Well, Ladies and Germs...

[MARIO]

tits said:

Cameron said:

First off that was not a lecture it was a friendly reminder. ..for me I aim for the jugular.

I voted for Bush because of the abortion issue. I am no lawyer, but I do know how to research. My two law courses in college only taught me how to search.

Basically, it seems that since the beginning, Judges have attempt to interpret the law. Sources such as FindLaw and the Cornell University web pages offer excellent sources for the Constitutional Law as well as all the challenges and Federal Rulings.

The abortion issue really angers me because it is now used as the litmus test by the liberals. After observing an abortion of a 14 week old fetus in medical physiology, I came to fully understand it as murder. In the "old days" of the West and Colonial times, it was legal to abort a "prequickening" fetus. It was believed that the quickening (roughly 10 weeks) was the point that "God breathed life" into the child. However with modern science we have been able to save a 20 week old preemie. I just know that sometime during the next few years, concrete evidence will emerge that abortion during the second and third trimesters is murder.

The stupid thing is that so many Americans are ignorant and proud of it. The argument that: "it is a woman's body and she has the right to do with it as she wants" Is as big a lie as anything Joseph Goebbels' machine ever published. I have wanted to counter it with: "if a man get horny on a date and rapes his date, it is his right because it is his body."

The SCOTUS has been interpreting the Constitution since the 1814 MARSHALL McCulloch v Maryland limiting the State's right to regulate taxes.

Dave, I know you haven't been to THC, but you may want to peek in and check out the current discussion on abortion. If you thought the libs were sick before, you should see some of the things they've said on that thread.

Take care, buddy.

[cameron]

I've got a great idea, I want a bill introduced into the congress that any opinion made by a Federal Judge that sites foreign Law in support, or in decent, be stricken from the Legal Record, and the Federal Justice that sited foreign Law, be formally censured for failing to keep his Oath of Office.

My coat of Arms still hangs on the side of Bush, he has said trust me. OK that is not what I was told I would have to do during his election campaign for office, but I have no other choice. Since the GWOT is my first concern, it is for even me a very close call. Bush just squeaks by because of the continued Howard Dean type, moonbat, tin foil hat, tofu eating frothing at the mouth lunatics running around naked except for the ski masks in the Democratic Party.

[FightingFalcon]

Hey Cameron I haven't forgotten about you

This time I'm not lying....I'll get to your post tomorrow

[cameron]

No worries, even if you had I might not be able to respond myself anywho

[dustdevil28]

Cameron,

I'm no expert on politics so please excuse me if I make a few errors, but I think you've overlooked a few things in your post.

Thusfar in Bush's term he failed to sell the country on social security reform, he couldn't get a vote for Michael
Bolton, and the situation in Iraq has stayed about the same. These events point to a administration that is losing public support and is having trouble working with their counterparts in the Senate and Congress.

Appointing Miers, who has been hailed by Dems and Repubs could show a way of governing together, rather than against one another.

[cameron]

Um, only when cats, and dogs start laying down together.

Take a closer look, Conservatives are attacking Miers, and Liberals are defending her. Things that make me go hmmm.

OH and thanks I have not read what you wrote over at the THC. Please share with me your thoughts. If my answers seem short or sometimes few and far between my computer is acting up on me. Lets hear what we the people think.

[cameron]

Josephus was a Jewish historian that referenced Jesus. Do a goggle. I will let you know more if I should come across it.

oops wrong thread.

[FightingFalcon]

cameron said:

Josephus was a Jewish historian that referenced jesus. Do a google. I will let you know more if I should come across it.

opps wrong thread.

Jewish and later Roman historian. Josephus participated in the Jewish uprising of 67-73 AD before realizing the futility of fighting the full might of the Roman Empire and switched sides

[cameron]

fightingfalcon said:

cameron said:

Josephus was a Jewish historian that referenced jesus. Do a google. I will let you know more if I should come across it.

opps wrong thread.

Jewish and later Roman historian. Josephus participated in the Jewish uprising of 67-73 AD before realizing the futility of fighting the full might of the Roman Empire and switched sides

hey FF
The significants of his mention of Jesus is that it verifies that Jesus was a for real historical figure?

