.

The word state occurs nowhere in the amendment:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Remember, we're reading the text as a strict constructionist. Under that philosophy, if the rights were reserved to the States, it would say "States." It doesn't. It says "people."

[85Sooner]

Who was in control of congress for the first 6 years of the Bush presidency? And when did the deficits start?

The bottom line is, you can't pin the current deficit budget on the Dems. That's not to say that they wouldn't have done the same thing - or maybe even worse. Who knows?

But the fact of the matter is this: The Reps took a surplus budget and turned into a deficit one. All by themselves. Period.

Ding Ding Ding............. WRONG. just about everything the conservative base was able to get through the Rinos was held back by the dems. Remember it takes 60 in the senate.

[SicEmBaylor]

The word state occurs nowhere in the amendment:



Remember, we're reading the text as a strict constructionist. Under that philosophy, if the rights were reserved to the States, it would say "States." It doesn't. It says "people."

:sigh: The 9th Amendment, along with every other amendment, doesn't need to explicitly state that any non-listed rights are reserved to the states because they added an amendment for that very purpose that covers the entire Constitution and the 9 amendments that preceded it. It's the 10th Amendment.

[Vaevictis]

Putting on my strict constructionist hat, I defy you:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment deals with powers, not rights, and the powers are reserved to the States or the people.

[85Sooner]

I agree. Judicial appointments are key and that is why we must elect Obama.

These are not your father’s judges and the activist judges are now the ones supported by the busybody religious right.

They are suddenly ‘fraid that liberties may not be such a good thing if their son happens to have a boyfriend.

What am I saying? These people are still in denial when their high school daughter gets knocked up by the high school jock.

I have no problem with constitutionalists and states rights judges.

Be it as it may.

I think the younger generation is more open minded and pragmatic. We will see with the proposition 8 in California.



Prop 8 is the continuing farse that has always been what GLAD is about.

I remember "we just want to be left alone and the gov stay out of our bedrooms"

I was fine with that. you know what adults do behind................. but now it has turned to the pride parades etc........ and if we are going to start bestowing rights based on a behavior than I have a few other behaviors that we can address.

[Edmond Sooner]

The 13th and 15th amendments are just fine aside from the fact that they too were ratified illegally. The 14th Amendment is the one that has caused all of the problems. And the 17th of course...

That, and the, shall we say, very, very, VERY expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Also, there was a court case from, I think, the 1920s or 30s where the USSC pronounced that the 9th & 10th Amendments were mere "truisms," and that has effectively rendered them dead letters as far as the courts are concerned.

Can't think of it off the top of my head, though.

[Edmond Sooner]

That, and the, shall we say, very, very, VERY expansive interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Also, there was a court case from, I think, the 1920s or 30s where the USSC pronounced that the 9th & 10th Amendments were mere "truisms," and that has effectively rendered them dead letters as far as the courts are concerned.

Can't think of it off the top of my head, though.

Ah, FindLaw helps: it was United States vs. Darby.

[85Sooner]

You're in denial if you think there is no such thing as "activist right wing judges."

You're also in denial if you think that judges aren't intended to be part of the law making process.

Where the heck did you get the notion that judges were intended to make (write) the laws.

JUDGE
transitive verb
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
2: to sit in judgment on : try
3: to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
4: govern , rule —used of a Hebrew tribal leader
5: to form an estimate or evaluation of ; especially : to form a negative opinion about <shouldn't judge him because of his accent>
6: to hold as an opinion : guess , think <I judge she knew what she was doing>
intransitive verb
1: to form an opinion
2: to decide as a judge

No where in there does any verbage even suggest that writing the laws is the goal or that it should be the intent of the "judge"

I don't remember any decisions from a socalled activist judge, so please help me jog my memory please

[Vaevictis]

Where the heck did you get the notion that judges were intended to make (write) the laws.

Again, he's getting it from the fact that we are intended to be a common law system.

When a judge writes an opinion in a common law system, he is de facto creating/writing law unless he is merely concurring with some other judge who has already written that part of that part of the law.

[85Sooner]

There are certainly activist right-wing judges, but a strict constructionism(which that term is misleading and even Scalia doesn't consider himself a constructionist but for lack of a better term we'll go with it) does NOT make a judge right-wing.

Let me give you an example, an activist left-wing justice of the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Roe v. Wade. An activist right-wing judge would overturn Roe v. Wade and declare that abortion was totally illegal. A constructionist would see that abortion regulation is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a state matter, and would overturn Roe v. Wade and return the decision making process to the state legislatures.

