Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 233
  1. #101  
    I love how gojeda provides a point of view, and then instead of specifically arguing the points, the revisionists just go in spin mode.

    Move on and focus on 2008...and the unelectability of the major democratic candidates.
  2. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I've gone on record as stating my position several times now. I am a former member of the Republican party - a Goldwater Republican - and have definitely strayed more and more left the last 6 years. Whether that makes me a liberal or not I don't really know. I know that I am fiscally conservative and socially moderate. Does that make me a liberal? Or am I a liberal only in that I fail to meet your radical neocon view of things?
    Well if you look like a liberal, smell like a liberal, talk like a liberal....then I think it is safe to say that you are a liberal.

    Now, whether or not you are a Birkenstock wearing liberal that remains to be seen.

    Instead of advising me to look in the mirror and admit I am something that I may or may not be (depending on the definition of a liberal) perhaps you ought to be looking in the mirror yourself and asking how a supposed "conservative" could continue to support the most fiscally liberal President in recent memory as well as a party that claims to be the the moral majority but have shown itself to be repeatedly quite the opposite.
    It is not so much that I support Bush, per say, it is rather that the alternative is much worse. I would be the first to say that the country has suffered an acute lack of leadership over the past, say, 18 years.

    That being said, I find it rather comical that liberals accuse the president on too much spending - as if big government spending is anathema to their platform.

    As for the spending question, well:

    1. Wars are costly in more ways than one.
    2. On the homefront, the myriad of ramifications of 9/11 required, among other things, a lot of spending.

    In short, had 9/11 never happened and the war on terror did not exist, then I could accept the criticism that Bush spends too much. The unfortunate reality, though, is that any president dealing with the same circumstances would have to have opened up the checkbook just the same.
  3.    #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well if you look like a liberal, smell like a liberal, talk like a liberal....then I think it is safe to say that you are a liberal.

    Now, whether or not you are a Birkenstock wearing liberal that remains to be seen.
    Since you're hell bent on "defining" me as a liberal then I merely ask you to define what a liberal is before I agree or disagree with your assessment. So then - what is a liberal?

    It is not so much that I support Bush, per say, it is rather that the alternative is much worse. I would be the first to say that the country has suffered an acute lack of leadership over the past, say, 18 years.
    Well that is your opinion and while I vehemently disagree with it I'll grant you your perogative.

    That being said, I find it rather comical that liberals accuse the president on too much spending - as if big government spending is anathema to their platform.
    Well in the past I would have agreed with that statement. But I think Clinton did a pretty good job and it seems that Alan Greenspan - a fellow fiscal conservative - agrees whole heartedly.

    As for the spending question, well:

    1. Wars are costly in more ways than one.
    And your point? Iraq was an optional war. Bush opted to deceive the congress as to the potential cost of the war and go in anyway using cherry picked data.

    2. On the homefront, the myriad of ramifications of 9/11 required, among other things, a lot of spending.

    In short, had 9/11 never happened and the war on terror did not exist, then I could accept the criticism that Bush spends too much. The unfortunate reality, though, is that any president dealing with the same circumstances would have to have opened up the checkbook just the same.
    Ah yes....9/11. When all else fails in neocon land, blame it on 9/11. The problem is that he was promising his ill-advised tax cuts for the rich well before 9/11 now wasn't he?
  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    So, it's a personal issue with you.
    Not particularly. You see, I do not even know you. How could it be personal? Are you that self-absorbed?

    Not sure why that is, but whatever. Up until now, this has been a fairly respectful, intelligent discussion with minor outbursts from your compatriots.
    Have you not read the posts of moderateinny? LMFAO!!

    Please refrain from further personally vindictive explosions, unless your true purpose is to drive this forum section into the ground out of fear and loathing. Past is prologue, so we shall see.
    Again, it isn't personal. I have just noticed a recurring pattern of ignorance in your posts. And ignorance needs to be, at the very least, corrected - if not challenged.

    What specific remedy was contained within the per curiam opinion [not a decision]?
    Already answered...twice.

    Please cite references from within this per curiam, as this opinion stands alone and is non-joined.
    Again, I am waiting for references from you stating that the decision was not binding.

    And please, be consistent with your terminology. It is not "non-joined". You said "non-binding".

    "Per curiam opinions only become binding when upheld by lower courts."
    Not only is this 100% false, it is also the polar opposite of how binding decisions work in the court's system.

    All decisions by the SCOTUS are binding as all courts in the land, whether it be federal, state, or appellate are lesser courts relative to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is the "supreme court" of the land. Cases work themselves up through the court's system, and of the case has enough legs, it can make it up to the Supreme Court if they choose to hear the case.

