Nader's In!!

FOX NEWS

[David75]

Muslims call thats "ENSHALLAH" (I am not sure on the spelling) it is used to mean whatever happens is Gods will. Which may be true, but God would not have given us a will or choices if we were not meant to use them. So enshallah has become an excuse for doing nothing.

Yes, and I am using both. I do not advocate doing nothing.

Moore's claim to fame is ignoring the rule of law, how is what Moore did different than what is happening in SF?

Roy Moore disobeyed a judge's order. That order had no basis in law, so he had no obligation to obey it. He lost his job because his colleagues falsely believe the federal judiciary is the law. California has established, as a matter of law, that marriage is solely between one man and one woman. San Francisco's mayor is issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of that law. That is the difference.

Do I disapprove, no! Was it against the law, yes! ... HE COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT MAKE A GOOD COMMANDER IN CHIEF, HE HAS NO QUALIFICATIONS ... I do not want a untested, CinC whose only qualification is he broke the law for a good cause

Are you saying that you do not disapprove of Moore's actions, even though you believe he broke the law, but because of those actions, he is incapable of being Commander in Chief? Or am I missing something?

Bush was elected to political office and had support of a national party. That is why he was elected. Was he prepared to be a Commander in Chief. More than likely not! But since 9-11 he has become a outstanding Commander in Chief.

President Bush has indeed proven himself as Commander in Chief. I would have no misgivings at all about not voting for him were it not for the military response to 9/11. I believe that any principled conservative would have taken similar action, and that lessens those misgivings.

It seems that you would rather not risk what we have in President Bush. That position has merit. I just think we can do better. I am rather certain that I won't get what I want this year, but if we are ever to halt the march to the left, it has to start somewhere.

[jstolarczyk]

No, I am pointing out that Moore's fifteen minutes of fame was the result of violating the law. Regardless of your opinion of the law, "Separation of Church and State" has become a part of the law. The Supreme court refused to hear his case. Besides that,what has the judge done? Besides his household, what has he managed? What's in his background that qualifies him to be a wartime CinC? He took a moral stand, so this makes him Presidential material?

[inyurhed]

I'd just like to respond to the beginning of your comments. Moore did not violate the law. He disobeyed a court order that was based on a misinterpretation of the constitution. There is NO separation of church and state in the constitution. Read it in its entirety. i don't have it in front of me, but the pertinent part goes something like, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Moore's 1st amendment rights were violated because the judiciary in this country has completely omitted the second part of that line in the 1st amendment. That second line means I can say the pledge, pray to my God before a meal, observe a moment of silence before class, tell a neighbor "Merry Christmas", display a cross or nativity during the holidays for all to see, and that I should be able to do these things in pretty much any location I want.........including schools, court houses, government buildings, etc......How is it that "we the people" have allowed our constitutional right to be taken from us? And why is it that the judiciary of this country is so effectively able to legislate from the bench, with no "checks and balances" seemingly able to stop them? How do we reign them back in? Those are open questions for anyone to respond to......

[Abram]

Say greetings to President Kerry then.

[weegee]

As if our new FReeper would be voting for Moore anyway...

Punk the prez? - Moby's anti-Bush tricks

One of Sen. John Kerry's celebrity supporters is ready to pull out all the stops to get him elected. Republicans are shrieking over a suggestion by rocker Moby that Democrats spread gossip about President Bush on the Internet. "No one's talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day," Moby tells us. "It's a lot easier than you think and it doesn't cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes."

Moby suggests that it's possible to seed doubt among Bush's far-right supporters on the Web.

[weegee]

He and his 2 antiBush article excerpts got the ultimate Zot. He's not even a plaything for the Viking Kitties today.

[tjwmason]

I just sent an encouraging email to Nader's Presidential Exploratory Web Site, and I suggest everybody here do the same.

It's now at www.voteNader.org (notice it's .org not .com). I particularly like the part under the F.A.Q.s in 'Why Ralph' where he continues to moan on about Bush 'stealing' the 2000 election.

[jstolarczyk]

I am also responding to your initial comments, I never said their is a Separation of Church and State in the Constitution. It is however in the law! Not sure of the date, late 50's early 60's I believe, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling which used that phrase written by Thomas Jefferson, to create the rule now known as separation of church and state. No citizen is above the law, the order to remove the ten commandments was lawful, as disagreeable as that is. If the law does not apply to Judge Moore, then why does it apply to gay marriages in San Fran, anti-smoking laws in NYC, lying about sex with an intern etc....? If we do not like a law, then it needs to be changed through our representatives. Any bets on how soon congress address any of the above!

[inyurhed]

Again, it is not law. The courts do not make laws, they interpret them. It is not the job of the courts to legislate from the bench. The supreme court of which you speak, misinterpreted the law. Unfortunately, you're right about there not being much that can be done now to correct the error, short of congress stepping in. (fat chance) You're also right about no citizen being above the law. Moore's being removed from his position was the correct thing to do because he did not follow a court order, not because he broke a misinterpreted law. I know these are technicalities. But, what Moore did was still wrong. And unlike the mayor of San Fransisco, Moore was punished for his wrongdoing. Mostly because of the outcry in the press. Where is that outcry now? Laws are being broken again! (oh right.....liberal issues don't raise the ire of the liberal press.........hypocrites...) I do however hope that eventually, a group of like minded conservative representatives do grow a collective set, and do something to correct the err of our supreme court past. I believe that's exactly what the American people want.........and deserve.

[jstolarczyk]

Sorry, but it is the law, based on a legal precedence established by the Supreme Court. You can not argue your way around that point. Abortion is not in the constitution nor is it written in any amendment. In Europe most country's have a law voted on by their government making abortion legal. Unfortunately, our activist courts are making laws by setting a legal precedence, like Roe v Wade. That is why a marriage amendment is needed, to prevent a judge appointed by someone, like say a President John Kerry, setting a legal precedence regarding Gay Marriages.

[inyurhed]

there's a difference between law and legal precedent. legal precedent can be erased by another court ruling differently based on law, or by a new law. laws, however, can only be repealed, or preempted by new law. (unless another court decides to legislate from the bench......a la the 4th circuit in california?)i still maintain that the legal precedent set by the supreme court was a misinterpretation, or possibly, more legislating from the bench. either way, it's wrong. and either way, it can be undone, just as the abortion issue nearly was in the early nineties, and would have been if not for some clever maneuvering by former justice blackmun. (who by the way, just passed away the other day with a "clear conscience", despite the fact that he's responsible for the deaths of millions of babies) but, it's going to take bush getting the opportunity to appoint a few supreme court justices before he leaves office, or a new law. i think we stand a much better chance of getting the new appointees.

[The Libertarian Dude]

Our only chance is for Bush to start acting like the small-government conservative he *claims* to be. Running on 9/11 won't cut the cheese this time around.