Monday, October 01, 2007
|
|
Romney On The Supreme Court
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
10:01 AM
|
I will be broadcasting today from a forum in San Diego sponsored by California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, devoting most of the program to legal reform and the SCOTUS. It is the first Monday in October, always an important day to focus on the judiciary and the legal system in general.
An excellent statement from Mitt Romney on the day the SCOTUS opens its new term
The First Monday in October marks the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court term. Cases in the upcoming term could dramatically impact the everyday lives of all Americans. The Court will face questions involving the death penalty, voter identification as a means of ensuring fair elections, efforts to stop child pornography, whether terrorists held as enemy combatants deserve special rights, and perhaps even our right to keep and bear arms. That is why it is important that we nominate justices in the strict constructionist mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.
Today reminds us that a judge’s most solemn obligation is to the 'rule of law,' a phraseology of which I am particularly fond since it comes from the original Massachusetts constitution of 1780. It reminds us that those appointed to the federal bench must leave behind their partisan passions and retain only one: the passion for 'equal justice under law.' Respect and fidelity to the rule of law and equal justice under law must guide the judicial mind and, in fact, they are required by the oath all federal judges must take.
Those holding themselves out for the Presidency have an equally solemn obligation: to find women and men for judicial service who respect the rule of law and who will be faithful to the law as enacted. As President, I intend to nominate judges who respect the separation of powers, are committed to judicial restraint, and have a genuine appreciation of the text, structure, and history of our Constitution. The judges I nominate will recognize, as I do, that as Justice Scalia once said, the Court ought not take the field as some kind of 'junior-varsity Congress.' That would wrongl
Given the number of SCOTUS appointments likely in store for the next president, Romney's views on the Court will matter a great deal in the primaries and will be a huge issue in the fall as well. I expect that a second President Clinton would have at least four appointments and perhaps more.
Just a reminder:
Justice John Paul Stevens is 87.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is 71.
Justice Antonin Scalia is 71.
Justice Stephen Breyer is 69.
Justice David Souter is 68.
|
|
|
I wonder if the Justices carpool together to take advantage of the early bird special at Old Country Buffet! |
|
|
Four out of the six are out and out far left liberals. At some point soon (maybe not this election) we'll get a Republican in as POTUS, and we'll get the court leaning the right (pun intended) way. Most of the young-uns on the court are with us. |
|
|
arange day bus trips to Atlantic City once a month? Are the Justices allowed to keep that free roll of quarters the casinos give you as an incentive (or is that a conflict of interest)? |
|
|
Of Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy , Breyer and Souter, how many of them are Republican nominees? |
|
you be assured that he always means and does what he says..(hmm..someone just whispered something in my ear about Romney's past statements and charges of flip - slopping)..let me repost once i clarify this..
Hugh - also queue up your post on financing numbers..last cycle, you said that if own money/money raised ratio exceeds 50% it means the candidate is not credible. There's rumors that Romney put in $9M of his money..so just in case that 50% number is in jeopardy..write up something that says the new ratio for 3rd qtrs is usually 75% (basically chose a number that ensures Romney is below that).. |
|
|
I don't know the answer to your ?. I do know that Souter was nominated by Bush Sr. That on the advice of Sununu from N.H. By that fact alone, Sununu shouldn't have ever been elected to any office again the rest of his life. Talk about someone having a mid-life change. Souter has been the biggest traversty ever put on the bench. |
|
favors ACLU dominance, Marxist ecomomics, and the non-existence of morality
You decide... |
|
|
What if it's 3 years into Romney's Presidentcy, and he's a liberal that year, or a libertarian, or a Buddist monk, or a Mexican National Loyalist?...............Who knows his position from year to year? |
|
|
Stevens was nominated by Eisenhower |
|
I think Hugh's projection of four might be a little aggressive (esp. "at least" four), but it's probably safe to say that Stevens and maybe Ginsberg would take advantage of a Dem presidency to make sure Hillary was able to stack the court with more ACLU leftists to replace them.