[FightingFalcon]

cameron said:

fightingfalcon said:

Jewish and later Roman historian. Josephus participated in the Jewish uprising of 67-73 AD before realizing the futility of fighting the full might of the Roman Empire and switched sides

hey FF
The significants of his mention of Jesus is that it verifies that Jesus was a for real historical figure?

Kind of - you have to remember though that Josephus was not around when Jesus was alive. Josephus' writings, the Jewish revolt and the writings of the Gospel all occur at around the same time (65-75 AD) - for good reason. Josephus switched sides and the Christians wanted to try and separate themselves from the Jews so that they could escape the wrath of the Roman Empire.

Josephus most likely got all of his information from the Gospels, which would have just been written. In all my studying of religion, I have never come across an author who wrote at the time that Jesus was alive. Perhaps Mike has. Does this mean that Jesus didn't live? Of course not - but some people (e.g. ridiculous Atheists) would like to think so.

[tits]

fightingfalcon said:

cameron said:

hey FF
The significants of his mention of Jesus is that it verifies that Jesus was a for real historical figure?

Kind of - you have to remember though that Josephus was not around when Jesus was alive. Josephus' writings, the Jewish revolt and the writings of the Gospel all occur at around the same time (65-75 AD) - for good reason. Josephus switched sides and the Christians wanted to try and separate themselves from the Jews so that they could escape the wrath of the Roman Empire.

Josephus most likely got all of his information from the Gospels, which would have just been written. In all my studying of religion, I have never come across an author who wrote at the time that Jesus was alive. Perhaps Mike has. Does this mean that Jesus didn't live? Of course not - but some people (e.g. ridiculous Atheists) would like to think so.

who were still alive during Josephus time. John Mark, John, Matthew, Paul, Peter all died after the uprising.
Seven and the Church in Jerusalem was alive and well at the time of the Roman conquest.

[FightingFalcon]

Phew....where to start off with this essay of yours?

cameron said:

First off that was not a lecture it was a friendly reminder. Second I am very proud of, and respectful of, your decision to serve our country. Let me take this opportunity to thank you from the very bottom of my heart much luv.

Thanks for your support

That being said the fact that you have decided to do your duty does not in all honesty give your political opinions more weight than anyone else's. To be honest with me it does, but I would not count on that with anyone else if I were you.

Of course not, nor would I expect my opinions to hold any more weight than that of any other citizen. Signing up for the military does not mean that you are suddenly blessed with all of the answers. I'll gladly admit when I'm wrong

You seem to be suffering from the same misconceptions I ran into with Mateo. Just because a majority may agree with your views does not make them correct, or more valid. To argue that it does is called Argumentum ad numerum, it is a classic logical fallacy. You may be proud of being a moderate, the reality is that most people who call themselves moderates do so in order to split the difference between the two major party's. Since they pay little attention to, and are poorly informed on the issues. I will assume that is not why you are a moderate.

I do not believe that the majority is always correct; however, rarely, if ever, are the extremes correct. My father always taught me that when two people are telling you a story that are radically different, generally the truth will be in the middle somewhere. Although I h ave sometimes held extremist views, I am trying hard to moderate them. Although the world has clearly been effected by radicals (sometimes in good ways sometimes in bad), my studying of History has taught me that Moderates always come out on top. Just look at the classic battle between General Eisenhower and General Patton. One became the Supreme Allied Commander of all Allied forces while one became a disgraced Officer forced into retirement. Why? Very simply because Gen. Eisenhower knew the game and that the military (and the world) has no patience for extremists. Gen. Patton found that out the hard way and ruined his otherwise exceptional career because of it.

I am not a Moderate because I lack information - clearly that is not the case. I am a Moderate because of many influences - friends, family, personal beliefs and religion. When my religious beliefs changed from very orthodox to more liberal, my political beliefs changed as well - no surprise. I am also a Moderate because I believe that humans have a fundamental right to pursue whatever their happiness is, so long as they don't interfere with the happiness of others. This is also the Libertarian belief system at its core. Now that that's out of the way...

