Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60

Thread: Obama judicial nominee blocked.

  1. #1
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823

    Obama judicial nominee blocked.

    Some good news for people who have been following this.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/...judicial_fight

    Any time you read "could someday be a dream Supreme Court nominee for liberals." means it would be a nightmare for gun owners and the country in general. Now if only this could have happened to the last two SCOTUS nominees .
    Last edited by XDFDE45; 05-20-2011 at 12:01 PM.
    Wisconsin Carry Member
    My Castle Doctrine Law

    Don't wish ill upon your enemy......plan it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011

    It's only ok when the GOP does it.

    Last edited by beebobby; 05-20-2011 at 02:10 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    And they have stated in the past that a filibuster is ok in extreme situations. They have also outlined why they feel this one of those situations. Specifically they felt that they are concerned with him wanting to make law from the bench instead of interpret law. They also stated that they felt he would be good to run for a non-judicial position.

    Now obviously any party is going to cry when their nominee loses. But they did a good job in outlining their issue with this person, and I think it is a valid concern given some of the things he has said.

    And that site is so liberal its sickening. Here's another pathetic article regarding the subject

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/19/...mmunist-china/
    Last edited by Aknazer; 05-20-2011 at 03:26 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    "In both cases, opponents argued the nominees would take their views with them to the bench, allowing those views to trump the Constitution."

    Funny thing is that ALL of the judges, and Justices take their views with them to their appointed seat. People are so freaking delusional to think that somehow any person takes none of their personal view to any of those seats.

    "He was given a top rating of unanimously well-qualified by the American Bar Association. He was a Rhodes Scholar and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He received numerous awards for academic and legal achievements, including the highest teaching award at his law school."

    Obviously this man is not educated enough, and versed enough in the profession of Law that he has chosen his career in. Let me guess, Conservatives would prefer someone with less qualification, and that are incapable of thinking, I mean, someone who Conservatives agree with ideologically. All of this stuff is a political exercise, nothing more, nothing less.

    "Graham said: "His outrageous attack on Judge Alito convinced me that Goodwin Liu is an ideologue. Goodwin Liu should run for elected office, not serve as a judge. Ideologues have their place, just not on the bench.""

    Yea, just like Graham, 'ideologues' have their place, not on the bench, but rather, deciding who is to be placed on that bench LOL. I wonder if graham realizes what he just stated, hilarious.


    The politics that is going on with this judge is just your run-of-the-mill political back-and-forth. People act as if there is something spectacular about this nominee being blocked, well, there were a number of nominee's blocked that Bush II put up, and that Clinton put up, and that, well, you get my point here.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    And they have stated in the past that a filibuster is ok in extreme situations. They have also outlined why they feel this one of those situations. Specifically they felt that they are concerned with him wanting to make law from the bench instead of interpret law. They also stated that they felt he would be good to run for a non-judicial position.
    So, Liu would be 'interpreting' the law? Interesting. You see, I always figured that judges, and Justices were supposed to apply rulings, and findings by some Divine light that fills their soul with an undeniable Fundamental Truth of sorts..I must be in a comedic mood this evening.

    Now obviously any party is going to cry when their nominee loses. But they did a good job in outlining their issue with this person, and I think it is a valid concern given some of the things he has said.

    And that site is so liberal its sickening. Here's another pathetic article regarding the subject

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/19/...mmunist-china/

    One of those racial undertone things again!

    "GRASSLEY: Does [Liu] think we’re the communist-run China? That the government runs everything? That it’s a better place when they put online every week a coal-fired plant to pollute the air, put more carbon dioxide into the air then we do in the United States, and where children are dying because food is poisoned, and consumers aren’t protected, and where every miner in the China coal mines is in jeopardy of losing their lives? That’s how out of place this guy is when he talks about “free enterprise,” “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” being something somehow bad, but if you get government more involved, like they do in China, it’s somehow a better place."

    Obviously comparing Liu to Communist China, when Lui happens to be an Asian American has nothing to do with racial undertones. What a bunch of trash-talk from Grassley, who obviously has nothing better do with his time than be an ideologue, and implying that Liu is the next Mao.