If I am not mistaken this decision was more in regard to privacy and is considered in legal circles to be a very poorly written law.

[SoonerInKCMO]

This thread had potential before you Constitution wonks got it all... uhh... wonkified. ;)

Also - have people seriously not heard of the terms 'precedent' and 'case law'? :confused:

[Edmond Sooner]

If I am not mistaken this decision was more in regard to privacy and is considered in legal circles to be a very poorly written law.

Yes - it flowed from the penumbra-rubber cases, as I refer to them, of the late 1960s. Roe is a poorly-reasoned decision, IMHO.

[SicEmBaylor]

If I am not mistaken this decision was more in regard to privacy and is considered in legal circles to be a very poorly written law.

If I remember correctly, the right to privacy was established in a decision that was handed down just before Roe v. Wade and that Roe v. Wade is dependent upon that prior ruling that established a constitutional right to privacy. But, I may be mistaken and I can't remember the prior decision.

[SicEmBaylor]

Putting on my strict constructionist hat, I defy you:



The 10th Amendment deals with powers, not rights, and the powers are reserved to the States or the people.

That's a fair argument. Though power, in this case, is the ability to legislate and rule on individual rights so I wouldn't consider there to be a HUGE difference but point well taken.

[Edmond Sooner]

If I remember correctly, the right to privacy was established in a decision that was handed down just before Roe v. Wade and that Roe v. Wade is dependent upon that prior ruling that established a constitutional right to privacy. But, I may be mistaken and I can't remember the prior decision.

There were several, but the primogenitor was Griswold vs. Connecticut.

[Rogue]

I'm not for any one party having a supermajority.
In fact, I'm not for our 2 party system at all.

[Fraggle145]

I'm almost there........... :eek:

[Vaevictis]

That's a fair argument. Though power, in this case, is the ability to legislate and rule on individual rights so I wouldn't consider there to be a HUGE difference but point well taken.

Follow up: To whom is the power reserved, the State or the people?

In light of the 9th amendment, I would submit that any power which conflicts with a right retained by the people must necessarily also be reserved to the people rather than the State; to presume otherwise would negate the right retained by the people, yes?

[sooner13f]

See this is what I don't get. Who has had Congress for the past 2 years? Who has done absolutely nothing so far in Congress? Who has a lower approval rating than Bush?

All we heard was how the Dems were going to make leaps and strides when they took over in '06. I have yet to see it.

Do they need total control to actually do something or what?

Yes they do need total control and they are about to get it! So it is good I am getting ready to retire from the military and move to Costa Rico for 4 years until this next admin passes. Why Costa Rico...I dont know just have to get out of here.

[sooner13f]

I hate to say it, but Prop 8 is gonna pass out here in Cali.

My sister is really quite sad. And so am I, for her. :(

Please tell me your joking.

[SicEmBaylor]

Follow up: To whom is the power reserved, the State or the people?

In light of the 9th amendment, I would submit that any power which conflicts with a right retained by the people must necessarily also be reserved to the people rather than the State; to presume otherwise would negate the right retained by the people, yes?

Well now that is an extremely difficult question and it's certainly a damned good one. As originally written, I would say no because it seems fairly clear to me that the intent of the 9th Amendment was to ensure the Federal government would not claim that any right not enumerated did not exist. The origin for this is in the fear among some (even some Anti-Federalits) that any enumeration of rights would result in the Federal government claiming that the only rights were those that were written. It was thought that the Constitution as written would be sufficient to prevent this. Obviously, there was a lot of distrust for the power of the Fed. government thus the Bill of Rights and thus the 9th Amendment that made it clear that rights exist that are not specifically prescribed in the constitution. Knowing the context of the 9th Amendment makes it fairly clear to me that its purpose was to prevent the Federal government from claiming the only rights were those granted by the Constitution.

Now, herein lies the problem. Constitutional rights were not considered to be extended to the states until the 14th Amendment. If we look at this problem pre-14th Amendment it becomes very clear that the 9th amendment protected non-enumerated rights from encroachment by the FEDERAL government while the 10th amendment apportioned all powers over those rights to the people unless the individual states assumed them for themselves, thus giving power of those rights to the states. Now, the distinction is pretty clear if you don't consider the 14th amendment.