I wish that people like Stevens had the same principles that the late Byron White had. Without changing personally, White saw himself move from a Kennedy-appointed liberal to the most conservative justice, as the nation and the court lurched dramatically to the left while he stood still. Yet he deliberately retired under a Democrat president, saying that as a Democrat had appointed him, a Democrat should appoint his replacement. Too bad that doctrinaire political animals like Stevens apparently don't feel the same way. |
|
|
Ruth Ginsburg and the ACLU in bed with each other, who can find any need law out of thin air. |
|
|
|
Another Hillary cash donator has come up missing.
Have we seen this before. China strikes again. |
|
|
Wrong - as usual - Briggsy: A conservative court means that the Constitution is actually consulted, considered and respected. The Court under left-wing domination is nothing more than unelected legislative body - a body of elites selected for life - that believe it knows better than the people's represenatives, the legislative bodies. The Founders never envisaged a Supreme Court that legislated and certainly never meant for its members to consult the laws of other nations in under to come to its conclusions. A Left-wing court means an undermining of the Constitution, separation of powers, and representative democracy. |
|
|
You hit it right on the head. The main reason FDR stacked the court, so he could get what he wanted. |
|
The census taker knocked on Justice Steven's door. He answered all his questions except one. He refused to tell him his age. "But everyone tells their age to the census taker," he said. "Did Justice Ginsberg, and Justice Kennedy tell you their ages?"
"Certainly." "Well, I'm the same age as they are." Justice Stevens snapped. "As old as the Hills," he wrote on his form.
|
|
Justices Ginsberg and Scalia had been dating for some time and decided it was finally time to marry.
Before the wedding, they had a long conversation regarding how their marriage might work.
They discussed finances, living arrangements and so on.
Finally the old man decided it was time to broach the subject of their physical relationship.
How do you feel about sex? Justice Scalia asked, rather hopefully.
Well, I'd have to say I like it infrequently, Justice Ginsberg responded.
The old guy paused...then he asked, Was that one word or two?
|
|
You should have this discussion before the general election. The SCOTUS nominees may be the only reason I'd vote for one of your moneymen.
I sure as heck won't support them in a primary because it. If we conservatives can derail Meirs, we can derail any bad nominee any GOP president puts up there.
When it comes to Democrat picks however, I have no confidence in the limpwrists we call GOP Senators, like McConnell, to fight against a Kos-approved nominee.
|
|
Justices Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens were discussing the travails of getting older. Justice Breyer said, Sometimes I catch myself with a jar of mayonnaise in my hand in front of the refrigerator and can't remember whether I need to put it away or start making a sandwich.
Justice Ginsberg chimed in, Yes, sometimes I find myself on the landing of the stairs and can't remember whether I am on my way up or on my way down.
Justice Stevens responded, Well, I'm glad I don't have that problem, knock on wood. He rapped her knuckles on the table, then told them, That must be the door, I'll get it!
|
|
That's the beauty of the Tenth Amendment. If one doesn't like the laws of one state, then he or she can move to one more in line with their beliefs.
Your desire to let the federal government decide all matters big and small is pretty damned intolerant. |
|
|
Nice one Plumber. We can both see that Briggsy hasn't read what the powers of the States and the power of the Surpreme Court are. |
|
I'd hate for the federal government to get involved where it need not be. Hell, they might even outlaw gay marriage if we let them... Oh wait. Er, um...
The definition of "judical activist"? Someone whose beliefs you disagree with, and who hapens to be a judge... |
|
" The judges I nominate will recognize, as I do, that as Justice Scalia once said, the Court ought not take the field as some kind of 'junior-varsity Congress.' That would wrong!"
"That would wrong!"? Is Mitt really W, Mark II? As in, "Childrens do learn!"? |
|
but he's not the best of those running.
Duncan Hunter may be; but he's not as popular with either MSM or the right-minded bloggers like yourself.