    If Liberals are sickening, then this particular Conservative is Honey Bucket slime.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-22-2011 at 02:43 AM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    294
    Oh noes! He said communist china when talking about an asian.
    Personally, I can't believe how candy assed sensitive people are these days.
    A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed to whom it may concern.
    Why open carrying is a good idea: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...encounter.html

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    So, Liu would be 'interpreting' the law? Interesting. You see, I always figured that judges, and Justices were supposed to apply rulings, and findings by some Divine light that fills their soul with an undeniable Fundamental Truth of sorts..I must be in a comedic mood this evening.




    One of those racial undertone things again!

    "GRASSLEY: Does [Liu] think we’re the communist-run China? That the government runs everything? That it’s a better place when they put online every week a coal-fired plant to pollute the air, put more carbon dioxide into the air then we do in the United States, and where children are dying because food is poisoned, and consumers aren’t protected, and where every miner in the China coal mines is in jeopardy of losing their lives? That’s how out of place this guy is when he talks about “free enterprise,” “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” being something somehow bad, but if you get government more involved, like they do in China, it’s somehow a better place."

    Obviously comparing Liu to Communist China, when Lui happens to be an Asian American has nothing to do with racial undertones. What a bunch of trash-talk from Grassley, who obviously has nothing better do with his time than be an ideologue, and implying that Liu is the next Mao.

    So what, if one is of Asian decent we can't talk about how his thoughts on the subject are very similar to China's now for fear of being a racist? What next? If one is of Russian decent and falls in line with old USSR thinking we can't call it out for being USSR thinking for fear of being a racist?

    If Liberals are sickening, then this particular Conservative is Honey Bucket slime.
    You're clueless. Not that I think it will do any good, but here's a line from a book he co-authored:

    "Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change ... as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation."

    That is a HUGE statement to make. Him and his co-author are stating that basically regardless of what the document "says" a judge (since judges are the ones who interpret the text) is to basically change the principle of the document to stay current with the times. This is the EXACT SAME arguement that the Indiana Supreme Court used in saying that you can't resist a cop from ILLEGALY entering your home. Or as Senator Jeff Sessions said during the confirmation process, "He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day."

    Additionally his supporters go on to say that he should be picked because he comes from Taiwanese parents who spoke very little English and that he has lived the American dream. I'm sorry, but unless all you care about is "diversity" none of that should matter. The only thing that should be looked at is the person's record, and this person's record points towards him less interpreting what things mean and more towards him interpreting it how it "should" be in the modern age.

    But all of this is lost on someone who has an agenda to push.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...changes-world/
    Last edited by Aknazer; 05-22-2011 at 06:58 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    So, Liu would be 'interpreting' the law? Interesting. You see, I always figured that judges, and Justices were supposed to apply rulings, and findings by some Divine light that fills their soul with an undeniable Fundamental Truth of sorts..I must be in a comedic mood this evening.




    One of those racial undertone things again!

    "GRASSLEY: Does [Liu] think we’re the communist-run China? That the government runs everything? That it’s a better place when they put online every week a coal-fired plant to pollute the air, put more carbon dioxide into the air then we do in the United States, and where children are dying because food is poisoned, and consumers aren’t protected, and where every miner in the China coal mines is in jeopardy of losing their lives? That’s how out of place this guy is when he talks about “free enterprise,” “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” being something somehow bad, but if you get government more involved, like they do in China, it’s somehow a better place."

    Obviously comparing Liu to Communist China, when Lui happens to be an Asian American has nothing to do with racial undertones. What a bunch of trash-talk from Grassley, who obviously has nothing better do with his time than be an ideologue, and implying that Liu is the next Mao.

    If Liberals are sickening, then this particular Conservative is Honey Bucket slime.
    Why would it? They are one of the most oppressive governments that involves themselves, at the expense of liberty, in peoples lives, and many times at the expense of many lives they do this! If one wants to evoke what a free country should not be like why not bring up china? Should a person conciously think "oh wait is Liu Chinese or Japanese or Taiwanese; if he's Chinese I can't bring up China. Oh wait someone might think I'm racist just because he's Asian, maybe I should use Pakistan or a country in Africa, oh wait if I say that am I being racist against the president now because he is of African decent?..."