    The SCOTUS can do one of three things:

    1. They judge cases in the form of decisions (opinions).
    2. They offer "dicta", which is merely non-binding court commentary.
    3. They remand cases back to the lower courts with or witout clarification.

    Only #2 is considered to be non-binding.

    In the case of #1, cases are submitted to the SCOTUS for consideration. The SCOTUS evaluates the cases under the auspices of the Constitution, decide whether or not they actually have jurisdiction, then provide a decision.

    In the case of #3, the cases are submitted to the SCOTUS, they decide whether they want to waste their time with it or not. If they decide they do not want to waste their time with the case, it is REMANDED back to the pertinenent lower court. The SCOTUS may, or may not, provide clarification.

    Please don't confuse non-joined with concurrent, as well as not confusing the 5-4 decision which ordered the ending of the FL recount due to too little time for the recounts to be carried out in a constitutional manner, if you can help it. BTW- On matters such as this, it may be wise for you to not obtain your information from Wikipedia.
    If you are going to debate the issue faithfully, the least you can do is to not change the parameters of what we are talking about.

    You did not say "non-joined". You said "non-binding". "Non-joined" has no legal meaning in the court's system. "Non-binding" has meaning. It means that the decision of the court may or may not be followed.

    YOU asserted that the SCOTUS' decision was non-binding. This is wrong as all SCOTUS decisions, unless EXPLICITLY STATED otherwise (dicta), are legally binding and must be followed.

    Here, I'll even provide you an original-text source. Please focus on providing the answers to the questions asked without further distraction. Fair enough? http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

    "ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT"
    You do know what this title means, right? I am starting to think that this is the first time you have actually seen the decision because had you read that first sentence, you would not be as confused as you apparently are about the matter.
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    "Non-binding" has meaning. It means that the decision of the court may or may not be followed.

    YOU asserted that the SCOTUS' decision was non-binding. This is wrong as all SCOTUS decisions, unless EXPLICITLY STATED otherwise (dicta), are legally binding and must be followed.
    While the above is true, what I've repeatedly asked you for does not regard a decision, but a per curiam opinion. If you equate the two terms, you're on your own as the legal system knows the difference exactly as I've repeatedly provided corroborative evidence which you avoid like the plague. Outside your jaded fantasy, no remedy was provided by the Court in their per curiam opinion.
  6. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Since you're hell bent on "defining" me as a liberal then I merely ask you to define what a liberal is before I agree or disagree with your assessment. So then - what is a liberal?
    I do not define you. You are who you are.

    Well in the past I would have agreed with that statement. But I think Clinton did a pretty good job and it seems that Alan Greenspan - a fellow fiscal conservative - agrees whole heartedly.
    Well, considering that Clinton did not have to deal with the by-product of his policies during his tenure, and Greenspan is a major architect of the current borderline housing crisis, I particularly do not hold either man in high regard.

    And your point? Iraq was an optional war.
    All wars are optional.

    Bush opted to deceive the congress as to the potential cost of the war and go in anyway using cherry picked data.
    Ahh yes, the favorite mantra of the left: "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

    Classic.

    Ah yes....9/11. When all else fails in neocon land, blame it on 9/11.
    As opposed to blaming everything on Bush you mean?

    The problem is that he was promising his ill-advised tax cuts for the rich well before 9/11 now wasn't he?
    It was a campaign promise. Yes....and?

    As it turned out, it was the tool that stimulated consumer spending that finally got the country out of the dot.com funk. A fact widely acknowledged on both sides of the aisle.

    The bone of contention now, of course, is whether or not to make those tax cuts permanent.

    Oh and it would probably do you a bit of good to read what your friend Alan had to say about those tax cuts.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar15.html
  7. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    While the above is true, what I've repeatedly asked you for does not regard a decision, but a per curiam opinion. If you equate the two terms, you're on your own as the legal system knows the difference exactly as I've repeatedly provided corroborative evidence which you avoid like the plague. Outside your jaded fantasy, no remedy was provided by the Court in their per curiam opinion.
    A per curiam decision is a decision like any other decision. It is a per curiam because it is a decision issued by the court rather a specific justice or justices. By definition, all "per curiams" are unsigned for the simple reason that per curiams are not to be attributed to specific justices.

    Unsigned does not mean "not binding". Two completely different things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

    Your own sources, as well the ones I have provided, say as much.

    The court opined (decided) that the recount was unconstitional by a vote of 7-2. The court then opined (decided) that the remedy should be that the recounts cease by a vote of 5-4.

