President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

[PointofView]

imported post

Thos.Jefferson wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to stop thinking in terms of left and right. What most of the people don't seem to grasp is that the left/right paradigm is a control measure just likethe whole black/white thing it is simply a tool to keep We the People divided. They are the masters and We are the slaves. They are two sides of the same coin folks. Until We can all see that We will continue to be their slaves.

Point of View, How many times are you going to toot the "i go off and fight wars" horn? In this day and age that is nothing to be proud of there fella. You go to foriegn countries and kill people who are no threat to Us as a citizenry and you're proud of that?  I know your going to say "they're terrorist" but you forget that if Our gov't in all of its benevolence hadn't invaded their countries then they wouldn't have a quarrel with the U.S.

Don't even get me started on what a waste of money that whole mess is.

My text was to speak to the violation of the Geneva Convention and I feel so inclined to speak to that as I am a combatant and could one day find myself at the losing end of that stick. I do realize that the current enemy does not play by these rules but lets not diminish the purpose of that. Since my ass is out there and could see the real deal when it comes to being a POW it does earn me a louder voice on this issue.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

PointofView wrote:

Well we need more liberal judges in that case, because the right wing SCOTUS ruled that the business can now buy elections. Perhaps that is what we should be worried about first and foremost. ClosedElections.Org.. a sister site of opencarry.org

Google doesn't find http://www.closedelections.org or anything close.

Yata hey

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Hmmmm can't find the ruling where you can buy elections.

 

[nobama]

imported post

Is buying elections the same as senators getting bribed for an unconstitutional health care bill? can you say stimulous money?

 

[PointofView]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

PointofView wrote:

Well we need more liberal judges in that case, because the right wing SCOTUS ruled that the business can now buy elections. Perhaps that is what we should be worried about first and foremost. ClosedElections.Org.. a sister site of opencarry.org

Google doesn't find http://www.closedelections.org or anything close.

Yata hey

I was saying it should be created. I am so disturbed by the will of our employers that may or may not be a reflection of its employees being able to contribute more to candidates than the individual. Who's voice goes away at that point. I think that ruling by the SCOTUS diminishes the individuals rights.

Lets be realistic about DC these days. People serve on the hill as a career not an honor. They are so focused on their own survival that they put the constituents and their well being to the side. This country has enough people detached from politics that clever commercials and slick advertising (which costs lots of money!) can make up for doing the right thing. This is why allowing corporate donations will influence politicians more so than my individual donations. Votes can be bought in essence and the biggest check book goes to the for profit corporations.

I encourage business but let business adapt to the will of the people if they ever conflict. I think when business has profit as a motivator and people have well-being as a motivator as well as their own ethical standpoints on issues, we will have conflict. Unfortunately I think that is a fight that the common voter will lose due to the awareness of overall voters.

The biggest threat to democracy has been that recent verdict and I think that should be a question to any potential nominee. I would not ever want anyone who would make that decision the way it was recently made to sit on the high court regardless of their 2a thoughts. This is where the total package comes into play but as this is a forum in reference to 2a I think this may not be the place to go into more detail than I already have. Just realize that when supporting or not supporting people for office that these factors are also important, but the order of importance is an individual decision.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

PointofView wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

I find itamusing that the very pro socialist member here has a storm trooper icon.

Well they were the legally elected government. The rebels were terrorists by definition.

I enter into this discussion only to make light of this inaccurate statement; being a fan of the StarWars rebels myself.

Firstly, the legally elected government gave the chancellor "emergency powers". Which he did not relinquish like he was supposed tomaking the the goverment illegal.

Also, the rebelswere not terrorists; terrorists target non-combatants. I don't know where you got your definition from. Doesn't suprise me though, with the word being flaunted about all over lately.

Treason yes; terrorist; no. Draws parallels to the founding of this country even.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Brass Magnet wrote:

PointofView wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

I find itamusing that the very pro socialist member here has a storm trooper icon.

Well they were the legally elected government. The rebels were terrorists by definition.

I enter into this discussion only to make light of this inaccurate statement; being a fan of the StarWars rebels myself.

Firstly, the legally elected government gave the chancellor "emergency powers". Which he did not relinquish like he was supposed tomaking the the goverment illegal.

Also, the rebelswere not terrorists; terrorists target non-combatants. I don't know where you got your definition from. Doesn't suprise me though, with the word being flaunted about all over lately.

Treason yes; terrorist; no. Draws parallels to the founding of this country even.

I am not a Star Wars fan, but (assuming the story is as you relate it) your use of terminology is spot on!

+1