    Or maybe the constant "he's a racist" argument is bunk and the only racists in politics right now are the liberal progressives. I find it amusing that a big progressive liberal supporter, planned parenthood, has killed more African Americans than the KKK could ever have hoped to; yet one is vilified for being racist (not saying they weren't or aren't) and the other many prop up as a wonderful progressive helpful organization.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Why would it? They are one of the most oppressive governments that involves themselves, at the expense of liberty, in peoples lives, and many times at the expense of many lives they do this! If one wants to evoke what a free country should not be like why not bring up china? Should a person conciously think "oh wait is Liu Chinese or Japanese or Taiwanese; if he's Chinese I can't bring up China. Oh wait someone might think I'm racist just because he's Asian, maybe I should use Pakistan or a country in Africa, oh wait if I say that am I being racist against the president now because he is of African decent?..."

    Or maybe the constant "he's a racist" argument is bunk and the only racists in politics right now are the liberal progressives. I find it amusing that a big progressive liberal supporter, planned parenthood, has killed more African Americans than the KKK could ever have hoped to; yet one is vilified for being racist (not saying they weren't or aren't) and the other many prop up as a wonderful progressive helpful organization.
    Well said Daylen. One way to tell if a person is a bigot/racist is that their default response is to label anyone with whom they disagree as a racist. Rather than presenting a position based on logic/reason, they just trot out the "you're a racist" slander. Contrary to what many in the so-called "main stream media" believe, racism is not the exclusive domain of GOP bigots and red neck trailer park dwellers with Confederate battle flags in the back window of their pick-up trucks. I believe that most of the racists are the ones who don't fit in any of those categories, but rather, are the ones that are the first to cast everybody else as a racist. A person who see everything through the spectacles of race is most likely to be the racists.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I do not believe justices should be political at all. Wrong job.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    You're clueless. Not that I think it will do any good, but here's a line from a book he co-authored:
    Fluff

    "Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change ... as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation."
    Could you please place the full text of the above paragraph. The "..." means that you have removed information. Post the full paragraph, and the title of the book please. Thank you. I look forward to responding.

    That is a HUGE statement to make. Him and his co-author are stating that basically regardless of what the document "says" a judge (since judges are the ones who interpret the text) is to basically change the principle of the document to stay current with the times. This is the EXACT SAME arguement that the Indiana Supreme Court used in saying that you can't resist a cop from ILLEGALY entering your home. Or as Senator Jeff Sessions said during the confirmation process, "He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day."
    The Constitution is meant to be interpreted. There is just no way of getting around it. This is an old debate that has happened in other threads many times, and no minds have been changed; some believe that the Constitution is not interpretive, and others do.
    Additionally his supporters go on to say that he should be picked because he comes from Taiwanese parents who spoke very little English and that he has lived the American dream. I'm sorry, but unless all you care about is "diversity" none of that should matter. The only thing that should be looked at is the person's record, and this person's record points towards him less interpreting what things mean and more towards him interpreting it how it "should" be in the modern age.
    So, only caring about 'diversity' matters? I am not sure what you are stating here.

    With regard to the latter of the quote, and? The Constitution is interpretive. Some individuals have argued that because the Constitution doesn't state that the Constitution is interpretive, that it somehow means that the Constitution is not interpretive, well, the Constitution does not state that it is NOT supposed to be interpreted.


    But all of this is lost on someone who has an agenda to push.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...changes-world/

    And? To state that Liu has an agenda, is to imply that 'others' who do not agree do not have an agenda? They all have an agenda. The question is, do you agree with the agenda.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Why would it? They are one of the most oppressive governments that involves themselves, at the expense of liberty, in peoples lives, and many times at the expense of many lives they do this! If one wants to evoke what a free country should not be like why not bring up china?

    Yes, they are. And America has had a economic policy for decades with China. China used to be a 'free' State? The people of China used to have 'Liberty'? All Governments engage in policies that are at the expense of its people. China has not requirement to allow the degree of 'Freedom' that Americans have.

    Wake up, China's middle class is about the size of the U.S. population, we are falling behind. The decline of the U.S. is happening before our eyes, and all we can do with our time here int he states is bicker, and play political games. The Titanic is going down, and there is no State out there that is, or will help us.


    Should a person conciously think "oh wait is Liu Chinese or Japanese or Taiwanese; if he's Chinese I can't bring up China. Oh wait someone might think I'm racist just because he's Asian, maybe I should use Pakistan or a country in Africa, oh wait if I say that am I being racist against the president now because he is of African decent?..."
    I genuinely try not to accuse individuals of being racist, making racist statements, or having a racial undertone to their responses, but seriously, some things just are what they are, and when I see it, I point it out. It doesn't mean I am right, just saying.

