Originally posted by Trader_Jorge I am not against separation of church and state. I believe the Christian faith has a strong moral code that is applicable to many areas of life. I also believe in freedom of religion. A conservative judicial branch will support both of these beliefs. It's hard to stay a Republican at times. I feel much more confident about a liberal court protecting both the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom of Religion.
Changing names hasn't made you any smarter. Uh, that makes no sense. It is what Whitman Mayo would call 'Goo goobilly goop.' The US does not have a pure market economy, silly goose. The welfare system would not exist, nor would the SEC, the EPA, the FDA, nor many other parts of the US government. First, please stop blaming me for your stupidity! Second, one of the quotes was from Business Week which is hardly the World Marxist Review. Third, one of the quotes was from the IMF, which the US controls. And arguing that tax cuts do not increase growth does not make me Eugene Debs. De-elected? The GHW Bush tax increase was the largest tax increase in history at the time. But again, combining that with Clinton's 'largest tax increase' destroys the argument that tax cuts increase growth.
Haven, Because the court is Conservative doesn't make it a activist court. A good example of an activist court is when the court changes the rule of law to benefit one party over another. The Lautenburg decision in New Jersey shows a activist court. The decisions of the Supreme Court are not activist, they are governed by the rule of law that is enforced by the Constitution. Because they interpret the law in a conservative manner doesn't make them activist. Changing the law to serve the needs of a political party does though.
MadMax, I might surprise you. I don't want a government of liberal judges, liberal legislators, and liberal executives. I truly don't. I have a lot of problems with liberals, actually, and I've learned the extent of this as I live in SF right now. The Green party, the "fundamentalist left," is driving me nuts right now. I like Phi83's point about a conservative court system following the constitution, but I also agree with Haven that some iterations of "conservative" in this case are actually so pro-active as to be somewhat radical. So the potential scares the crap out of me when a pres. who nominated someone like Ashcroft to an important post ("let the eagle soar!") will be filling crucial benches. And Phi83, hate me if you want, but I think your posts are great now that you're discussing, spelling, and using single puctuation. I'm not saying I'm so wonderful, but people will take you more seriously with those types of posts, IMHO.
After re-reading this entire thread I feel stupid for gloating and boasting. I take back everything I said. And I am dead serious. I am happy my party won. I should have left it at that. Chance
fine...but i'm not taking back the stuff about the flying monkeys! look it up! it's freaking real, dude!
How sad that people don't research before correcting others. Quotes Falsely Attributed to Churchill These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has falsely attributed them to Churchill. "Conservative by the time you're 35" "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! and would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal.
I never said it did. For example, you have the same name and still sound pretty r****ded. Cu Cu catchoo, what ever. Debate the facts! I never said a "PURE" market economy. The US has the closes thing to a market economy when compared to other contries. Yes there is still regulations that are mandated by government agencies, and I agree that is needed. But when the government runs all sectors of the economy like China, Soviet Union, and large segments EU it produces fix prices and a heavily taxed population. For example, that is why you see gas prices in France and Germany that are 4 time higher that here in the US. First off, I not blaming anyone for my stupidity. I'm not a democrat. Secordly, Business Week is a liberal rag that has time again been wrong on a host of issues, like tax cuts, stock market, Enron, energy, and oil. And last but not least, the IMF is controlled by who? BY WHO? The world bank which is based in Belgium and is not the problem of the US. The US has some influence, but does not by any means control it. And for my final blow to you pathetic arguement, Bill Clinton and the Democrat economy of the mid 90's was a gift from to beneifactors. The first being Reaganomics, the second being from the information revolution and you should thank Bill Gates for that. Yes, de-elected. Because of the Tax increase and Ross Perot. Let me say this again and this time I will stay it slower. Bill Clinton created the largest tax increase in the nations history. Because it was tacked on to a Bush increase doesn't matter, his tax increase is the largest by itself.