Mitt just has made too many course changes to get my vote. We need someone who has stronger convictions and more time serving the country... |
|
Brob wrote:
The rundown
Stevens was nominated by Ford
Scalia by Reagan
Kennedy by Reagan
Souter by Bush I
Bader Ginsberg by Clinton
Breyer by Clinton
EB:
So out of that bunch we only get one conservative, Scalia. In view of the GOP history with appointing Justices, what in Mitt's background (not his Powerpoint presentations) makes one suspect he will in fact appoint another conservative?
What consistant factor in Mitt's political belief system endures over time? |
|
|
Where is there any evidence that Romney would be any worse than Rudy or Fred in appointing SC justices? He may also be much better. Rudy and Fred have their own flip flops on several key issues and are no more conservative than Romney. |
|
|
I had to laugh at your post, being from Alabama, and remembering Governor Fob James trying to enact Tort Reform against the out of control trial lawyers association. Take a look at the "Legal Community Money" that has poured into John Edward's campaign from "Red State Alabama".(OPENSECRETS.COM).......And wonder how many red states are already purple?.......GWB has upset, and betrayed a lot of paleoconservatives!(And DIXIE is the heart of paleo culture.)D.C. ELITIST never travel, and have no idea how much headway the Ron Paul constitution orriented voters have made in the South?(Signs have been out since spring!)...And as soon as the primary's are over, "betrayed conservatives" will be flocking to the Constitution Party like illegals headed for Los Angeles!........Neocons are sooooooo focused on getting another Globalist in office, that there is not even a mention of the "LAW OF THE SEA TREATY" being negotiated, except on paleo sites! |
|
|
The real issue should be , who will any Democrat Prez nominate if they win in '08? The Eastern elites, the liberal classes from Harvard, Yale, Penn et al. It is a wonder that the Utah Christian Conference can be ready to destroy the Pub Coalition because they cannot decide to support anyone who is not as holy as they are. The Dems never worry about that since holiness never comes into any of their considerations on domestic or foreign policy. |
|
|
"is" at gunpoint!.......But, look at the Balkins? When choice is available, humans always support their CULTURE vs Nationalism.(Serbia,Kosovo,Croatia,etc,etc)The Swiss have a close to our former republic, and immigration citizenship is determined on a LOCAL BASIS, after a ten year probationary period. Vicksburg Mississippi did NOT even recognize the 4th of July again until 1944! Hide in the bushes and watch Iraq become 3 sepperate regions vs a centralized government?(With Neocons exclaiming "WE always supported self-rule in each province!").........................LIARS! |
|
Romney Rocks...
Can we get a Romney Rudy Ticket going?
And let's get Mr. Olsen on the SC BENCH! |
|
Really. Do you think he could get confirmed by the Senate? Mitt did graduate cumlaude from Harvard Law School.
And HNAV, I am glad for you and your support of Mitt. Please do not take this as a criticism of your guy, but if you start calling Mitt dreamy I might get sick. |
|
What a distortion of the facts.
Yes the Ma. Supreme Court said gay marriage was legal.
And they ordered the legislature to fix it by making it law.
The legislature refused to do that.
So Gov. Mitt orders clerks to enforce a law that wasn't even on the books.
If Mitt had ignored the Court, he'd be the hero of the right. But he is a wimp. |
|
|
It is ideology from those elitist Ivy League schools, my friend. Of course,if you ingore that, you would love to see Hil appoint as many lefties as possible. Note that the two top conservs on your list went to two Catholic schools first. That the Left is short on morality is not your call bub. It is a matter of liberal record when they legislate on cultural, economic and social issues. Repeat. It is ideology that conserv voters are concerned about, not the university. Even W went to Yale. And oh, one of your side's hero,Jimmah went to Annapolis. Say, bub, where did you go to school to learn your ideological bias? |
|
Brob is wrong about nearly everything he writes. Hey, Brob, I suggest law school before you provide us with anymore of your Constitutional "analysis."