    I am not stating that China cannot be brought up. I just find it interesting that rarely did I hear anything about Kenya until Obama was running for President, and the statements made about Kenya, and how it relates to Obama was suggesting that he is not American, hence, the Birthers.

    Or maybe the constant "he's a racist" argument is bunk and the only racists in politics right now are the liberal progressives. I find it amusing that a big progressive liberal supporter, planned parenthood, has killed more African Americans than the KKK could ever have hoped to; yet one is vilified for being racist (not saying they weren't or aren't) and the other many prop up as a wonderful progressive helpful organization.
    *Yawn* Ok, I will play along. NO!...maybe the Real Racists are Conservatives

    Planned Parenthood offers many different types of services. Whether they are doing or referring females for abortion is a whole other discussion. I should point out though that every female I know who has utilized Planned Parenthood did not have insurance, could not receive health insurance, and would go in for things such as contraception, OBGYN, as well as other female health services.

    You want to get rid of Planned Parenthood, then go at it.

    Oh, BTW, Planned Parenthood also help men from what I understand, but they make up a small percentage of the individuals who utilize the services.

    I have always found it interesting that Conservatives want there to be no abortion, but the unaborted babies that are born, well, Conservatives don't want to pay higher taxes, and offer services to help those children that would surely be born into poverty, and to parents that are either too young to support the child, addicted to drugs, or both.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by 6L6GC View Post
    Well said Daylen. One way to tell if a person is a bigot/racist is that their default response is to label anyone with whom they disagree as a racist. Rather than presenting a position based on logic/reason, they just trot out the "you're a racist" slander. Contrary to what many in the so-called "main stream media" believe, racism is not the exclusive domain of GOP bigots and red neck trailer park dwellers with Confederate battle flags in the back window of their pick-up trucks. I believe that most of the racists are the ones who don't fit in any of those categories, but rather, are the ones that are the first to cast everybody else as a racist. A person who see everything through the spectacles of race is most likely to be the racists.

    Racists are a very broad group of individuals, and do not necessarily agree with one another politically, religiously, etc. Racists are in all groups of people. Hell, I know Nazi homosexuals, well, I have come across some. Racists are everywhere.

    Posting a statement with racial undertones does not mean an individual is a Racist, IMO. Being a Racist goes requires much more than that. Posting racial undertones, well, it does exist, it is around, and for the most part when I see it, I just ignore it.

    I will offer an example:

    Prior to President Obama running for President, and being elected President I almost never seen Avtars that depicted apes. Now they are everywhere, particularly on pages that tend to be more Conservative than Liberal. How do you explain that? Now, there is nothing scientific about my observation, but an observation none-the-less. And some would have us all believe that there is not a statement being made, well, there is. I offered the definition of "Coward," and will stick with it. When a person implies something racial, and don't have the nerve to just state what they are obviously stating, they are Cowards, IMO.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    John Yoo, has all these same accolades and advised Bush on how to overstep many constitutional boundaries (many which Obama denounced before he was Prez, and then continued once he was) he would also make a terrible judge.

    Folks like Liu, Yoo, Kagan, and the majority of the judges on the bench are very very wrong for the job you can tell by looking at their rulings.

    Yes we all have our personal feelings yet we are supposed to temper that with what is constitutional or not, not interpret the constitution to fit what are ideologies are.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Fluff



    Could you please place the full text of the above paragraph. The "..." means that you have removed information. Post the full paragraph, and the title of the book please. Thank you. I look forward to responding.



    The Constitution is meant to be interpreted. There is just no way of getting around it. This is an old debate that has happened in other threads many times, and no minds have been changed; some believe that the Constitution is not interpretive, and others do.


    So, only caring about 'diversity' matters? I am not sure what you are stating here.

    With regard to the latter of the quote, and? The Constitution is interpretive. Some individuals have argued that because the Constitution doesn't state that the Constitution is interpretive, that it somehow means that the Constitution is not interpretive, well, the Constitution does not state that it is NOT supposed to be interpreted.