    "Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the Dec. 12 date will be unconstitutional ... we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering the recount to proceed," "It is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work." The case was remanded to the Florida court "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
    http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFOR...00timeline.php
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    But I think Clinton did a pretty good job and it seems that Alan Greenspan - a fellow fiscal conservative - agrees whole heartedly.
    Peggy Noonan and Andrew Sullivan, both genuine conservatives, have authored pieces which esssentially refer to Bush as a rightwing Socialist, as defined by his spending record. This is a matter of historical accuracy, not opinion.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110007291



    Sure, he has cut taxes, a not-too-difficult feat when your own party controls both houses of Congress. But spending? You really have to rub your eyes, smack yourself on the forehead and pour yourself a large gin and tonic. The man can’t help himself.

    The first excuse was the war. After 9/11 and a wobbly world economy, that was a decent excuse. Nobody doubted that the United States needed to spend money to beef up homeland security, avert deflation, overhaul national preparedness for a disaster, and fight a war on terror. But when Katrina revealed that, after pouring money into both homeland security and Louisiana’s infrastructure, there was still no co-ordinated plan to deal with catastrophe, a few foreheads furrowed.

    Then there was the big increase in agricultural subsidies. Then the explosion in pork barrel spending. Then the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson, the Medicare drug benefit. Then a trip to Mars. When you add it all up, you get the simple, devastating fact that Bush, in a mere five years, has added $1.5 trillion to the national debt. The interest on that debt will soon add up to the cost of two Katrinas a year.

    Remember when conservatism meant fiscal responsibility? In a few years, few people will be able to. I used to write sentences that began with the phrase: “Not since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society spending binge. . .” I can’t write that any more. Johnson — the guns and butter president of liberalism’s high-water mark — was actually more fiscally conservative than the current inhabitant of the White House. LBJ boosted domestic discretionary spending in inflation-adjusted dollars by a mere 33.4%.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article570387.ece
  9.    #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I do not define you. You are who you are.
    Bob and weave. Duck and dodge. I am thinking about what you are but it's not fit to be posted here.

    Feel free to post a definition of a liberal.

    Well, considering that Clinton did not have to deal with the by-product of his policies during his tenure, and Greenspan is a major architect of the current borderline housing crisis, I particularly do not hold either man in high regard.
    Of course you don't. But I'd bet you $1 you'd reference Greenspan if it fit your extreme neocon agenda.

    All wars are optional.
    Ah yes, another chickenhawk. You know damn well what I meant. There was no clear and present danger or imminent threat to the security of the US.

    Ahh yes, the favorite mantra of the left: "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

    Classic.
    So to is your convienient ommision of faulty and cherry picked data presented to those that voted to support it. Classic neocon spin.


    As opposed to blaming everything on Bush you mean?
    I don't blame everything on Bush. I also blame people like you that elected him.

    It was a campaign promise. Yes....and?
    It was not the result of 9/11.

    As it turned out, it was the tool that stimulated consumer spending that finally got the country out of the dot.com funk. A fact widely acknowledged on both sides of the aisle.
    Widely accepted. Sources please. From both sides of the isle.

    Oh and it would probably do you a bit of good to read what your friend Alan had to say about those tax cuts.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar15.html
    You owe me $1.
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Bob and weave. Duck and dodge. I am thinking about what you are but it's not fit to be posted here.
    Well, it would fit into your rather embittered persona.

    Feel free to post a definition of a liberal.
    Well, for me a liberal (in today's context) means he supports several, if not all, of the following positions:

    - taxpayer paid abortions
    - supports same sex marriage
    - supports affirmative action
    - pro-union
    - pro gun control
    - government controlled medical care
    - strong supporter of entitlements
    - income redistribution through taxation

    etc...etc.....

    Of course, this is a subset as there are many more issues that confronts society as a whole. However, the pattern is usually quite easy to see right away.

    Of course you don't. But I'd bet you $1 you'd reference Greenspan if it fit your extreme neocon agenda.
    On the contrary, I often found myself wishing the man would shut up simply because the availed himself on topics that were outside the scope of his position and, as a result, caused a lot of unecessary angst in business circles as a result.

    Ah yes, another chickenhawk. You know damn well what I meant. There was no clear and present danger or imminent threat to the security of the US.
    We felt the same way on 9/10.

    So to is your convienient ommision of faulty and cherry picked data presented to those that voted to support it. Classic neocon spin.
    "The Republicans made me flip-flop!" LMFAO!

    I don't blame everything on Bush. I also blame people like you that elected him.
    Your party did not provide the alternative.

    It was not the result of 9/11.
    I never said it was. I specifically said it was a campaign promise.