It would seem that one of the things the 14th Amendment does is create a conflict between the 9th and 10th amendment that seems to have been decided by the courts over the years in favor of the 9th amendment. That is to say that there exist a whole litany of rights that, by virtue of the 14th amendment, are constitutionally protected regardless of reserved state powers.

That's extremely complicated and I hope my thoughts are clear, but that sounds horribly confusing after re-reading. To summarize though I would say you're probably correct based on modern interpretation of the Constitution, but I feel the opposite is true if you consider the original spirit of the document.

[Vaevictis]

Understood, and your analysis roughly approximates my own personal one -- although I am less concerned with pre-14th amendment because, well, we're post-14th amendment.

This is, of course, why I conclude that the 9th amendment is a hole through which Roe v. Wade can fit, even when you view the issue through a strict constructionist lens.

[SicEmBaylor]

All in all, what Sic'em posted should be what is followed today. The state's do not have enough powers and matters such as gay marriage and abortion should be left up to the states. I feel that is what was originally intended and feel that in the last 140 years we keep distancing ourselves further and further away from it.

Its been 143 years since we had a true constitutional Republic as the Founder's (well most of them) envisioned, and we'll never get it back...EVER. We're on a steady march toward the democratic-socialism of Europe and there's not a thing in the world that we can do to stop it. The collapse of the Roman Republic and birth of the Roman Empire was fairly quick, but ours is a long transition. The Republic is lost but the American Empire is doing quite well.

I'd rather have the Republic back.

[SicEmBaylor]

Understood, and your analysis roughly approximates my own personal one -- although I am less concerned with pre-14th amendment because, well, we're post-14th amendment.

This is, of course, why I conclude that the 9th amendment is a hole through which Roe v. Wade can fit, even when you view the issue through a strict constructionist lens.

Fair enough. I'd say that's probably right. I've always been horribly stuck in the past and spend my time evaluating things based on the way they should be rather than the way they are. A strict constructionist still has to deal with the constitution as it's currently written which would probably make you totally right. I'm a 1789 era constructionist. ;)

[TAFBSooner]

So it is good I am getting ready to . . . move to Costa Rico for 4 years until this next admin passes. Why Costa Rico...I dont know just have to get out of here.

Say "hi" to all the liberals while you pass them in the airport . . .:D

[LosAngelesSooner]

All in all, what Sic'em posted should be what is followed today. The state's do not have enough powers and matters such as gay marriage and abortion should be left up to the states. I feel that is what was originally intended and feel that in the last 140 years we keep distancing ourselves further and further away from it.
Gay marriage is a right which is protected by the U.S. Constitution. State bans on them are unconstitutional and, once they've been challenged and taken to the Supreme Court, they'll be ruled as such.

Which is why Dubya was trying to make a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. That way his bigotry would be technically legal.

[SicEmBaylor]

Gay marriage is a right which is protected by the U.S. Constitution. State bans on them are unconstitutional and, once they've been challenged and taken to the Supreme Court, they'll be ruled as such.

Which is why Dubya was trying to make a U.S. Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. That way his bigotry would be technically legal.

Hey I couldn't care less if gays marry. I don't like it myself, but there are much much bigger things to be concerned about than two dudes or chicks walking down the aisle.

Having said that, marriage is a state issue pure and simple. I understand the frustration that people have when their state does something they don't like, but running to the Federal judiciary to overturn state social policy creates so many more problems than it fixes. In fact, it's down right horrifying.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate constitutional argument in favor of gay marriage based on the equal protection clause, but that's another problem with the 14th Amendment. The EPC shouldn't apply to states and their differing social policies.

Look man, if you don't want the crazy evangelical wing of the GOP co-opting the Federal government to force legislation that most Americans or states don't want then you have to recognize that allowing the other side to do the same thing allows both sides to abuse the system.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Prop 8 is the continuing farse that has always been what GLAD is about.You DO realize that Prop 8 is a proposed Constitutional BAN on Gay Marriages put forth by the fringe religious zealots we have out here, don't you? HARDLY something GLAD is "about."

And, it's probably gonna pass. Which is sad.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'll say another thing. I don't like gay marriage, but for those of you who freak the hell about it, why don't you put forth the same degree of fervor in reducing the number of heterosexual divorces? It seems to me that divorce is a much bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than the relatively few potential gay marriages would be.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Where the heck did you get the notion that judges were intended to make (write) the laws.