And, please spare us the "competitive advantage" nonsense associated to healthcare. We have the most dynamic economy in the world. Period. We have the best health care in the world. Period. Single payer systems continue to be drains on the European countries that implemented them. Their politicians and academics know it. Unfortunately, the lower classes know a nice free-ride when they see it and will never let that benefit fade away. Why not let "the rich" pay for it? A European system is an economic disaster waiting to happen. Moroever, it will force the upper and middle classes to further subsidize the poor, (which we already do - paying nearly all the income tax in this country.) No thanks. I'll pass. There a much better ways of investing trillions of dollars in the private sector. Only a fool or a socialist would suggest that giving the gov't more money was going to improve a system. Which one are you? |
|
"Plumber, telling people to move is
not an answer."
I never told anyone to move. I just gave them the option. You'd remove even that choice from us.
Face it Briggs, you hate liberty, freedom of choice, and states rights. Have no fear though, your bureaucracy, buttressed by the entire Democrat party, mass media, and a fair share of Republicans, is far more powerful than my small voice of individual liberty and responsibility.
Take heart! Your velvet-clad fist is not only here to stay, but it is big and powerful enough to kill anybody who just wants to be left alone.
|
|
If you're "Ivy," how come your posts all sound like you've been guzzling Jack Daniel's by the quart?
Let's see some of that expensive education express itself. Surely you can overcome the lefty hate. Most of us just ignore all that anyway. You have to earn respect, not demand it.... |
|
The Europeans chose socialized medicine because they are socialists. Their choice had nothing to do with efficiency or individual liberty.
The only problem with our health care system is that our government keeps coercing me to subsidize the industry. |
|
"Please identify a single industrialized country that DOES NOT HAVE nationalized health care! Name one! Just one!"
Name for me one industrialized country with a large, non-homogenous population that has a higher standard of living than ours.
How about an industrialized country with a higher cancer survival rate than ours?
How about an industrialized country with a lower unemployment rate, or a higher GDP, than ours?
I've got one for you: name one industrialized country that experiences "medical tourism" on the scale that we do. |
|
...your "Ivy League" Leftist elitism is nauseating. And I say this as someone who also attended an Ivy. Personally, some of the smartest folks I have ever met never went near an Ivy League college (my wife, for example). But your induction into the cult of Lefty snobbery is very telling.
What's the quote? Ah yes...
"He's an intellectual, and like most intellectuals, he's intensely stupid."
- Dangerous Liaisons |
|
Ron Paul is a racist apparently. Did the Constitution teach him that? Looks at these quotes attributed to them. I believe the Constitution also teachs that all men are to be treated equally, but Ron Paul seems to think black 13 year-olds should be treated criminally as adults but other 13 year-olds shouldn't.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
These are straight out of his own newsletter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1902088/posts
also, where was his vocal anti war rhetoric when teh war was being started? I guess he didn't dare to take it on when it was popular eh?
|
|
I simply don't trust Mitt to follow through on his pledge to appoint constructionist judges. He's previously advocated for Roe v Wade remaining as precident and currently favors another federal "assault weapon" ban- hardly constructionist stances.
Furthermore, his big government health care and education proposals do little to convince me either; just because the Supreme Court has neutered the 10th Amendment doesn't mean it doesn't exist. |
|
and if the constitution only allows 'general welfare' for defense purposes and ron paul is so for the constitution, then why does he insist on voting against federal defense spending?
Not even the democrats are stupid enough to vote money to support our troops and protect our country and freedoms.
|
|
i believe that mitt does not advocate the neutering of the 10th amendment. he advocates leaving the health care issue for the states.
he also managed to shrink the government by 300 employees while providing a way for all to have PRIVATE health care in ma. i don't call that bloated governmetn involvement.
he also did not advocate roe v wade, he pledged to not do anything to get it overturned, a necessity to being elected in ma. there is a difference.
|
|
|
Funny, Hugh gave us the ages of the Justices, but not their cancer histories and expected life span, like he did with Fred. What's up with that? |
|
Actually, he did clearly support Roe v Wade being upheld in a previous campaign- Google it.
