Posted on 05/10/2010 4:18:18 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
New tagline...
“That is a very tiresome argument that has nothing to do with the real world. I don’t know a single conservative who voted for Obama or who refused to vote for McCain for not being “conservative enough”, so you don’t need to preach.”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It is a tiresome argument to those who are guilty of it.
There are plenty here on this board who vowed not to vote for McCain, much less do what they could to get him elected.
And there are more who hate Romney.
US Constitution; Art 3, Sec 1 The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.I guess it depends on the definition of Good Behavior.
>Kagan’s nomination, and likely approval, is a testament to all the NITWIT conservatives out there who found that Romney wasn’t perfect enough, or that McCain wasn’t perfect enough.
John “Amnesty” McCain? *snort*
>Well, because they weren’t perfect enough, we got Obama. And now for 40 years or so, we’ll have Kagan.
You’re assuming the system won’t collapse soon.
>Thank you, all you highly principled conservatives who thought that Romney wasn’t conservative enough. Or that McCain wasn’t conservative enough.
You’re welcome / If we keep settling for ‘good enough’ how long before ‘good enough’ isn’t?
>Is Obama conservative enough for you? How about Sotomayor? How about Kagan?
>
>Elections have consequences.
Sure they do... but you’re assuming that we have fair and/or honest elections; I’m willing to bet money that Iraq’s elections are both more fair and more honest.
Impeachment is the only way to rid the country of a federal judge.
The most notable recent case is Alcee Hastings, a federal district judge in Florida. He was impeached and convicted of accepting a bribe in 1988.
Alas, the miscreant was then elected to Congress in 1992 -- where he remains to this day.
Our Freepers our great but short-sighted sometimes. This will change our course forever.
Your “bumper sticker, sound bite” answers are all disjointed, with no central core of related reasonability. There’s no theme, other than hatred and ignorance.
>And there are more who hate Romney.
If I were forced to vote, right now, for ONLY either Obama or Romney I would vote for Obama. The reasons are fairly simple, he is running out of “good graces” with the people, which would be restored somewhat for a change in President; also to consider is that Obama *IS* uniting people.
>Your “bumper sticker, sound bite” answers are all disjointed, with no central core of related reasonability. There’s no theme, other than hatred and ignorance.
Because your spiel is so full of holes, intellectually speaking, it’s hard for me to pick just one avenue of approach.
And to think that this country was founded by men, some of whom started out put by printing up and passing around political pamphlets.
For starters: Thomas Paine come readily to mind. Dr. Franklin as well.
The founder of this board voted for McCain. I’m sure he didn’t want that option but the hell you have now is a result of folks not voting. If you think 4 years of atrophy can be handled in this day you are very naive.
Urbanites can't survive on their own. If they tried, they would soon find themselves starving and suffering from exposure to the elements.
Some can survive on their own, if they've bothered to learn how. Although, most people enjoy the company and comradere of like minded folk.
I always suspected something wasn't right about them. When you hang out with a hottie like Daisey you got to go for it, even if she is your cousin!
>And there are more who hate Romney.
If I were forced to vote, right now, for ONLY either Obama or Romney I would vote for Obama. The reasons are fairly simple, he is running out of “good graces” with the people, which would be restored somewhat for a change in President; also to consider is that Obama *IS* uniting people.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Absolutely stunning in its extreme ignorance.
A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama, no matter how you spin it.
The country doesn’t care why you would have voted for Obama, it only cares about the numbers. And you would have added to Obama’s numbers, plain and simple.
Your “protest” vote would be completely meaningless. It would just be one more vote for Obama.
Your posts PERFECTLY support my original point - because McCain and/or Romney wasn’t perfect, you were sure going to “show us”, and get Obama elected.
And you did. Hope you like him. And his Supreme Court nominees.
Think McCain would have appointed Sotomayor, and Kagan?
“She was just doing Obama’s bidding. That is going to be the response to any questions people have of her work during the last year or so.”
That reasoning was tossed out during the Nuremburg trials.
You apparently missed the qualifier “only.” {As in “if I had to vote, right now, choosing ONLY between Pizza and Soup.”}
You also missed the qualifier “right now.”
You also missed the either-or/false-dilemma qualification/nature.
And, most importantly, you missed the “if then” Logic of the statement. (Hint: ‘If X then Y’/’X -> Y’ is always true, EXCEPT when X is true AND Y is False.)
In short, you NEED to brush up on your Logic, especially that of implication (if-then).
Well, we sure tried to impeach Cheif Justice Earl Warren in the 50’s and 60’s!!!
Although I am against her on the Court, I am sorry to disappoint you concerning Citizen's United [or any other case she's argued since March 2009].
The fact is that she is the Solicitor General [aka the Government's Lawyer]. She is the one that argues on behalf of the government - its her job.
She doesn't select the cases that she is assigned and she doesn't select the position that the government takes in those cases. She is told what the position is [by Obama and Company] - then she has to craft her arguments around it.
The job really sucks - if you accept the nomination [and are confirmed], sometimes you have to argue positions in front of SCOTUS that you really don't believe in.
Everybody go back and read #36 all over again!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.