B-Bob, I don't hate you. I am all about love! But you can still kiss my A$$! Just kidding, I will start making a point and using my spell checker.
Huh? I never said that a court being conservative made it activist. In fact, previous conservative courts have not been activist. The NJ decision is rather ironic, since it's the reverse of what happened in Florida a couple years ago. And of course, the truly amusing thing is that... in the Florida decision, you would have expected a 5-4 decision... the other way! That's right! The conservatives took a radical liberal position on the subject... So, the Democrats should have won the case on a 5-4 decision, at worst, in which the conservatives gave them the victory. Of course, it didn't happen that way. The conservatives on that court certainly abandoned their principles... and the liberals may have (if Brennan or Marshall were still on the court, had they followed their principles, they would have sided with the conservatives). The recent decision is amusing, coming from a court that decided the opposite just a couple years ago with the same personnel. Guess the stakes have to be high for them to sell their principles down the river...
Yesterday was a tremendous setback for the Democratic Party. In all honesty, the Democrats should've been waking up this morning not only seeing their advantage in the Senate going up, but they really should've taken back the House. To me, it's not that people are necessarily against many of the things that Democrats stand for, it's just that the Democrats never bothered to tell us what they were for. In the absence of a real choice, why not go for the incumbent (which happened A LOT last night) or with the President and his party. Last night's election really was a continuation of the status quo in many ways. Yes, there were some changes in the governing of the country - the Republicans picked up seats in the House and regained control of the Senate... but let's not forget that the last time the electorate voted, the Republicans ended up with control of the Senate, too. It took Jim Jeffords leaving the party to change that.) I am a Republican, but this election looked to me like a fixed fight. The Democrats, in many cases, just failed to show up. You can disagree with Newt Gingrich's opinions, but his "Contract With America" campaign in 1994 was a masterstroke. He and the Republicans made a list of what they were for and never lost sight of that (at least until after they were elected, anyway). Those were issues that people could, in general, relate to. And it showed that they believed in something (whether they really did or not). Just looking at our State races, I had to wonder what anybody was for. There were some limited stabs at enunciating some vague positions, but I never got the feeling that Ron Kirk believed in anything beyond getting elected to the Senate (and the whole "Dream Team" ticket seemed like it was put together by a bunch of sitcom writers. There was too much attention paid to the demographics and not enough paid to the beliefs). To quote from a Salon.com article: "Those voters were listening for a powerful Democratic message about global security, the faltering economy, employment, education and healthcare. All they heard was "prescription drugs." I would add to that that many Democrats, at least the ones I heard (and I admit that I'm not as involved as a lot of people) spent a lot of time being anti-Republican and anti-Bush. It's okay to be against someone, but when you come across as nothing more than "Not Bush", your ability to motivate the electorate to vote for you is severely compromised. Tell me what you're for. Give me a compelling argument, and maybe I'll vote for you. Just telling me what you're against is not a compelling message. Elections should be about ideas... about opinions.... about beliefs. Find a candidate that can enunciate those things clearly, consistently (and politely in some cases, though some areas like a bulldog), and you've got a good chance to win. Yes, we often vote for the person rather than the party, BUT what gets us to like a person enough to want to go out and vote for him is often the IDEAS, the OPINIONS and the BELIEFS. Other things come into play, but without those three things, the chances of motivating someone to go vote for you is severely limited. And in the absence of a real choice, the status quo often prevails. (And, as a Republican, I'm still interested in a vigorous Democratic Party. I want there to be real debates about issues and beliefs. A strong opponent often makes for a stronger Republican party because they have to be stronger to win... If that makes any sense). But that's just what I think, I've been known to be wrong.
Hammer75: The quote is properly: Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill
Again, I told you guys Phi83 would have the last laugh. President Bush is not a smart dude, Not everyone in authority throughout History was. Sometimes it takes a simple approach with the right motives to make a country suceed. The Liberals are bickering and complaining because Now they have to sit back while Bush pushes his agenda through. I'm a pretty stupid person when it comes to politics, But I will support the President and all he is about to do.
