Jump to content

Yay! Roberts!


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Seeing as the Mayan calendar ends in 2012 we gotta do everything to ensure the end will really come. Burn all the oil, so we can then burn some coal, so we can then enjoy global warming, read something about a freaking cosmic dust cloud coming our way, madmen are all sitting at the nuke triggers, Senate pushed the supreme court skipping the 4th Reich.

 

Democrats, "we are saving our fight for a really bad fight down the road." What fight? Republicans shut down the government HOW MANY times fighting no holds bared under Gingrich? Democrats afraid of the "Nuclear Option" Cripes

 

OK I am embarassed. Democrats are really playing the Faux News role: "They look French, what are the odds they will surrender?"

 

Roberts refused to answer over a 100 questions and they toss him in for the long haul cause he has a nice set of eyes and a swell haircut? I love how his timeline mentions nothing about his coaching of Gore vs. Bush to stop the count in 2000.

 

Off to delete all the porn off my machine. I don't wanna go to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I agree. Sadly, there is no opposition party any longer. The wobblycrats spent so long, and worked so hard to become republican lite, that they have no way to counter the extremism that now controls the entire GOP. While the nation is literally howling for leadership from the opposing party (2/3 want us out of Iraq, the vast majority wants SS left alone, nearly everyone wants more done to protect the environment, etc., etc., etc.), we've got democrats in positions of "power" who are too frightened to even demand accountability for blatant failures and corruption within the GOP, let alone actually do their duty with regard to appointments.

 

Look at the recent exposure of disastrous Bush cronyism, and how its terribly damaged FEMA, and has even caused loss of life. How can the wobblycrats denounce this behavior when they signed onto it at the time of confirmation? When given the opportunity to denounce and refuse to allow some of these horrible appointees, they've been out to lunch entirely.

 

At this point, they're part of the problem, and I believe it's time to toss them all out on their asses. Every single politician that's currently in office needs to be given an extended vacation. The sooner the entire corrupt, failed system crumbles to the ground, the sooner we can rebuild it.

 

Here's an interesting (and chilling) article that I just came across:

The silent coupl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Whatever, I'm just glad its done so we can get on to the next supreme court justice partisian bickering.

 

Hopefully the 2006 elections will bring some balance back into the government, our system just really doesn't seem work well if one party controls everything. Too much pork and shady dealings can go on when there's no checks and balances between the president and congress. That was the only reason I wanted Kerry to win, because having both houses and the president from one party is bad news, IMHO. Of course, Kerry was a horrible candidates and the idiot Democrats thew away an election they could have easily won with a decent candidate and campaign strategy. Lets hope they don't boof themselves in 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by catalinbread

Roberts refused to answer over a 100 questions and they toss him in for the long haul cause he has a nice set of eyes and a swell haircut?

Nice set of eyes?

 

Actually, his eyes kinda scare me.

 

They make me think of Leland Gaunt from "Needful Things."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well Cantwell did her job. Murray's getting another phone call today.

 

It is frightening how lockstep the Republicans vote. Vader's theme music loops in my head.

 

Nice article. I dunno why so many people think that now that capitalism has 'triumphed' over Soviet Communism that we should just turn capitalism loose so that it can eat itself. Absolutely unfettered freemarket capitalism is a zero sum fallacy cause it guts the system that maintain's its own stability. For exampl if nobody pays taxes how are the courts funded that are used to enforce contracts? Sure some folks will become insanely rich but at the cost their riches become worthless when the masses stop placing value there and decides to barter massively. I mean look at the former Soviet Union, corruption is like the plague and nobody takes part in the experiment cause unless you're an oligarch the only market for you to play is the black market. I guess greed is apart of advanced capitalism and we have to go through this to get someplace better.

 

But yeah I do think this is a coup out of desparation more than anything. Oh well I guess the Economics of Enlightened Self-Interest ain't true cause why the hell would anybody do something if there wasn't anything in it for Number One?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

freemarket capitalism

 

The very term is nothing but a myth. There is no such thing as a "free market." Without public infrastructure to support the building of transportation systems, communication systems, power systems, laws, law enforcement, protection from enemies, etc., etc., etc., no commerce would exist at all. Unfettered capitalism leads to unfettered greed and corruption, just as easily and quickly as unfettered socialism does. In effect, we are becoming a fascist nation, entirely controlled by the corporate interests that we've sold ourselves out to.

 

I don't know that there is a true Utopian society, but if there is, it probably exists as a combination of capitalistic and socialist ideals. Without a degree of capitalism, economies stagnate and wither, due to lack of incentives and morale. Without a degree of socialism, those in power enslave the masses to further enrich and empower themselves. There has to be a balance between capitalistic ideals and a widely held belief that the common good of all is the overriding factor of any policy decision.

