Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 9 December 2007

Various big media television networks ^ | 9 December 2007 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[acapesket]

This country is a Democratic REPUBLIC.

[Sonora]

You just don’t get it - Rudy, John or Mike - although I’m hoping that they are not the nominee would be lightyears better than Hillary - it’s posters like you that will bring down this country, not Rudy, John or Mike.

I’m saddened by your message to us all. Wee cannot lose the WH at this time - wake up!

[kabar]

I suggest you don't get it. The election of a pro-amnesty candidate of either party will destroy this country. Once that passes, everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[MNJohnnie]

You wasting your time. These people have so confinvinced themselves of the infallability of their own emotion based political dogams they are completely blind to any factual reality. They simply will not listen to factsthat does not validate their emotion based dogmas The damage just another Leftist SC Justice would do over the next 30 years or the damage a rewriting by the Democrats of either Campaign Finace or the Tax code far far far outweights the damage any "Amnesty law" would do.

[MNJohnnie]

This country is a Constitutional Republic. Democrat Republic is an incorrect usage.

[MNJohnnie]

Supreme Court Justices. Campaign Fiance Reform Laws. The Tax Code. Restore the Fairness Doctrine. Nationalized Health Care.

There are a bunch of issues where a Democrat President and Congress can fundamentally alter he structure of this Country forever.

Not getting exactly what you want done on the Illegal’s issue will not. Firing on your allies because you do NOT get only what you personally want done on the Border, thus empowering your political foes to undo what we HAVE gotten done, is counterproductive.

You would replace a marginal response by the Republicans to your concerns with a completely unacceptable response from the Democrats.

That would be politically suicidal. To replace getting 70% of what you want with 100% of what you claim to loath is to actively work FOR the enemies of the goals you say you want achieved.

[kabar]

Supreme Court Justices. Campaign Fiance Reform Laws. The Tax Code. Restore the Fairness Doctrine. Nationalized Health Care. There are a bunch of issues where a Democrat President and Congress can fundamentally alter he structure of this Country forever.

Legalizing the status of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens will change this country forever and is irreversible, unlike those that you cite. Supreme Court decisions can be reversed and laws and social welfare systems can be changed. Even the Constitution can be amended. Once you legalize the 12 to 20 million illegals and the tens of millions who would then be eligible to come here under chain migration, the country is done for. You can't unring a bell.

If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 66 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years

Even without legalizing the status of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens, if immigration continues at current levels, the nation’s population will increase from 301 million today to 468 million in 2060 — a 167 million (56 percent) increase. Immigrants plus their descendents will account for 105 million (63 percent) of the increase. The total projected growth of 167 million is equal to the combined populations of Great Britain, France, and Spain. The 105 million from immigration by itself is equal to 13 additional New York Cities.

[Sonora]

Thanks for validation - it’s just simply more than passingly strange to me that a purportedly thinking person can convince themselves that not voting for a candidate that is less than perfect is logical, even knowing that not voting for that person directly and indirectly is equal to a vote for the bigger evil, politically speaking.

So, the perfect candidate isn’t in this race or in the case of Hunter - doesn’t have the sort of personality that turns people on (does he ever smile?) - therefore, let’s all give up and not vote for someone that at least can be readily influenced by his party?

As you stated, it’s really all about the judges in the long run - we can stop lots of stuff along the way - look what’s happened so far with immigation!

It does appear that even those on the right - the far right, are brain dead at some level.

[tarheelswamprat]

I’m late getting back to this thread, and I see kabar has already answered you in his usual concise and succinct manner. To quote him: “Once you legalize the 12 to 20 million illegals and the tens of millions who would then be eligible to come here under chain migration, the country is done for. You can’t unring a bell.”

I might quibble a bit about the figures cited (there are probably closer to 40 million illegals in country at present), but the difference between those estimates does not alter the prognosis.

Nevertheless, he accurately zeros in on the basic fallacy inherent in your arguments. You talk about “issues where a Democrat President and Congress can fundamentally alter the structure of this Country forever” but you clearly do not understand the meaning and difference between “fundamental” versus simply “extremely important”, nor the distinction between the “structure” of this country versus the “direction”.

As kabar pointed out to you: “Supreme Court decisions can be reversed and laws and social welfare systems can be changed. Even the Constitution can be amended.” If the next President were to appoint enough constructionists to the Supreme Court to give us a clear majority, but the populace of the country were to shift and evolve (or devolve) from a populace which believes in the principles of the Founders and the rule of law to a populace which does not, even a 9-0 lock on the Court would eventually be undone with the passage of time.