You said 'read Adam Smith.' Interesting but irrelevant. The quotes I provided specifically talked about the US. What? Blasphemy! Heretic! Burn him at the stake! How is this relevant to the question of whether or not 'tax cuts stimulate growth?' I understand its part of your generic 'this is how to respond to a liberal' file, but why is it in this discussion? OK. As long as we got that straight. We can agree after all. You are responsible for your own stupidity. Whether or not that is true, they are not a dadgum foreigner like them Canadians or Belgiumese, as you claimed earlier. And I have yet to see your explanation of how tax cuts created the boom of the 90s. No, the World Health Organization is completely separate from the IMF and the World Bank. The US controls both the World Bank and the IMF. The US, in fact, appoints the 'President' of the World Bank, and uses both institutions as a vital part of its foreign policy. I doubt you could find one single source that claims the WB or IMF are independent from US decision making. I know we already agreed on your stupidity, but its 'argument,' 'benefactor,' and you normally wouldn't use 'from' and 'to' right next to each other. I have quoted sources that show that the 90s boom was NOT a dividend of Reaganomics. You have quoted squat. Nor have you given an explanation in lieu of a quote from some other authority. In addition, it is impossible to claim the 90s boom was a result of tax cuts when (even)Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all raised taxes. Bush and Clinton both signing very large increases. You are writing, not talking, stupid. Of course, you could be talking to your computer, but that would be weird. And in itself that denies the theory of increases stifling growth.
There have been some that have expressed concerns (occasionally to the point of paranoia) that Bush can now appoint fringe right wingers to the bench who will basically tear up the Constitution. I suppose he could. He hasn't shown a propensity to do that to this point, and I doubt he will. He is running for re-election in 2004 you know. The judges that have been appointed by Bush and shot down by the Senate have received a unanimous rating of "highly qualified" by the ABA. The ABA has members of all political persuasions, and leans to the left very slightly. What is disturbing about this situation is that this is the first time in our history that a judge with that rating was not confirmed by the Senate, and the reason given was ideology. Just my two cents on that matter. Yes...I am very pleased that the party I identify with won. No, I am not going to sit here and gloat.
Good point about the Court, Refman. It could be added that when one party controls both houses and the Presidency, many legislators in that Party will become more moderate.
Refman: Concerning highly qualified judges... ... Scalia is a genius. Brennan was a genius. The two absolutely despised each other. If Brennan wrote a majority opinion, Scalia wrote the minority... and the other way around. I think both of these two men were bad for the court. Brennan and Scalia should have both been law professors or, at most, lower court judges for all eternity. It's simply not good to have radical, activist judges on the Supreme Court. The SC should be "conservative" (in the common usage, not political meaning) by its very nature. It should wait for the legal community as a whole to resolve questions of jurisprudence, before making controversial legal decisions that will be overturned as soon as the ideological demographics of the court shift. For this reason, I'd rather have more like Stevens and White. What always amused me... was when they would actually chastise Brennan and Scalia for their absurdities if either went OTT. Unfortunately, the Souter apointment scared Presidents away from appointing qualified-but-moderate candidates, I think. The elder Bush appointed the imminently qualified Souter to the bench, believing him to be a slightly-right-of-center judge... and he turned out to be slightly-left-of-center member of the court. After the Souter appointment, we've seen less focus on ability and more on ideology. That's sad.
I think they will try to get their economic package through because they feel it is right for the country. The American people are grossly overtaxed...nobody try to convince me otherwise...you'll only be wasting your keystrokes. I do not think that we'll see more people like Ashcroft. He has been an embarrassment to the administration.
Glad you weighed in Refman. I was curious what your op onion would be. I like it. I therefore appoint you as: Worthy. Chance