Being (until recently) pro-choice doesn't excuse support of activist decisions.
I'm not concerned with his Massachussets health care plan, but rather that he wants a federal plan- any version of which with a remote chance of passing in Congress would become yet another bloated entitlement program. Health care is a difficult (maybe even impossible) problem to solve, but yet another federal program isn't the answer. |
|
I don't know if this story is true, but it could be and is pretty funny:
A couple of Mormon missionaries were harshly rejected by the lady of the house who slammed the door in their faces. To her consternation, the door did not close completely but swung back towards her.
"Get your foot out of my door!" she shouted angrily.
"But, madam ... " the senior missionary companion began, but she didn't listen and she slammed the door even harder. It swung back towards her again.
Furiously, she screamed "Get your Mormon foot out of my door!"
"But, madam .... " he began again.
"Don't 'but madam,' me!" she screamed, going purple, and slamming the door again, this time with both hands, only to see it swing back at her a third time.
"Aaaaaargggghhhhhhhh!" she screamed hysterically.
The junior companion stepped forward and said softly through the door opening, "Madam, you will be able to shut the door if you first remove your cat!" |
|
"Only a moron thinks 'the government' is anything more than a collective purchaser of goods and services."
Wow, that's so thoughtful. Very deep. Who needs to study Plato, Burke, Rawls, Marx et al when you're around to enlighten us? Thanks for summing up what gov't actually is. You, indeed, might just be stupid enough to have gone to an Ivy League school. Honestly, though, I doubt you really did. People that start bringing up their CVs on websites are generally liars who feel inadequate about their lack of education. I have a very difficult time believing that anybody who completed law school could spew the sophistry I've read above. Who knows though maybe you were a "C" student at a 3rd rate school who now chases ambulances.
BTW, you didn't prove anything regarding the utility or efficiency of a single-payer system. No other "industrialized country" follows our brand capitalism either. Yet, it is demonstrably superior to every other Western democracy. Just because a group of moronic socialists choose an equally stupid system doesn't make it a good idea.
|
|
|
The inability to boil anything down to under a thousand words.Thread pollution.Whew...anybody else as envious as me? |
|
you said:
"I'm not concerned with his Massachussets health care plan, but rather that he wants a federal plan- any version of which with a remote chance of passing in Congress would become yet another bloated entitlement program. Health care is a difficult (maybe even impossible) problem to solve, but yet another federal program isn't the answer."
Are you confusing his state plan approach with his federal? Do you realize his approach as president is completly different? It basically says, the federal government will stay out of it and let the states figure it out. I am not sure what you mean by a 'federal program.' he doesn't have one.
http://mittromney.com/img/pdf/SSA/10_Challenge9_Reducing_Spiraling_Health_Care_Costs.pdf
|
|
I completely agree with Hugh regarding the excellent statement given by Mitt Romney today. In fact, I also wrote a post about this called, "Mitt and Ann Romney Have My Vote."
I have unofficially supported Mitt during the four months that I have been blogging at Townhall, and have written several posts about tolerance, especially Christian tolerance, toward Mormons.
I announced today, in my post, that from this day on I plan to officially support Mitt and his saintly wife, Ann. I honestly believe that he is the best Republican candidate, and the most balanced on all of the important issues. I also think that his wife Ann would make an outstanding First Lady.
Sincerely,
Susan Baldwin
You may read more of my thoughts on Mitt Romney, Ann Romney, and Mormons by visiting my blog at http://conservativewordsmith.townhall.com. |
|
Romney and Rudy may be the only candidates with enough money to run an effective Super T campaign. Fred is raising less than 3 mill a month which is not good given his poll numbers. Romney is coming on in SC as the Religious Right weigh their options.