JUDGE
transitive verb
1: to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
2: to sit in judgment on : try
3: to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
4: govern , rule —used of a Hebrew tribal leader
5: to form an estimate or evaluation of ; especially : to form a negative opinion about <shouldn't judge him because of his accent>
6: to hold as an opinion : guess , think <I judge she knew what she was doing>
intransitive verb
1: to form an opinion
2: to decide as a judge

No where in there does any verbage even suggest that writing the laws is the goal or that it should be the intent of the "judge"

I don't remember any decisions from a socalled activist judge, so please help me jog my memory pleaseBIIIIIIG difference between the difference in a word's definition and the purpose of a job as defined by our legal system.

The boys had a pretty good discussion going regarding this over the past 2 pages. I'd go back and re-read it. Me covering it again would just be redundant.

:)

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'll say another thing. I don't like gay marriage, but for those of you who freak the hell about it, why don't you put forth the same degree of fervor in reducing the number of heterosexual divorces? It seems to me that divorce is a much bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than the relatively few potential gay marriages would be.Absolutely true.

And I get freaked out and grossed out by fat old men marrying young hawt chicks. But it's their right, just as it's the gays right to get married, so even though I think it's gross, I shouldn't discriminate against it. ;)

Oh, and SicEm...quit quoting Scalia. He's probably the worst SC Justice we have.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Please tell me your joking.
And why WOULD I be joking...?

[LosAngelesSooner]

There were several, but the primogenitor was Griswold vs. Connecticut.What was Clark's problem with Connecticut?!?!
http://www.hotelinteractive.com/images/012605/national_lampoon.jpg

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh, and SicEm...quit quoting Scalia. He's probably the worst SC Justice we have.

See, that's where we differ. I'd let him use me as a footstool if he so asked. I adore the guy. :gary:

[LosAngelesSooner]

See, that's where we differ. I'd let him use me as a footstool if he so asked. I adore the guy. :gary:He's also a total slimeball.

[tommieharris91]

See, that's where we differ. I'd let him use me as a footstool if he so asked. I adore the guy. :gary:
So that's what happened between you and theater chica...

[King Crimson]

Good article by Coulter showing how the media and their polling are biased to the dem candidates since 1976.

http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/10/15/eighty-four_percent_say_theyd_never_lie_to_a_pollster

FTA:

Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.

Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.

In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.

---

Disagree with her beliefs if you want, but the numbers don't lie.

Also read an article couple of years ago showing how Gore would have won handily in 2000 except for his embrace of abortion. Kerry would have had a better chance in 2004 as well. Seems since 1973, pro-ilfe voters (usually conservatives/religious) have been having more babies than pro-abortion voters (usually liberal/not so religious). And those pro-lfers have been raising them to be mostly pro-life. Go figure.

Heard last night that current demography in the U.S. that is the most pro-life percentage-wise is the 35 and under crowd. Coincidentally they are all Roe v Wade survivors.

Post-modern, pro-abortion liberalism is the ideology that's in decline. And by their own hand.

i'd be interested in what you mean by "post modern"? can you explain what that means?

Homey likes to tart up his rants with this phrase (and not just the "Obama can't win" ones, too).

[GrapevineSooner]

See, that's where we differ. I'd let him use me as a footstool if he so asked. I adore the guy. :gary:

Count me in as another great admirer of Scalia.

Guess it's because he truly believes in the idea of judges interpreting law instead of creating it from the bench. If you want a law passed, legislate it.

[85Sooner]

Count me in as another great admirer of Scalia.

Guess it's because he truly believes in the idea of judges interpreting law instead of creating it from the bench. If you want a law passed, legislate it.

Ditto

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Palin-Scalia 2012!

[King Crimson]

Palin-Scalia 2012!

LOL. really.

[GrapevineSooner]

No.

Palin lit a fire under many a conservative when she was announced as McCain's running mate. But as I've gotten to know more about her, I've decided she's best set to run the state of Alaska. Just didn't impress me much.

And Scalia's best fit for the position he's in now.

[King Crimson]

what the GOP needs is someone who can who can articulate a set of values.

the regressive nostalgia for Reagan is a tell-tale sign.

[85Sooner]

what the GOP needs is someone who can who can articulate a set of values.

the regressive nostalgia for Reagan is a tell-tale sign.

That is exactly what we need. It is so strange that the pubs always have candidates that lack the ability to communicate properly. They use polital speech which gets them nowhere.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That is exactly what we need. It is so strange that the pubs always have candidates that lack the ability to communicate properly. They use polital speech which gets them nowhere.George Allen and Mitt Romney are pretty good at it, but the media has those boys right where they want them.