    And? To state that Liu has an agenda, is to imply that 'others' who do not agree do not have an agenda? They all have an agenda. The question is, do you agree with the agenda.
    Wow. I have so many issues with everything you have posted in this thread that I don't know where to start if I were to try and respond. I will say that the quote comes directly from the news article I linked and you will have to find the book yourself. But it wouldn't have come up at the first confirmation hearing if it wasn't said.

    But between these posts and others by you I've realized that debating things with you is worse than slamming my head into a brick wall repeatedly and so I must say you will be the first person put on my ignore list.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Wow. I have so many issues with everything you have posted in this thread that I don't know where to start if I were to try and respond. I will say that the quote comes directly from the news article I linked and you will have to find the book yourself. But it wouldn't have come up at the first confirmation hearing if it wasn't said.

    But between these posts and others by you I've realized that debating things with you is worse than slamming my head into a brick wall repeatedly and so I must say you will be the first person put on my ignore list.
    She is on my ignore list too. However, don't always think that responding to someone who has zero chance of ever getting it is not worthwhile. Others read what you write. Stay rational and let the other poster blather. You won't change her mind. However, you will have an impact on rational thinkers with an open mind who read what you write but choose not to respond.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    I'll even use a moonbat source;

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4575047

    SNIP:

    The president's nominees to the district court level of the federal system have not been blocked. The conflict has come at the next level, the appeals court level, which is the intermediary step between trial courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to prevent a floor vote. Three of these nominees subsequently withdrew from consideration, but seven others have returned for renomination in the current Congress.
    As usual the fruitcake left reacts with their usual template, while ignoring their own past. We've got your token moonbats here at OCDO pulling out every card they have and regurgitating what they've been programmed to say. It's pointless to argue with them when they're doing this. They're not here to discuss anything.

    Planting trees or cleaning Venetian blinds is what Alinskyite community organizers do; here is what else they do ...

    Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
    Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
    Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
    Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
    Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

    Use their own tactics against them. Point out the facts, then marginalize their delusional rants for what they are. Otherwise you're wasting time and giving their "fluff" way more attention than it deserves.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    ...so I must say you will be the first person put on my ignore list.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    John Yoo, has all these same accolades and advised Bush on how to overstep many constitutional boundaries (many which Obama denounced before he was Prez, and then continued once he was) he would also make a terrible judge.
    It begs the question of why presidential hopefuls state one thing, then when they are in office apply a different thing. I am interested in knowing what changes once they are 'inside' the office. I am not implying a conspiracy, just that there must be issues that are not clarified until you are in that position of power.

    Folks like Liu, Yoo, Kagan, and the majority of the judges on the bench are very very wrong for the job you can tell by looking at their rulings.
    They are wrong if you disagree with their rulings, or findings.

    Yes we all have our personal feelings yet we are supposed to temper that with what is constitutional or not, not interpret the constitution to fit what are ideologies are.
    Interesting that the idea of whether or not the Constitution is 'interpretive', and supposed to be 'interpreted' or not seems to be part of most constitutional discussions.

    Quote:

    United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer, 550 U.S. 330, 338 (2007), Chief Justice Roberts: "Although the constitution does not in terms limit the power of the States to regulate commerce, we have long interpreted the Commerce Clause as an implicit restraint on state authority, even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute."

    I find it interesting that Chief Justice Roberts, a Conservative Justice, has stated that the Constitution, the Commerce Clause specifically, has been, and is being 'interpreted' to mean some 'thing'. That would seem to fly in the face of Conservatives who assert that the Constitution is not meant to be interpreted, or is interpretive. How does a Conservative explain this statement made by a Conservative Justice?

    Let me guess, Chief Justice Roberts is not a 'true Conservative'.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-23-2011 at 02:31 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I have always found it interesting that Conservatives want there to be no abortion, but the unaborted babies that are born, well, Conservatives don't want to pay higher taxes, and offer services to help those children that would surely be born into poverty, and to parents that are either too young to support the child, addicted to drugs, or both.
    I completely and utterly disagree with everything you say 99% of the time and your avatar make me want to vomit, but I gonna have to say that I fully agree with the above. I'm very much on the conservative side from the fiscal standpoint and for most social issues, but abortion is not one of them. I do agree with the centiment above and I cannot understand why so many people cannot see that simple logic.