 

I personally wouldn't necessarily call Kerry a "horrible candidate," especially given who he was facing. Humpty dumpty should've been able to make that election completely out of reach for DIEBOLD, but because he ran a simply miserable campaign, and allowed Rove to smear him and define him, the race was close enough for some Ohio shennanigans to magically pull it out for Bush.

 

The thing that really pissed me off about it was that we all KNEW that Ohio was going to be THE state of focus. We KNEW that the GOP would be up to their old tricks of voter disenfranchisement, DIEBOLD number swapping, felonious behavior of a partisan Sec. of State., etc., and yet they still let it happen. Amazing. How incompetent are these democrats that they can't even manage to muster a victory when they know the play being called, know where the runner is headed, what the snap count is, and STILL get caught unprepared?

 

I personally don't think that either party deserves a leadership position right now. The democrats have proven that they're unworthy by their utter refusal to grab ANY issue and slam it home, and the republicans have proven the same, simply because they're completely incapable of governing in an honest, respectable, decent, LEGAL manner. They're all a bunch of worthless bastards in my book, and we need a completely flushing of the system in order to restore any semblence of democracy. I wonder what would happen if 100 million of us hit the streets of DC all at once?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The last month or so, I have really been at odds with my self where politics is concerned. I agree with M-theory. Our political system seems to work best with total grid-lock.

 

There are plenty of conservative ideologies that I agree with. The idea of personal responsibility, and a hand up, not a hand out make sense to me in a lot of ways. BUT I think a percentage of the "conservatives" in power use these as code for something else completely. Also, where did all the fiscal conservatives go?

 

I actually miss the days of Newt Gingrich. At least I could listen to the majority of what he said, and see the logic behind it, although I didnt always agree with his arguments (well i almost never did actually) He at least seemed more interested in the debate than the divide and conquer tactics used today. Then again, perhaps with a republican president, he wouldnt have to debate so much, so maybe its just the situation that made him the way he was.

 

Anyways, as far as Roberts goes, From all the info I have seen, I dont know much about where he stands on anything. All I can say, is that it is done now, and he's been confirmed. Time will tell what kind of justice he will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by m-theory


I personally wouldn't necessarily call Kerry a "horrible candidate," especially given who he was facing. Humpty dumpty should've been able to make that election completely out of reach for DIEBOLD, but because he ran a simply miserable campaign, and allowed Rove to smear him and define him, the race was close enough for some Ohio shennanigans to magically pull it out for Bush.


The thing that really pissed me off about it was that we all KNEW that Ohio was going to be THE state of focus. We KNEW that the GOP would be up to their old tricks of voter disenfranchisement, DIEBOLD number swapping, felonious behavior of a partisan Sec. of State., etc., and yet they still let it happen. Amazing. How incompetent are these democrats that they can't even manage to muster a victory when they know the play being called, know where the runner is headed, what the snap count is, and STILL get caught unprepared?

 

 

I agree with you 100% about the combination of economies. It is pretty amazing how shocked folks like my grandparents get when I warn them that there are socialist institutions in their neighborhood, police, fire department, and libraries. I don't think anybody would argue that our society is better served by having such institutions. What is frightening is how in NOLA for example Blackwater Mercenaries were used inplace of police officers without mention in the major media. This issue is very frightening cause that is a huge leap into a facist state. Imagine the fire truck rolling right by your burning house cause you didn't have a contract with them.

 

And the election thing. All elections are flawed, fraudulent, errored etc. And that of all of these errors, anomalies and break downs leaning in favor 95% of the time toward a single candidate is a statistical impossibility. Not worth our energy complain about it really unless we are willing to consider one thing.

 

Democrats went ahead and threw in with a Bush-lite candidate hoping that the flip of the coin would lean more in their favor this time. Yes they knew there was major fraud concerns but they put a hack up that nobody truely wanted as president anyway. That to me is half assed, cause to "steal" a winner take all election all you have to do is win by only a few points! It is a bit harder to cheat if the American public was presented with a real choice. And vote flips are 10-20% instead of 2-4%. I think it is VERY easy to run a Leftist candidate that appeals to all American values and even fundamental religious morality. One that can let unimportant lifestyle politics run off their backs in order to tackle the real issues of the day. It is unfortunately impossible to get money behind a person like that! I am not holding my breath for 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by m-theory

The very term is nothing but a myth. There is no such thing as a "free market." Without public infrastructure to support the building of transportation systems, communication systems, power systems, laws, law enforcement, protection from enemies, etc., etc., etc., no commerce would exist at all. Unfettered capitalism leads to unfettered greed and corruption, just as easily and quickly as unfettered socialism does. In effect, we are becoming a fascist nation, entirely controlled by the corporate interests that we've sold ourselves out to.