[85Sooner]

George Allen and Mitt Romney are pretty good at it, but the media has those boys right where they want them.

And they do not know how to fight. The pubs have been fighting Dem machine guns with a .38

[Stoop Dawg]

Ding Ding Ding............. WRONG. just about everything the conservative base was able to get through the Rinos was held back by the dems. Remember it takes 60 in the senate.

So the R White House and R majority in both the Senate and House were trying to reduce spending for 6 years, but were unable to do it because the minority Ds wouldn't let them? Did I read that right?

Sounds rather implausible to me.

[85Sooner]

So the R White House and R majority in both the Senate and House were trying to reduce spending for 6 years, but were unable to do it because the minority Ds wouldn't let them? Did I read that right?

Sounds rather implausible to me.

No, the pubs that were in there were spending like drunken sailors as well as the dems and bush lost his veto pen. What they did prevent is overhauls to the housing legislation that could have prevented the melt down we are currently undergoing.

[LosAngelesSooner]

George Allen and Mitt Romney are pretty good at it, but the media has those boys right where they want them.
George Allen is done.

One word: Macaca.

[Stoop Dawg]

No, the pubs that were in there were spending like drunken sailors as well as the dems and bush lost his veto pen.

That's pretty much exactly what I said. So why did you respond with "ding ding ding WRONG"?

[Stoop Dawg]

politics on gameday? one word: seizurebot


If you aren't interested, skip it. There's no reason to try to ruin other people's conversations just because you don't like it.

[SicEmBaylor]

So the R White House and R majority in both the Senate and House were trying to reduce spending for 6 years, but were unable to do it because the minority Ds wouldn't let them? Did I read that right?

Sounds rather implausible to me.

That's not even remotely true. I can't recall any serious budget reduction proposals to come out of the White House or the Congress. Quite the contrary, they looked for every opportunity to stuff as much pork as possible into virtually EVERY damned bill. There was absolutely NO fiscal responsibility to come out of the White House or Congress. They compromised their values and did the EXACT same things they always blamed the Democratic party of doing. That's really what caused me to become disenchanted with the GOP.

I have nothing but disgust for the whole lot of them. There's absolutely no excuse for it, and the GOP is so disgustingly corrupt and unprincipled on the national level that the entire party deserves to collapse like a house of cards and be replaced by a party that actually believes in individual rights, limited government, and a humble foreign policy (i.e. the GOP prior to the 50s).

The house needs to be burned in order to save it. God almighty it pisses me off to see how Bush and the GOP Congress squandered an opportunity to seriously reform the Federal government. I have nothing but disgust for them nothing but disgust. **** them they deserve a major electoral loss.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you aren't interested, skip it. There's no reason to try to ruin other people's conversations just because you don't like it.Kudos!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That's not even remotely true. I can't recall any serious budget reduction proposals to come out of the White House or the Congress. Quite the contrary, they looked for every opportunity to stuff as much pork as possible into virtually EVERY damned bill. There was absolutely NO fiscal responsibility to come out of the White House or Congress. They compromised their values and did the EXACT same things they always blamed the Democratic party of doing. That's really what caused me to become disenchanted with the GOP.

I have nothing but disgust for the whole lot of them. There's absolutely no excuse for it, and the GOP is so disgustingly corrupt and unprincipled on the national level that the entire party deserves to collapse like a house of cards and be replaced by a party that actually believes in individual rights, limited government, and a humble foreign policy (i.e. the GOP prior to the 50s).

The house needs to be burned in order to save it. God almighty it pisses me off to see how Bush and the GOP Congress squandered an opportunity to serious reform the Federal government. I have nothing but disgust for them nothing but disgust. **** them they deserve a major electoral loss.You're gonna REALLY enjoy the fun that will be WIDE OPEN socialism.

[SicEmBaylor]

You're gonna REALLY enjoy the fun that will be WIDE OPEN socialism.

Look man, I understand your opinion. My guess is that on the actual issues there probably isn't a paper's width worth of difference in our opinions. The difference between you and I is that you still think the GOP is significantly different from the Democratic Party and you believe that a marginally better party is more beneficial than the alternative.

I'm telling you this as someone who is not a casual observer of politics. It's all I do -- it's my entire life. I absorb this stuff like a sponge, and I love the "inside baseball" stuff that goes on behind the CSPAN cameras in Congress and elsewhere. I'm telling you this as a fellow conservative who probably agrees with you on the issues nearly 100% of the time; there is no difference anymore between the two parties. There was a time when you could even make the argument that the GOP would at least spend a little less than the Democratic party, but Bush created the largest new entitlement program since the Great Society!