Romney should have the best GOTV in the early states. That gives him an advantage in close primaries.
There is another issue. Romney and Rudy have the energy to run a conventional campaign. Fred does not have enough cash to run virtual campaign and win.
McCain does have enough money to make life miserable for the big 3.
|
|
|
Name one government run function that is a model of efficiency? Social security ... going bankrupt. Medicare/Medicaid ... ask any senior citizen if they are happy? The Post Office ... how would FedEx or UPS rate their efficiency. The military ... ok, pretty darn efficient but they don't reflect your socialist equalitative norms. But that's really the point isn't it? All of you judicial activists would trade freedom, efficiency, and excellence for mandated equality so that you can argue about who "cares" more instead of actually empowering people to believe and achieve (e.g. welfare reform). |
|
guess what, all that money in defense spending is not for the war you say is unconstitutional, which most would argue it is not. congress has powe to 'declare' war, president has power to 'wage' war. plus congress voted to authorize the use of force. hardly unconstitutional. by voting against those bills, he is also voting against other forms of defense not related to the iraq war that help our troops.
also, your ignorance as to mitt's federal health care plan is blatant. read his position. it says nothing about invovling the federal government.
bigot.
by the way, I know mormons that go down to ron paul headquarters all the time to volunteer for someone they believe in. Many mormons i know are ron paul fans, including me. it is some of his supporters that i have a problem. |
|
how many times do we have to say that. republicans don't buy that crap. that is what the dems are good at.
Like I said, the Constitution says its the federal governmetn job to provide defense for our country. Ron Paul sucks at that. He is just like the democrats. that is why conservative republicnas DON'T LIKE HIM! What will it take for you to understand that.
he should be running for the constitution or libertarian party, not republican party.
|
|
ron paul is racist!
ron paul is weak on defense!
ron paul is old!
i could never vote for a racist!
i hate everybody but ron paul!
You are stupid and probably a mormon and therefore incapable of rational thought if you support anybody but ron paul!
I am crazy! |
|
No, the feds don't control it under his plan, the states do.
I admit he does not say he would get rid of the meidcare medicaid money already being given to the states if that is what yo mean. But he says, hey, if we are going to give it, eliminate all ther regulations and federal control over that money and simply give it to them in the form of a lump sum. This means, no more control by feds, not more control.
Still not sure where this is coming from. Have you actually read his plan. He has a freaking book on his website of detailed plans on hundreds of issues. I linked to the health care one earlier. no federal control there, just the opposite. His main goal is to provide an environment where states can take the lead and solve the health care problem on their own, like he did in MA.
|
|
Fair enough. The first reasonable conversation i have had with you in this forum for the most part. It did not even inlcude any mormon bashing. Wow, I was taken back to be honest.
I understand your reasons. the 'pre-packaged' criticism with romney is a valid one. I give him a pass on that for reasons we don't have to go into now.
by the way, comparing mitt to muslim terrorists and bill clinton is a little bit of a stretch in my opinion.
And Mitt does't have a massive policy directive on health insurance. That is exactly my point. Look at his plan. it is literally a 'few paragraphs.' I linked to it earlier.
I would not claim mitt to be the worlds strongest federalist or consitutionalist. but he does have a healthy respect for the constitutoin and federalism as evidenced by his lack of a nationally controlled plan for health care.
unfortunately to get elected you have to play the political game. this is one reason ron paul can't win, he doesn't play that game. i imagine that is one reason you like him. this is also one reason you probably hate romney.
I however think he is impressive in his competence, communciating skills, and would be an excellent statesman. political gaming or politics aside, if there is anyone I think is capable of turning around the mess bush created, i think it is him.
but we are all free to have our opinions. Thank you for your reasoned and non inflammatory response. It makes me actually want to come back to townhall and post more often. |
|
John, Do you think the WoT is about the protection of US citizens? If so, do you think we should have unenforced borders and ports while prosecuting the WoT? If not, why is the President not enforcing the borders and ports?