 

I don't know that there is a true Utopian society, but if there is, it probably exists as a combination of capitalistic and socialist ideals. Without a degree of capitalism, economies stagnate and wither, due to lack of incentives and morale. Without a degree of socialism, those in power enslave the masses to further enrich and empower themselves. There has to be a balance between capitalistic ideals and a widely held belief that the common good of all is the overriding factor of any policy decision.

 

true, The USA is a mixed market economy, and practices socialism on many levels.

 

 

 

I personally don't think that either party deserves a leadership position right now. The democrats have proven that they're unworthy by their utter refusal to grab ANY issue and slam it home, and the republicans have proven the same, simply because they're completely incapable of governing in an honest, respectable, decent, LEGAL manner. They're all a bunch of worthless bastards in my book, and we need a completely flushing of the system in order to restore any semblence of democracy. I wonder what would happen if 100 million of us hit the streets of DC all at once?

 

I'd keep three people in office.

 

Barbara Boxter, only because she seems one of the few brave liberals who is not ashamed of it.

 

John McCane, because I think he is one of the most honest guys in the senate.

 

Hillary Clinton, because with out here, Sean Hanity, and Rush Limbaugh would have nothing to talk about, and lose their jobs. I dont wanna see them starve... call me a liberal i guess.

 

I hear Ben Afleck is running for congress in rhode RI now????:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Brian Marshall



I'd keep three people in office.


Barbara Boxter, only because she seems one of the few brave liberals who is not ashamed of it.


John McCane, because I think he is one of the most honest guys in the senate.


 

 

McCain. The guy buckles too much. I know he does real work like the so called, "Campaign Finance Reform" But all it turns into is soggy bandaides, cause I don't think he has the political will to do something good for the country if that also dashes his presidential ambitions. And really, baseball is more interesting when those guys shootup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think Roberts is one of the very few things Bush has gotten right in his presidency. I had expected Bush to make Scalia chief justice and appoint another right wing wacko like Thomas.

 

Roberts is replacing Rehnquist. There is no way that this will not be an improvement. If he had been replacing O'Connor, as originally intended, it might make the court more conservative. In this case, the court will only become smarter and less bigoted.

 

Even people who disagree with Roberts politically praise him as a person - for intelligence, integrity, etc,

 

He answered questions MORE specifically than any other Supreme Court nominee I have seen, and I've watched these hearings since Bork. When asked about Roe vs. Wade and how much precedent mattered, he wouldn't (as no nominee would) say whether he would overturn, but he siad that precedent should be respected except in unusual circumstances, giving an example of a case where several of the cases that the ruling had been based on were overturned could be a case where the ruling should be reexamined.

 

I think that there is every likelihood that Roberts will be exactly what he claims to be - someone who will make judgments based on the law and not his personal views. I would be very surprised if he voted to overturn Roe, and I'm not the only one. Lindsey Graham said that Republicans who expected that would be disappointed.

 

His willingness to file an amicus brief in favor of a gay group appearing before the Sipreme Court is another big plus in my book. He wasn't being paid, and could easily refused to do this if it offended his personal beliefs. He believed that the law was on their side, and they won the case.

 

Bush isn't competent at ANYTHING, including destroying the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by guitarcapo

Really all I do these days is vote straight ticket Democrat and hope for the best. About really all you can do is hope it balances out all the kooky right wing {censored} going on. Or I suppose bitching online here about the Democratic party will change things.....
:rolleyes:

 

Probably not directly to power, who's fooling themselves into that. But exchanging ideas among equals is a great way to maintain sainity in my oppinion. Since in the meantime the rights we enjoy are not the exclussive rights of "corporate persons" may as well use 'em! Anyway, Straight Democratic votes gives us Liebermans and Patty Murray's. Wolf in sheepskin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by bdegrande


Bush isn't competent at ANYTHING, including destroying the Supreme Court.

 

 

That would be a comforting sentiment if you assumed

 

A.) Bush is really incompetent and he isn't a problem/reaction/solution type intentionally. Remember how easily after 911 we were so willing to exchange liberty for security?

 

B.) That Bush's nominees are his own nominees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by catalinbread



That would be a comforting sentiment if you assumed


A.) Bush is really incompetent and he isn't a problem/reaction/solution type intentionally. Remember how easily after 911 we were so willing to exchange liberty for security?


B.) That Bush's nominees are his own nominees.

 

 

There were a good number of people who never liked the Patriot Act. Just after 9/11, there was no discernable difference between not supporting everything the government did and supporting terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by catalinbread


Remember how easily after 911 we were so willing to exchange liberty for security?

 

 

Statements like this KILL me. Who the {censored} is " we " ? I'm certainly not in that group.I guess that "we" is refering to the people in power ... since the American people did NOT get to vote on the Pariot Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...