My friend, please listen, unless you start holding the party accountable for its actions they are NEVER going to reform. Ever. It isn't going to happen. There absolutely MUST be consequences for their actions. I can understand the partisan fervor that you have and the desire to see "our side" win, but let me tell you that's no way to run a country. It does this great Republic of ours absolutely NO good to keep rewarding bad behavior. I'm not telling you to never vote for a Republican, because below the federal level you find good solid Republican who have not yet been corrupted. But why oh WHY would you continue to mindlessly vote for a party on the Federal level that has demonstrably compromised almost ALL of its stated policies for the last 10 years? Good God man you absolutely must wake the hell up. I'm under no illusion about what an Obama Presidency is going to mean, but there's very little evidence that the alternative is any better!

I guarantee you that if the conservative base of the GOP abandoned the party for a couple of election cycles then you would see a renewal of the movement and reform within the party that is the only thing that will save it or the country at this point.

[Chuck Bao]

Look man, I understand your opinion. My guess is that on the actual issues there probably isn't a paper's width worth of difference in our opinions. The difference between you and I is that you still think the GOP is significantly different from the Democratic Party and you believe that a marginally better party is more beneficial than the alternative.

I'm telling you this as someone who is not a casual observer of politics. It's all I do -- it's my entire life. I absorb this stuff like a sponge, and I love the "inside baseball" stuff that goes on behind the CSPAN cameras in Congress and elsewhere. I'm telling you this as a fellow conservative who probably agrees with you on the issues nearly 100% of the time; there is no difference anymore between the two parties. There was a time when you could even make the argument that the GOP would at least spend a little less than the Democratic party, but Bush created the largest new entitlement program since the Great Society!

My friend, please listen, unless you start holding the party accountable for its actions they are NEVER going to reform. Ever. It isn't going to happen. There absolutely MUST be consequences for their actions. I can understand the partisan fervor that you have and the desire to see "our side" win, but let me tell you that's no way to run a country. It does this great Republic of ours absolutely NO good to keep rewarding bad behavior. I'm not telling you to never vote for a Republican, because below the federal level you find good solid Republican who have not yet been corrupted. But why oh WHY would you continue to mindlessly vote for a party on the Federal level that has demonstrably compromised almost ALL of its stated policies for the last 10 years? Good God man you absolutely must wake the hell up. I'm under no illusion about what an Obama Presidency is going to mean, but there's very little evidence that the alternative is any better!

I guarantee you that if the conservative base of the GOP abandoned the party for a couple of election cycles then you would see a renewal of the movement and reform within the party that is the only thing that will save it or the country at this point.

I used to be a Republican. In my opinion, it was hijacked first by the religious right and then by the "America First" unilateralism of the Bush administration. Fiscal conservativism and responsibility be damned.

Good post, Sic'em. Spek.



Agree and spek

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Look man, I understand your opinion. My guess is that on the actual issues there probably isn't a paper's width worth of difference in our opinions. The difference between you and I is that you still think the GOP is significantly different from the Democratic Party and you believe that a marginally better party is more beneficial than the alternative.

I'm telling you this as someone who is not a casual observer of politics. It's all I do -- it's my entire life. I absorb this stuff like a sponge, and I love the "inside baseball" stuff that goes on behind the CSPAN cameras in Congress and elsewhere. I'm telling you this as a fellow conservative who probably agrees with you on the issues nearly 100% of the time; there is no difference anymore between the two parties. There was a time when you could even make the argument that the GOP would at least spend a little less than the Democratic party, but Bush created the largest new entitlement program since the Great Society!

My friend, please listen, unless you start holding the party accountable for its actions they are NEVER going to reform. Ever. It isn't going to happen. There absolutely MUST be consequences for their actions. I can understand the partisan fervor that you have and the desire to see "our side" win, but let me tell you that's no way to run a country. It does this great Republic of ours absolutely NO good to keep rewarding bad behavior. I'm not telling you to never vote for a Republican, because below the federal level you find good solid Republican who have not yet been corrupted. But why oh WHY would you continue to mindlessly vote for a party on the Federal level that has demonstrably compromised almost ALL of its stated policies for the last 10 years? Good God man you absolutely must wake the hell up. I'm under no illusion about what an Obama Presidency is going to mean, but there's very little evidence that the alternative is any better!