Brob, why are so many industrialized countries which have socialized heath care trying to divest state interest in those systems?
The Britons, for instance, are attempting to emulate the French system (deemed by the WHO as the best of the socialized systems) of competition between private and public hospitals.
PS: Taxpayer coercion provides 45 percent of HC funding the US. The mess we are in is because of subsidies. |
|
not sure what you are asking? WoT? I assume this is some lingo for War on terrorism?
Do I think the President should be enforcing our borders and ports? Yes. Obviously.
What is your point? I was never defending our president. I think W pretty much sucks.
Do I think we should have invaded Afganistan and taken away Al Queada's safe haven? Yes!
I think we shoud be doing both!
You can't pretend to be to be strong on defending our country and be only for enforcing our borders. Unrealistic. I assume Ron Paul would then be against going out of US borders to kill osama if he knew where he was?
|
|
Yes. WoT does mean War on Terror.
"I was never defending our president." You said that Ron Paul is weak on defense, do you think GWB is tough on defense?
"You can't pretend to be to be strong on defending our country and be only for enforcing our borders. Unrealistic." Why is it unrealistic?
|
|
I said he sucks. I think he has done what he can and done pretty well on the wot. however his approach to securing our borders has been RIDICULOUS.
why do you keep suggesting that I think bush is so great?
bush is irrelevant. i think ron paul is weak on defense. you can't defend him on this. he sounds more like a democrat than a republican. this is why he can't win as a republican. he should stick to libertarian party or constitution party.
|
|
wasn't about the borders or even necessairily about GWB. It was about whether or not your definition of "strong on defense" means foreign conquest and nation building.
How much did you care about Afganistan before the attacks on 9-11?
Personally, I never gave Afganistan and AQ a second thought. I figure that they, like the rest of the mostly-Muslim countries, are just camel jockeys and dirt farmers playing on jungle gyms with AK's. The vast majority of Muslims couldn't harm a single infidel unless that infidel goes to them, and they can only hurt us here if we allow them in.
Well, this is still the case. Americans are dying because we went to them. And the excuse of why we went to them, the attacks on 9-11, was actually a failure of the INS.
So I ask you again, why isn't the primary function of government fulfilled (keeping subjects safe from violent death at the hands of another) by simply enforcing borders and limiting immigration from mostly-Muslim countries?
|
|
So, what do you suggest? Let Al Queada continue to organize and grow in strength and support unchecked in afganistan?
Is that how Ron Paul would protect the homeland?
|
|
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
9:41 Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.
9:111 Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah ? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.
Can you tell the difference between a Muslim and an apostate? I think that AQ is just doing what their prophet and Allah commands that they do. There is only one way to beat a birthrate, and so far, only Tom Tancredo has had the guts to vocalize it.
As far as Paul is concerned, my best guess is that he'd not let an event like 9-11 happen in the first place. But honestly, I don't know. I've only heard Dr. Paul speak once, in 1988, and I don't watch television. I'm considerably more interested in political philosophy than current events. Besides, I'm leaning more towards Duncan Hunter.
|
|
|
Does anyone know what Justice Stevens is thinking, at the very advanced age of 87, about the consequences of his continuation on the court into a new administration? Has he become that hostile to his own Republican party that he hopes for a liberal successor appointed by a Democrat? Could he actually be unhappy with Roberts and Alito, which would be purely on ideologic grounds rather than legal qualifications, and not want Bush to name another justice? Why doesn't the guy just realize that it's way past time for him to call it a career? He must have said something to someone who has written it somewhere over the past few years. |
|
"Can you tell the difference between a Muslim and an apostate? I think that AQ is just doing what their prophet and Allah commands that they do. There is only one way to beat a birthrate, and so far, only Tom Tancredo has had the guts to vocalize it."\
What are you suggesting with this? are you referrng to nuking them? that is just crazy and insane.
|
|
|
|