The weakest point in the history of this administration is now? Sorry not from where I sit. After the 2000 election Democrats made the claim, with some legitimacy even though I disagreed. That Bush would have to lead through consultation, and consensus with the loyal opposition. Considering the election was so close, the Democrats controlled the Senate, and his opponent had won the popular vote. Since then he has won re-election including the popular vote, add to that the Republicans have in every election cycle since picked up seats in the House and the Senate, regaining control of the Senate . So just by taking a casual look at the facts on the ground, they belie the supposition that the administration is weaker now than at any other time in it's history. The only polls that count are the ones taken on election day, and on the next election day coming up the Republicans, and by default the President are going to suffer from a self inflicted wound named Harriet Miers.

I fail to see how President Bush could be hurt in the election by naming a moderate to the Supreme Court. If Election 2004 taught me anything, it's that America is a moderate country. The majority of people in America do not have patience for gays trying to ram gay marriage down their throats. On the other hand, they don't appreciate when the Republican-controlled Congress completely shits on the Constitution and tries to save a dying woman's life in Florida. As the old saying goes - Everything In Moderation.

This isn't the weakest time in the president's history just because the Democrats oppose him. His own party opposes him as well. Sen. Spector (Head of the Judiciary Cmt.) told the president that he would never vote for a radical pro-life candidate, Sen. Hagel (whom I respect a lot) is questioning the president's handling of Iraq and seven Republicans (including Sen. McCain, another man I respect a lot) completely opposed the Republican-led effort to use the "nuclear option" with the Democrat's filibuster. Democrats believe that the Republican Party is completely unified but it is actually quickly falling apart. The extremists in the party have taken over and if the Republicans are not careful they are going to make the same exact mistake that cost the Dems the election in 2004 - pander to the far-right fringe and forget about Middle America.

Lastly, I don't see how President Bush can possibly lose the votes of Evangelical Christians by nominating Ms. Miers. Who else are they going to vote for? President Bush needs to pander to the moderate-conservatives in this country because he can always count on the far-right fringe. They aren't going anywhere...

To a degree you are correct, in day to day politics perception is often reality. That perception is subjective not objective, and more often than not an incorrect view of reality. The debacle that was the mishandling of relief in the wake of Katrina is properly laid at the feet of what is widely known to be even before Katrina the inept and corrupt state and local governments of Louisiana. FEMA is not nor was it ever intended to be a large organization of first responders. What it actually is, and has always been is a small group of people with access to large sums of federal money and connections. Meant to supplement the state and local efforts of first responders. That the moonbats with plenty of help from MSM was to a degree successful in convincing the general public, that the failure was a national failure and not a local one. Bush was correctly perceived to be weakened. There was similar carping by the MSM after Andrew, not to the same degree after all Clinton was their guy, but these things are historically really nothing more than blips on the political radar screen that don't last long. The mistake Bush made was to play into this perception by acting as though he had been weakened giving the idea creditability. Is he still the President? Are there fewer Republicans in the House or Senate? Is he in reality any weaker in real terms now than before, NO.

Listen, I'll be first to admit that the president has no responsibility to protect NO from a hurricane. That is completely the job of the state and local governments. However, the perception is still there. The fact that the local/state governments broke down and the president sat there watching it happen is ridiculous. While he and the Governor were too busy debating who had authority in the state of LA, hundreds went without food, water and medicine.

If you don't believe that he is weaker now than before, then you are sadly mistaken. Elections aren't the only things that matter. A president's popularity is directly related to his or her (just in case...) ability to push their agenda through Congress. An unpopular president will face heavy opposition while a popular president will have an easier time. President Bush has control of both houses of Congress and still can't pass his biggest agenda - Social Security reform. That should tell you something about how much power he truly has.

Conservatives who hold our Constitution to be the highest law of land are absolutely beside themselves with alarm over this liberal idiocy. As viewed by us conservatives, this lack of respect for our Constitution is so dangerous it threatens the very corner stone, and therefore the continued existence of our Republic. Conservatives don't want ideologues what we want are Justices that will faithfully abide by the Constitution of the United States period.

I fully agree with you. But I refuse to believe that the answer to the current problem means that we appoint right-wing ideologues to the SCOTUS. Appointing them will only further to weaken the Constitution and destroy what it stands for. As always, moderation is the answer. Appoint a moderate judge who actually believes in the Constitution - not their political beliefs. Otherwise, you are just as bad as the Dems are. I always hated how the MSM would tell us that the president gets to "shape" the court. That's absolutely ridiculous. Since when did the Supreme Court get divided on party lines? The SC is supposed to be completely separated from society and party politics. That is why I like Ms. Miers, who has supported both parties in her past.

To be honest I am opposed to Roe not because I am against abortion, but because it is not in the constitution pro or con. Roe is bad law the Court over stepped it's authority and entered the political policy realm, and decided for one side of the political debate over the other. That being said I can live with it. What I can not live with is Justices who view themselves as legal priests who consult the holly relic and interpret what is in the ether surrounding the penumbra of the Constitution. It is written in English we can all read it. What it means and was meant to mean is spelled out in black and white in the text ,and if you are unsure try reading the federalist papers . It was the explanation and arguments made for it's adoption in the first place.

I am 100% against Roe and all abortions. However, I am also opposed to the tyranny of the federal government. IMHO, the issue should be solved by state governments - not Congress, the president or the SC. Just as gay marriage is being voted on by the people of each state, so should abortion. Abortion is not a right and there is no need for the federal government to get involved. If a state wants to make abortion legal, go for it. If they want to make it illegal, even better. But just don't get the federal government involved.

The timing of the fight over the courts would have been perfect. The Rinos within the Republican party were cowed by the fact that the overwhelming number of Republican supporters threatened retribution to those that picked a fight with the administration over nominee’s. So much so that when they flexed their muscle (money) even Specter the Senator that betrayed Bork and set this politicization of court nominee’s into motion in the first place, was cowed into giving us his word he would not oppose in any way Bush's nominee’s, before the party's money men would allow him to take the Chairmanship of the Judicial committee. That is how serious conservatives view this. So we may have lost Chaffee, Snow and that other female northeastern Rino in a fight, that is still leaves a majority. Any Republican with Presidential ambitions would have had no choice i.e. McCain. After the blood bath the President would have been seen to have prevailed, and nothing gives the perception of strength like a hard fought victory. Then as you said the news from Iraq, and the successful elections there going into the 06 election season here. Would have the Republicans sitting in the cat birds seat. Instead they are perceived by friend and foe alike to be weak. With every popular major component that constitutes the Republican party, feeling either betrayed or let down. From fiscal conservative, to those who view border security as paramount, to those who have been the most stalwart supporters of Republicans for the past 30 years. The ones who view court appointments as paramount, all of these factions of the Republican party are very unhappy with Republican politicians. The Republicans in my opinion are going to loose in the upcoming 06 elections, not because of any thing to do with Democrats, but because they keep f-ing their core supporters. Bush committed political suicide thus creating an opening for a Clinton win in 08, now a real possibility.

Again...who are hard-core conservatives going to vote for if not the Republicans? President Bush does not have to worry about upsetting the conservative base in this country because they will ALWAYS support the Republicans. On the other hand, who will the moderates vote for if President Bush appoints a radical right-winger to the SC? Well, they could vote for the Dems or a Third Party like the Libertarians. God knows that President Bush single-handedly drove me out of the Republican Party and into the Libertarian Party because of his reckless financial policy. Now, how many people did President Bush run out of the Republican Party because of his nominating Ms. Miers? Probably none. And that is the point.

[cameron]

Hmmmm OK FF, just read your post.
My computer is still giving trouble, but I promise I will pick your reason and logic to bits sometime in the near future. Fare thee well, for now.

[FightingFalcon]

cameron said:

Hmmmm OK FF, just read your post.
My computer is still giving trouble, but I promise I will pick your reason and logic to bits sometime in the near future. Fare thee well, for now.

Haha sure thing....

BTW I love the new quote in your tagline. Definitely one of my favorite from Romans.

[cameron]

Well I was shopping around for one to go with the new avatar. When tada you linked me to Aquinas on just war theory, and there it was. I have you to thank.