I guarantee you that if the conservative base of the GOP abandoned the party for a couple of election cycles then you would see a renewal of the movement and reform within the party that is the only thing that will save it or the country at this point.I know that we agree on most political things, including Bush's LARGE role in causing liberal behavior among the republicans in congress. I'm just saying a wide open socialist government will cause so much chaos to our economy that the pain will be almost unbelievable, and IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME.
It will be plenty bad enough, even with McCain as pres. With the schools and the MSM in a choke-hold by the left, we have some very major problems ahead. The MSM alone has time and time again demonstrated an ability to greatly influence the vote, and make it hard for conservatives to win anything. Not to mention ACORN and the other voter fraud efforts.

[85Sooner]

That's pretty much exactly what I said. So why did you respond with "ding ding ding WRONG"?

Because of the Freddie mae situation.

[SoonerInKCMO]

politics on gameday? one word: seizurebot


http://www.seizurerobots.com/zoom.gif
http://www.seizurerobots.com/ufo.gifhttp://www.seizurerobots.com/ufo.gifhttp://www.seizurerobots.com/ufo.gif

http://www.cirrusimage.com/Arachnid/jumping_spider.jpg

[Stoop Dawg]

Because of the Freddie mae situation.

I wasn't talking about Freddie/Fannie, or the economy in general. The discussion is about Republican fiscal responsibility. Specifically, deficit spending.

[SicEmBaylor]

I know that we agree on most political things, including Bush's LARGE role in causing liberal behavior among the republicans in congress. I'm just saying a wide open socialist government will cause so much chaos to our economy that the pain will be almost unbelievable, and IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME.
It will be plenty bad enough, even with McCain as pres. With the schools and the MSM in a choke-hold by the left, we have some very major problems ahead. The MSM alone has time and time again demonstrated an ability to greatly influence the vote, and make it hard for conservatives to win anything. Not to mention ACORN and the other voter fraud efforts.

Look, Obama is going to raise taxes. I don't like the idea of anyone paying taxes, but that's the situation as it stands. Beyond that, do you really think your daily life is going to drastically change between a Bush, McCain, Obama, or Mickey Mouse? Did it really change that much from Clinton to Bush? I'm not talking about the state of the world, the state of the economy, daily life in America as a whole...I'm talking about you and your personal life.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Obama is going to be overtly socialist. He doesn't have the political support for such an action even if he does have a filibuster-proof Senate. You're talking about the outright nationalization of huge segments of our economy which is nonsense. He certainly has some socialistic tendencies, but the fear that he's going to set himself up as the Chairman of the Communist Party and create the People's Republic of America is all hyperbole nonsense.

What I'm trying to get across here is that huge drastic change is typically very difficult in this country especially in the highly polarized political climate of modern American politics. Whatever changes Obama is going to make, they'll come slow and it'll be limited.

Do you think that the GOP can honestly win EVERY single election from here to eternity? What are you going to do when a Democrat finally wins? Hide in your closet for 4 years? Listen, until you start holding the party accountable for the predicament that it's currently in then they will learn NOTHING and the long-term health of conservatism is going to suffer as a result. Think of it like the economy. If the government keeps propping up the economy when it should be going through a natural cycle of recession and correction then you're just staving off what will be a much worse situation in the long term.

If you keep letting the GOP brand damage itself then the party may win a couple more elections, but the long-term health of the party and the conservative movement is totally doomed. The GOP has divorced itself from conservatism and it ought to be punished for doing so -- it should be excommunicated from the Church of Conservatism until it shows enough shame of its actions to come crawling back. Until then, they will learn nothing and they'll keep banking on the fact that people like you will hold their nose, vote, and keep rewarding them for bad behavior.

It's not people like me that are hurting the party; with all due respect, it's folks like you.

That's not a personal indictment or anything, but we can not continue to do this to ourselves or the country.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You go ahead and vote for those who openly espouse socialism, if it makes you feel "right". You'll show 'em, by golly.

[SicEmBaylor]

You go ahead and vote for those who openly espouse socialism, if it makes you feel "right". You'll show 'em, by golly.