    Widely accepted. Sources please. From both sides of the isle.
    http://money.cnn.com/2001/01/22/taxes/taxcut/

    You owe me $1.
    Because I've demonstrated that Greenspan is a flip-flopper? LOL!
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Unsigned does not mean "not binding". Two completely different things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
    The 2 were never equated, except possibly in your imagination.

    The court opined (decided) that the recount was unconstitional by a vote of 7-2.
    Convenient for you to exclude the text which defines unconstitutionality in this opinion, which, due to Bush's eleventh-hour emergency application was the limited time remaining, less than 3-days, to certify the FL vote while guaranteeing the recount efforts would hold up to constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court never rules that the recount, in and of itself, was unconstitutional, despite your selective, revisionist claims to the contrary.

    The court then opined (decided) that the remedy should be that the recounts cease by a vote of 5-4.
    Separate decision.

    "Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the Dec. 12 date will be unconstitutional ... we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering the recount to proceed," "It is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work." The case was remanded to the Florida court "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
    http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFOR...00timeline.php
    Why would you bother to edit out the Supreme Court's justification, removing "for the reasons we have discussed" [ie. less than 3 days due to Bush's emergency application for a stay of this mandate] and then cherry-pick the opinion, pairing it with other unassociated text to make a broader point? Quite the Bushie-maneuver. Fundamental truth not good enough for you? All for a greater cause?
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Convenient for you to exclude the text which defines unconstitutionality in this opinion, which, due to Bush's eleventh-hour emergency application was the limited time remaining, less than 3-days, to certify the FL vote while guaranteeing the recount efforts would hold up to constitutional scrutiny.
    I guess you missed class that day.

    I have said, more than once in this thread, that the recounts were stopped because the SCOTUS said so, and that they were not restarted due to Florida election law that mandated the results be certified and submitted. Supporting case-law citation below.

    As stated previously, "Bush did not run the clock out. Florida election law did." I believe I used those same exact words, thank you very much.



    The Supreme Court never rules that the recount, in and of itself, was unconstitutional, despite your selective, revisionist claims to the contrary.
    Are you masochistic or something?

    With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.II A The closeness of this election, and the multitude of legal challenges which have followed in its wake, have brought into sharp focus a common, if heretofore unnoticed, phenomenon.

    The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 665 (1966) (''Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment'').

    ******
    The recount mechanisms implemented in response to the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court do not satisfy the minimum requirement for non-arbitrary treatment of voters necessary to secure the fundamental right.
    ******

    Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy.
    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

    Why would you bother to edit out the Supreme Court's justification, removing "for the reasons we have discussed" [ie. less than 3 days due to Bush's emergency application for a stay of this mandate] and then cherry-pick the opinion, pairing it with other unassociated text to make a broader point? Quite the Bushie-maneuver. Fundamental truth not good enough for you? All for a greater cause?

    Come now shortie, you are losing your flair here.

    You mean this?

    "JUSTICE BREYER's proposed remedy - remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18 - contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an ''appropriate'' order authorized by Fla. Stat. Section 102.168(8) (2000). '
    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

    Oh gee, the SCOTUS saying that holding things off until December 18th would be in violation of Florida election law. Gee I wonder where I heard that before?
  13. #113  
    Shortie,

    Stop fight gojeda...he is right 9 ways to Sunday on this. You obviously don't understand the court system, or even the events and decision.

    Just acjnowledge you were mistaken, and move on. Watching you bang you head against the wall was amusing the first 5 times...after that it's just pathetic.
  14. #114  
    I could get behind gojeda's definition of liberal, except for the taxpayer paid abortion.

    A true conservative would be pro-choice, and taxpayer paid abortions or much better than taxpayer funded abuse children who grow into criminals and weigh society down.

    I'd rather pay a couple hundred now than hundreds of thousands later.
  15. #115  
    gojeda- Your view of jurisprudence is like that of some Central American junta nation where the practice of repeating the same falsehoods becomes legendary and drives the agenda, fueled by guns and drugs. The best and brightest are not in need of skewing and pairing such out-of-context quotes from multiple decisions or opinions in order to make a singular point. Shouting your less-then-honest assessments buries your cause deeper still. Yet, you won't allow that to hinder your race to the bottom. You can go there alone.
  16.    #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well, it would fit into your rather embittered persona.
    Just towards guys like you.

    Well, for me a liberal (in today's context) means he supports several, if not all, of the following positions:
    Finally....now to find out what I am. Let's see

    - taxpayer paid abortions
    Nope. I don't support taxpayer paid abortions. I am pro-opinion, meaning that my belief system does not advocate abortion yet I don't expect the government to mandate that 300MM people subscribe to my belief system.

