Nate Nagel wrote in
:
Jim Yanik wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote in
:
HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Are Bush Cheney signs useful for anything?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...
Do you deny that Bush/Cheney lied us into war or that McCain has
completely reversed his position on many issues since Y2K (or even
more recently, e.g. torture) most of them for the worse, in a
clear attempt to pander to the ignorant Bush core voter bloc?
* I deny that Bush/Cheny lied us into war.
* I do not deny that McCain has reversed his position on some
issues, notably immigration reform. On torture, the situation is
somewhat tortured. McCain, as a victim of torture himself, has been
adamant his entire career in opposing it. What the Democrats are
trying to do is use McCains vote against requiring the CIA to use
only those techniques listed in the Army Field Manual as evidence
he's in lock-step with the administration. There's a good write-up
at:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...729891,00.html
* I'd believe McCain took the base's desires into account when he
selected Sarah Palin, not even remotely convinced on the rest.
Look, the Republican party is made up of two elements: Social
conservatives and Economic conservatives.
Social conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
abortion, gun rights, and Supreme Court nominations. The rest is
just noise.
Economic conservatives are locked in to McCain on the issues of
free trade and tax cuts (Republicans believe tax cuts can cure
cancer and alleviate bee-bites). The rest is just noise.
In one poll I saw, a slightly higher percentage of Republicans
support McCain than Democrats do Obama. No Republican is going to
base his vote solely on torture, immigration reform, the war, or
any of the almost (to them) insignificant issues.
What about if you're a "weak" economic conservative (that is, in
favor of small government and low taxes, along with small government
and reduced spending, but not necessarily full scale deregulation
and aren't necessarily opposed to progressive income taxes) but are
opposed to the religious right?
And why *wouldn't* someone base their vote on the war, when it is
one of the largest challenges facing us today?
It might help if they had an ACCURATE idea of what the war was about
and it's real state at the present.
Nate has based his on inaccuracy and media propaganda.(that explains
a lot..)
nate
Nate,who do you believe is going to enlarge government the LEAST?
Obama already has advanced plans to greatly enlarge the government
and to usurp the Constitution.
you -say- you are a "conservative",but all your points demonstrate
you are a Liberal.
Based on the last two administrations, I believe the democrats would
actually expand government less than another republican
administration.
Like they have in the past?
Obama and the Chicago political machine shows otherwise.
nate
Based on WHAT?
you've already been shown to have formed opinion on incorrect
beliefs.("Bush lied"..)
let's see;Obama's civilian National Security Force(Brown Shirts),a National
Healthcare System,expanded IRS....and somebody has to hand out all those
checks Obama wants to send everyone.
Barack Obama, in 2001:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights
movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it
succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So
that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a
lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but
the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of
wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in
this society.
And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize
the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the
essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court
interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a
charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you,
says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what
the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the
civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so
court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the
political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are
able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring
about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive
change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
[snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you
know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that
essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court
is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to
legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.
and Nate believes Obama is not going to trash the Constitution....and is
for smaller government.
Nate;this **** should scare the crap out of you,
if you aren't a socialist/communist/America-hater.
did you read this yet?
http://tinyurl.com/6kcaja
it goes into great detail explaining this Obama statement.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net