    Seriously though, change your avatar. Whatever you think about Obama, he is just a President and not a Supreme Leader of some sort and posting pictures like that gives me a unpleasant taste of a totalitarian regime. Also, you do fully realize how 99% of people on this forum would react to that picture, so you putting it up may only mean looking for fight and argument which deserves no respect in my book.

    I understand your disagreement and respect your right to have different views, but using Obama's picture for an avatar on a gun forum, is just picking a fight and that's just immature.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaingun81 View Post
    I completely and utterly disagree with everything you say 99% of the time and your avatar make me want to vomit,...
    I think my Avtar has pissed a number of individuals on here off. I am going to be changing it soon. I didn't think it would strike as many nerves as it has.

    but I gonna have to say that I fully agree with the above. I'm very much on the conservative side from the fiscal standpoint and for most social issues, but abortion is not one of them. I do agree with the centiment above and I cannot understand why so many people cannot see that simple logic.
    With the exception of a couple of items regarding abortion, I would be fine with very tight restriction on abortion if the social net was there for these children that would be born into a parent-less world. I have four children, never once did my partner and I consider abortion. But the thought of them being without two loving parents, and being raised in an Institutional family just breaks my heart.

    Seriously though, change your avatar. Whatever you think about Obama, he is just a President and not a Supreme Leader of some sort and posting pictures like that gives me a unpleasant taste of a totalitarian regime. Also, you do fully realize how 99% of people on this forum would react to that picture, so you putting it up may only mean looking for fight and argument which deserves no respect in my book.
    I am thinking about it as I stated before. He is just a President, but he is currently the President.

    Nah, I post, and realize that many individuals are not going to agree with me. I don't have an issue with disagreements - I just figure it comes with being an independent thinker, just like other on here are.


    I understand your disagreement and respect your right to have different views, but using Obama's picture for an avatar on a gun forum, is just picking a fight and that's just immature.
    I seriously looked high-and-low for a photo of Obama with a firearm in his hand, and could not find one. My Avtar will not change anything. People agree with me, disagree with me, hate me, want to kill me, wish me dead, or wish I would just close my account, but why would I do that? I OC/CC proudly, and so does my partner. We all can't agree on everything, especially the details of issues.

    I was just thinking about this Avtar thing, and because you have been nice about it, I will change it. Don;t expect me to make a habit of this though *wink*
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 05-23-2011 at 03:10 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaingun81 View Post
    I completely and utterly disagree with everything you say 99% of the time and your avatar make me want to vomit, but I gonna have to say that I fully agree with the above. I'm very much on the conservative side from the fiscal standpoint and for most social issues, but abortion is not one of them. I do agree with the centiment above and I cannot understand why so many people cannot see that simple logic.

    Seriously though, change your avatar. Whatever you think about Obama, he is just a President and not a Supreme Leader of some sort and posting pictures like that gives me a unpleasant taste of a totalitarian regime. Also, you do fully realize how 99% of people on this forum would react to that picture, so you putting it up may only mean looking for fight and argument which deserves no respect in my book.

    I understand your disagreement and respect your right to have different views, but using Obama's picture for an avatar on a gun forum, is just picking a fight and that's just immature.
    In regards to abortion. I don't really care about it too much, but don't use my tax payer dollars to help you abort your kid. You were "responsible" enough to have sex, now you get to live with the consequences. Additionally don't ask me to help you out with raising it. If you can't handle raising the kid for whatever reason, give it up to adoption. And if you don't want to deal with these consequences then take steps to ensure you don't get pregnant. I don't care if that's birth control, abstinence, surgery, whatever. But if you get pregnant you deal with it without using TAX PAYER funds.

    But instead people aren't forced to take responsibility for ones actions and just expect uncle Sam to step in and clean up their mess. And that's my issue. And its even worse with the poor who are slowly being turned into slaves of the government as they are slowly coming to rely on the government for everything and often they don't pay any net taxes and often can even get more money back than they pay.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I think my Avtar has pissed a number of individuals on here off. I am going to be changing it soon. I didn't think it would strike as many nerves as it has.

    With the exception of a couple of items regarding abortion, I would be fine with very tight restriction on abortion if the social net was there for these children that would be born into a parent-less world. I have four children, never once did my partner and I consider abortion. But the thought of them being without two loving parents, and being raised in an Institutional family just breaks my heart.
    Like I said, I'm fiscally conservative and therefore I don't think there should be any social net for such support. Obviously, there are exceptions (i.e. orphans, etc.), but teenage drug addicts shouldn't be having children to send them for societal support. Having a child is a huge responsibility and people should treat it as such.