Stated more specifically, the relative distribution of votes on the Supreme Court IS important, extremely important, but it is NOT fundamental, nor does it alter the structure of this country. In fact, from a structural standpoint, the Congress has and has always had the Constitutional power to reign in the excesses of the Supreme Court at any time they chose. They simply refuse to do so because it furthers their mutual agendas for power.

So what are those “fundamental” issues? I do not expect you to agree with me; this is a matter for other readers to judge for themselves. However, for starters:

1. Is the United States of America a sovereign nation or is it not? If the answer is yes, then is that sovereignty secure, or is it threatened? What is the direction, the trend? Can a nation which cannot control its borders be a sovereign nation? Can our military, specifically our Navy, freely sail the seas to defend the nation, or will they be subject to international jurisdiction or constraint under the Law of the Sea Treaty?

2. Is the United States of America operating under the rule of law, or the rule of men? Are people treated equally (more or less) under the law? More specifically, do the people still believe and have faith that they will receive equal justice before the law? Again, what is the trend?

3. Related to points 1 & 2, and as I mentioned in post 507, to whom does the United States belong? Does it belong to its citizens, or does it belong to the non-citizens of the rest of the world? Who decides who gets to come into the country and under what criteria, the actual citizens, or those non-citizens? If non-citizens decide to enter in violation of our laws and our leaders refuse to deal with it, are we still, as in point 2, a nation under the rule of law?

This list is by no means complete, but it is sufficient for the purpose of illustration. The ideas embodied in these questions are examples of the fundamentals, the first principles upon which the country is based.

If we wish to preserve the Constitutional Republic bequeathed to us by the Founders, then before we can intelligently cast our votes in this upcoming election we first have to answer these questions honestly for ourselves and decide which, if any, of these fundamentals we are prepared to sacrifice. Then we have to evaluate the candidates relative to their committment to defending these first principles.

If a candidate is unwilling to defend one of the existentially fundamental first principles necessary for the survival of the Republic, then that candidate is unacceptable, regardless of whether his policy positions would eventuate in the loss of our sovereignty quickly, or drag it out more slowly.

It makes no difference whether the engineer driving the train is a blatant socialist like Hillary or Obama, or a RINO Republican if they’re both going in the same direction, over the precipice into tyranny. The only acceptable candidate is one who will attempt to slam on the brakes and reverse direction.

The preservation of our Constitutional Republic is non-negotiable. It may already be too late to save it, but the effort must be made, and abandoning first principles by cutting sucker deals for the sake of ephemeral winning percentages and party advantage in a rigged electoral game will not suffice.

You either grasp this or you don’t. History repeats itself, right up until the day it doesn’t and everything changes. I’m not yet certain if those who can see the change coming are fortunate, or cursed, but I’m absolutely certain that those don’t (or won’t) see it are royally screwed.

[Sonora]

I’m thinking that you are insane.

[MNJohnnie]

Pure dogmatic nonsense. Without a shred of intellectual merit. The difference between a SC appointee like Ginzburg and one like Roberts and Alito renders your whole claim of them being "all the same" obvious nonsense.

The difference in tax policy, regulatory policy, Judges appointed, stand on "torture" and the WOT show that the differences between the parties are stark and deep. That they are NOT dogmatically 100% pure like yourself does not render them "All the same"

It easy to sit around the Net and scream for political purity, it a whole another thing to actually get into the game and actually try advanced your agenda when you have a "my way or the high way" dogma

PAST time the Freeper 100%ers get a grip on how our system of Govt works. It easy to sit around and listen to a bunch of never been anything Talk Radio hosts scream into their mics how to run the world. Problem is, they never ever have to put their money where their mouths are.

Ours is a system of checks and balances, NO one gets to dictate to everyone around them what when and how to do it. It designed that way to prevent anyone from accumulating too much power over everyone else. Thus it is designed to be a system of Govt that requires cooperation and consensus to achieve anything.

Unfortunately to the current crop of political activist Boomers, cooperation and concerns are dirty words.

Like the spoiled brats they have been their whole life, they assume that they have some sort of mythical right to dictate to everyone else around them HOW to do anything based wholly how they "Feel" about any single political issue.

NO they don't. The 100%ers should try actually winning some elections and see how far their "my way or the highway" dogmas get them It easy to live in fantasy Internet bubble world land and lie to yourself that everything can be easily ordered to fit your personal emotion based political dogma, it another thing to actually get in the game and learn how our system of Govt actually works.