Bob Barr espouses socialism? :confused:

[tommieharris91]

Look, Obama is going to raise taxes. I don't like the idea of anyone paying taxes, but that's the situation as it stands. Beyond that, do you really think your daily life is going to drastically change between a Bush, McCain, Obama, or Mickey Mouse? Did it really change that much from Clinton to Bush? I'm not talking about the state of the world, the state of the economy, daily life in America as a whole...I'm talking about you and your personal life.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Obama is going to be overtly socialist. He doesn't have the political support for such an action even if he does have a filibuster-proof Senate. You're talking about the outright nationalization of huge segments of our economy which is nonsense. He certainly has some socialistic tendencies, but the fear that he's going to set himself up as the Chairman of the Communist Party and create the People's Republic of America is all hyperbole nonsense.

What I'm trying to get across here is that huge drastic change is typically very difficult in this country especially in the highly polarized political climate of modern American politics. Whatever changes Obama is going to make, they'll come slow and it'll be limited.

Do you think that the GOP can honestly win EVERY single election from here to eternity? What are you going to do when a Democrat finally wins? Hide in your closet for 4 years? Listen, until you start holding the party accountable for the predicament that it's currently in then they will learn NOTHING and the long-term health of conservatism is going to suffer as a result. Think of it like the economy. If the government keeps propping up the economy when it should be going through a natural cycle of recession and correction then you're just staving off what will be a much worse situation in the long term.

If you keep letting the GOP brand damage itself then the party may win a couple more elections, but the long-term health of the party and the conservative movement is totally doomed. The GOP has divorced itself from conservatism and it ought to be punished for doing so -- it should be excommunicated from the Church of Conservatism until it shows enough shame of its actions to come crawling back. Until then, they will learn nothing and they'll keep banking on the fact that people like you will hold their nose, vote, and keep rewarding them for bad behavior.

It's not people like me that are hurting the party; with all due respect, it's folks like you.

That's not a personal indictment or anything, but we can not continue to do this to ourselves or the country.

Great post. It is because McCain has started to espouse many of the ideals of Bush that is making it tough to support him with my vote.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Bob Barr espouses socialism? :confused:No, not that mother scratcher....Bill Parker!!

[tommieharris91]

Bob Barr espouses socialism? :confused:

I always thought you were voting for someone like Cynthia McKinney. ;)

[85Sooner]

I think Bob Barr has some great ideas and it should be a crime that he was not allowed in the debates.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think Bob Barr has some great ideas and it should be a crime that he was not allowed in the debates.Barr is cut-&-run on Iraq. Ron Paul has some good ideas, too. Not too late to vote for him, either.

[LesNessman]

i'd be interested in what you mean by "post modern"? can you explain what that means?

Homey likes to tart up his rants with this phrase (and not just the "Obama can't win" ones, too).

Sure thing.

Postmodern thought, or postmodernism is loosely defined as the belief that there are no absolute truths, or that truth is relative the individual. It is basically moral relativism, which is probably a better descriptor of what I was trying to say. That's where morality is defined by the individual, not by society or established truths. Basically an "anything goes" philosophy which I think is a big part of modern liberal ideology and I believe is extremely dangerous.

This site may help:

http://goinside.com/01/1/postmod.html

[SleestakSooner]

Good article by Coulter .

Oxymoron

[soonerscuba]

***Threadjack***

Postmodernism came about in the late 19th century as a description of the break from Impressionism to a rooted cause in classical influence while at the same time creating modern works. At it's core, the term is used to describe a deconstrucionist criticism to art which has been hijacked by people to describe social events. The idea of moving the term beyond art is probably wrong, applying to political movements is absurd. It might be one of the most overused terms in describing current events in the English language. Basically, just because something is new, doesn't make it postmodern.

[LesNessman]

***Threadjack***

Postmodernism came about in the late 19th century as a description of the break from Impressionism to a rooted cause in classical influence while at the same time creating modern works. At it's core, the term is used to describe a deconstrucionist criticism to art which has been hijacked by people to describe social events. The idea of moving the term beyond art is probably wrong, applying to political movements is absurd. It might be one of the most overused terms in describing current events in the English language. Basically, just because something is new, doesn't make it postmodern.

Scuba makes a good point, that's why moral relativism is a better term to use.

[85Sooner]

***Threadjack***

Postmodernism came about in the late 19th century as a description of the break from Impressionism to a rooted cause in classical influence while at the same time creating modern works. At it's core, the term is used to describe a deconstrucionist criticism to art which has been hijacked by people to describe social events. The idea of moving the term beyond art is probably wrong, applying to political movements is absurd. It might be one of the most overused terms in describing current events in the English language. Basically, just because something is new, doesn't make it postmodern.

I would agree with that and congrats, you actually made me have to read that a couple of times since it was written in university speak ;)