    But incositencies and hipocrisy always bother me, and I do see hipocrisy in people being against abortions AND social programms for unwanted children at the same time, because it's either one or the other, and that's why I agreed with your point.

    I'm not a big fan of abortion in general and don't think it's a good thing to do, but I wouldn't support any more legal restrictions than there already is, because I'm a libertarian before I'm a conservative...

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post

    I am thinking about it as I stated before. He is just a President, but he is currently the President.
    Doesn't matter. He is still an elected leader, not a perfect Supreme Being of some sort. I grew up in a communist country with a totalitarian regime and things like that always bother me. Display of support and bumper stickers with campain slogans is one thing, propoganda looking portraits is very different. After all, you wouldn't put a picture of your boss on your car, fridge and internet profile, even if you really like him, now would you? )))

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post

    I seriously looked high-and-low for a photo of Obama with a firearm in his hand, and could not find one.
    You would have to photoshop one. Seriously though, whatever you think about him, he is a typical anti-gun product of a big city political elite, just because he isn't pushing any major anti-gun legislation doesn't mean he became pro-gun, it just means that he ain't dumb and wants to get reelected. His true views can be seen from early in his career, when he wasn't refined enough to hide them.

    You might want to find pictures with his offical presidential portrait and NRA logo saying "Firearms Salesman of the Year award", there is some healthy irony in it and it's not directly political.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post

    My Avtar will not change anything. People agree with me, disagree with me, hate me, want to kill me, wish me dead, or wish I would just close my account, but why would I do that? I OC/CC proudly, and so does my partner. We all can't agree on everything, especially the details of issues.
    Maybe so, but like I said - it's easy to predict what kind of reaction it would cause here and escalating the fight and looking for additional trouble is unnecessary. You can still be vocal about your positions, but do it where appropriate and not just to cause trouble.

    Before you even registered here, there was a fellow called AWDStylez - he would join every thread with a political discussion and aggravate people to the limit. After a while it became obvious that he wasn't actually interested in the discussion, but rather wanted to cause trouble and get pleasure of being "the one against all". Eventually his behavior became so troll like, that moderators banned him, and believe me - I've been here for 5 years now, it takes a very special effort to get banned on this forum, moderators are very respectful of free speech.

    Anyhow, you don't want to follow his steps. Have a discussion, disagree, argue with people, but don't argue for the sake of arguing. It never gets you anywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post

    I was just thinking about this Avtar thing, and because you have been nice about it, I will change it. Don;t expect me to make a habit of this though *wink*
    Fair enough, I do respect that.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I am not concerned about being banned from OC.

    I figure that these topics are posted for discussion, and I take part in the discussion. If people don't like it they can either 'ignore' me, or, well, ignoring me is about all they can do, or engage in personal attacks, either way, that is their prerogative.

    I admit that my political views are complicated, and seem to contradict themselves. I am just not a 'hard-line' type of person with regard to most things.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    In regards to abortion. I don't really care about it too much, but don't use my tax payer dollars to help you abort your kid. You were "responsible" enough to have sex, now you get to live with the consequences. Additionally don't ask me to help you out with raising it. If you can't handle raising the kid for whatever reason, give it up to adoption. And if you don't want to deal with these consequences then take steps to ensure you don't get pregnant. I don't care if that's birth control, abstinence, surgery, whatever. But if you get pregnant you deal with it without using TAX PAYER funds.

    But instead people aren't forced to take responsibility for ones actions and just expect uncle Sam to step in and clean up their mess. And that's my issue. And its even worse with the poor who are slowly being turned into slaves of the government as they are slowly coming to rely on the government for everything and often they don't pay any net taxes and often can even get more money back than they pay.
    I do agree with that 100%. I meant that I am not against abortion in general and certainly don't support government restrictions on it based on religious belives, but that doesn't mean that I want to pay for them.

    However, abortion is a lot cheaper than raising a child, so if someone's irresponsibility with sex caused them to get pregnant while not being able to support a child, I'd support their desicion to get an abortion, but they would have to pay for it. I agree that modern soceity doesn't promote personal responsibility nearly enough and way too many people grow up with no concept of what consequences mean.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •