• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS For President

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
We are not electing a president this term, we are electing the supreme court.

Mark my words. Either Obama or Mitt will enact another assault weapons ban next term, it will not have an expiration date. The case will have to go before the supreme court (if they will hear it) and the decision on that case will be made by the people who Obama or Mitt appoint to the position.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
We are not electing a president this term, we are electing the supreme court.

Mark my words. Either Obama or Mitt will enact another assault weapons ban next term, it will not have an expiration date. The case will have to go before the supreme court (if they will hear it) and the decision on that case will be made by the people who Obama or Mitt appoint to the position.

I don't see an AWB happening. Democrats aren't going to take the House, and they may barely hold onto the Senate. Also, there are many Democrats that will not vote for an AWB because they are in pro-Second areas of the Country.

So, no matter who we vote for, we are essentially voting for the same person? I agree! Vote Obama 2012.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
By your own statements, Romney would be the same result, so why don't you endorse him, instead?

You really are transparent.

With Obama, I know just how bad things are. With Romney, it's up in the air at how bad he can get.

Yes, I am transparent.

I have seen Republicans progressively lower the bar of expectations as the months have passed. Now some Republicans are stating that this election is about SCOTUS. So much for standing on your Principles. There is nothing of the ordinary in this political posturing, Republicans conceding that Romney--of all people LOL-- is their best chance against President Obama. And the Democrats supporting President Obama again, as if President Obama has been anything near the Liberal Democrats were under the impression they voted into office.

I will stick with President Obama. Romney is worse...IS WORSE than the Obama option, IMO, of course.
 
Last edited:

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
In part, we agree. At least with Obama, we know what we are getting. Obama said that he would wait until re election to go after certain issues, guns being one of those, and that is exactly what he will do, with the same reckless disregard for opinion constitution or consequene that he has exhibited throughout his career.

Mitt is a flip flopper, a wild card. Someone threw a shoe at president bush, someone should throw a flip flop at Mitt.

Neither one of them is a good choice for this country, so I refer back to my origonal post. We are going to be electing SCOTUS this term. It really doesnt matter otherwise, who gets in.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
In part, we agree. At least with Obama, we know what we are getting. Obama said that he would wait until re election to go after certain issues, guns being one of those,[snipper]

I would appreciate your directing to where Obama said he would go after firearms in his second term.


Mitt is a flip flopper, a wild card. Someone threw a shoe at president bush, someone should throw a flip flop at Mitt.

And yet you would vote for Romney? How do you know that Romney won;t go into office, and seek to ban firearms?

Neither one of them is a good choice for this country, so I refer back to my origonal post. We are going to be electing SCOTUS this term. It really doesnt matter otherwise, who gets in.

You can thank Republicans for the crappy choice on their side this time around.

Now it's about SCOTUS--do you believe that Romney is going to put-up Conservative Justices?

Paul should have ran Third Party.
 

Valerius

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
11
Location
Louisiana
The difference between obama and Romney is simple, with obama, we know what direction we are going, down.We've nearly hit rock bottom as it is. With Romney, at least there is the possibility to start back up again.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Based on past 'accomplishments', no one can state with any certitude how bad it can get with a Obama second term. Unfortunately we will not know how bad it could get until it gets that bad, or worse....there by making it too late.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Obama has said that he will work on gun control under the radar, and without congress if possible.

As far as Mitt and gun control goes, just take it from Mitt, not me.

Mitt will appoint centerist judges, Obama will appoint socialists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk1bJOpYUqE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF-jdo7DZRw <---- this one is great

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUzEJiFpmsQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-UQG7k1uX0



It doesnt matter what the "pro gun" lobby agrees with, it matters what oath you take. As someone who took an oath, you tell the pro gun, and the anti gun people aline, "No, I took an oath".
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
We are not electing a president this term, we are electing the supreme court.

Mark my words. Either Obama or Mitt will enact another assault weapons ban next term, it will not have an expiration date. The case will have to go before the supreme court (if they will hear it) and the decision on that case will be made by the people who Obama or Mitt appoint to the position.

In this case we are worse off with Mott than we are Obama. Republicans law makers will be less apt to resist antiggun legislation from a Republican president.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Paul should have ran Third Party.

1199905-broken_record_large.jpg
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Ain't no third party candidate going to take the election.

Ron Paul was the republicans best chance at taking the house. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, he would have done everything he could to upset the status quo. Great for us, terrible for those that rely on the status quo for their livelihood. Meaning pretty much ever republican politician.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
We are not electing a president this term, we are electing the supreme court.

Mark my words. Either Obama or Mitt will enact another assault weapons ban next term, it will not have an expiration date. The case will have to go before the supreme court (if they will hear it) and the decision on that case will be made by the people who Obama or Mitt appoint to the position.

Are you arguing that Romney will nominate better justices than Obama?

If that's the case, I respectfully disagree.

Romney supported an individual mandate. Regardless of what he says now, I still believe he supports it in his heart of hearts.
Romney supported a gun control. Regardless of what he says now, I still believe he supports it in his heart of hearts.
Romney currently supports foreign wars of aggression
Romney currently supports the War on Some Drugs.

In these ways, and in many, many others, he is a carbon-copy of Obama when it comes to their core, Northeastern (I know both are originally from the Midwest, but the NE is the Mecca), liberal value systems. What makes you think he would, out of the blue, start appointing constitutionalists?

Of course, this is assuming that the next president gets to nominate any justices at all.

The oldest justice (79) is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal loon and aged feminazi. This is followed by Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Breyer (73). Scalia is regarded as conservative, Kennedy as "moderate" (aka liberal lite), and Breyer as liberal. So, the way I figure, there is a 1 in 2 chance of the next appointment being to replace a liberal, so we wouldn't lose anything anyway. There is a 1 in 4 chance that a moderate will get replaced with someone more liberal, and a 1 in 4 chance that a conservative stalwart will be replaced with Barack's latest diversity hire. The odds aren't great, but they are better for us than for the other side. Besides, if Obama wins reelection, I think Scalia will cling on just to avoid giving Uncle Barry the chance to replace him.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
We KNOW, that Obama will appoint a hard left socialist, and we know that Mitt might appoint a lefty. We are going for the lesser of two evils.

We KNOW that Mitt won't appoint a constitutionalist. Anyone other than a constitutionalist is, more than likely, going to be part of the next 5-4 majority that votes to restrict our rights. It doesn't matter how far left or right a justice in relative ideological terms; it only matters which side of the vote they will line up on.
 
Top