    - supports same sex marriage
    Nope. I don't support same sex marriage...at a federal level. I think it should be left to the states. But I also think "marriage" is a religious institution and should be recognized solely as just that. I fully support civil unions, but still think that should be decided at a state level.

    - supports affirmative action
    Nope. But it really depends on how it is implemented. But I am generally not an ardent supporter of all forms of affirmative action. For instance, I don't mind a percentage of a NY State Trooper candidate pool being opened to minorities first BUT I do not subscribe to lower test score thresholds to fill that quota - as such, if it cannot be filled with high enough scoring candidates I think the job(s) should go to the next highest score not matter what their race is.

    - pro-union
    Nope. I am not a big union supporter and never have. I am a business owner and have owned/ran many technology companies and generally think that the spirit of unions, while well intentioned, have simply gotten off track and become an obsolete mechanism to protect workers in a global economy. Now that implies that I think workers do need to be protected so you might find that to be "liberal" since it suits whatever the hell your agenda is up here.

    - pro gun control
    Yes. My views are well stated in other threads about this topic. I don't think its reasonable to expect we can abolish guns but I also realize that there are too many and do advocate better background checks and other proactive means to insure lawful citizens buy guns. In a perfect world I'd love to see them reduced by 90% but it just isn't reality and it cannot be done. So I'll admit to my "liberal" bias on this one.

    - government controlled medical care
    Nope. I've stated in other threads that I've lived in the UK and travel to a lot of countries that have socialized medicine and as such I think their systems may offer things that we can incorporate and improve our own system. I don't agree with the rhetoric that these systems do not work. And I do wonder if there isn't a happy medium whereby the government may subsidize health care plans but do not "control medicine" as you've so ominously posted above.

    - strong supporter of entitlements
    Nope. Pretty broad subject unto itself so it depends on what entitlements I suppose. I generally don't advocate entitlement programs like long-term welfare. I hold a special disdain for corporate entitlement programs. But I do not like systems that allow for perpetual abuse of tax payer money and eventually amount to handouts.

    - income redistribution through taxation
    Nope. Another broad one though. If you mean redistribution of taxes to large corporations in the form of tax breaks then you have me dead on. If you mean higher taxes to support large entitlement programs then you are incorrect and I do not support them.

    Of course, this is a subset as there are many more issues that confronts society as a whole. However, the pattern is usually quite easy to see right away.
    Seems to me the pattern in my case was not all that easy to discern at all. You've made a rather overreaching conclusion about me because I don't like Bush or the Iraq war. What does that make you? Can you say N E O C O N?

    Because I've demonstrated that Greenspan is a flip-flopper? LOL!
    No, because you criticized him in one breath and then quoted him when it was convienient to you just as I thought you would. Now don't you go choking on that fake laugh of yours...it would break all of our "liberal" hearts.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 09/30/2007 at 04:37 PM.
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    I could get behind gojeda's definition of liberal, except for the taxpayer paid abortion.

    A true conservative would be pro-choice, and taxpayer paid abortions or much better than taxpayer funded abuse children who grow into criminals and weigh society down.

    I'd rather pay a couple hundred now than hundreds of thousands later.
    What? So tell me..... how do you square this view with the conservative platform to protect the unborn? Are the millions of conservatives out there wrong on this? Or is it in your opinion they aren't really conservative. Is your real name Rush?
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  18.    #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    What? So tell me..... how do you square this view with the conservative platform to protect the unborn? Are the millions of conservatives out there wrong on this? Or is it in your opinion they aren't really conservative. Is your real name Rush?
    While I don't actually advocate government paid abortions I find myself finally agreeing with the premise of mikec's point. The difference is that I'd rather see government funds being aimed at prevention (and I don't mean through the ridiculous abstinence programs created by Bush and the Christian Coalition) to prevent unwanted children being born into a hopeless situation and eventually becoming a burden to the system.
  19. #119  
    I agree as well. In fact, the statements premise is the most intelligent I’ve seen mikec make . The statement just struck me as being at odds with the stated views of conservatives. Mikec obviously has some “liberal” tendencies. Good for you mikec. Hahhaha
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by Iago View Post
    What? So tell me..... how do you square this view with the conservative platform to protect the unborn? Are the millions of conservatives out there wrong on this? Or is it in your opinion they aren't really conservative. Is your real name Rush?
    Those 'other' conservatives from south of the Mason-Dixon Line, plus midwestern and rustbelt states will strongly differ with mikec, but I applaud his courage to differentiate himself, even if this particular plank is controlled by the social conservatives within his party nationally.
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions