Obama on Supreme Court Judges

Obama's popular because he appeals to white guilt and the promise that he'll be different. He's charming and well spoken and VERY politically correct.

He is also even more of a leftist than any other person that has ever run for president.

Obama has a cultlike following, and every serious criticism of him will be met with accusations of racism and prejudice.

Once president, he will sign off on bans of most semiauto rifles and all .50 cals will become NFA items.

Ammo will be heavily taxed (50 cents per round to start)

He will raise taxes and increase spending that will make the last congresses excesses seem frugal.

He'll appoint judges in the supreme and circuit courts that will rubber stamp the most blatent abuses of power that have ever occurred in a western nation. He'll make bush look like a ACLU shill.

The media is in a love fest with him, and won't investigate anything he does or provide any sort of counterbalance to him.

At least with McCain we'd know that the media would be watching him. That isn't the case with Obama. Obama is beholden to all the radicals that got him elected an will pay them back enthusiastically.

We've got 3 lousy choices, and as much as Clinton wants to steal the nomination, it's not going to happen. McCain is a RINO and easily could have ran as a Democrat. I can't really vote for him in good conscious, but I can vote against Obama and will do so.
 
Among the many reasons to look at Obama is the possability of someone who is not promoting a more of the same rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Yeah, now we have someone who is promoting more of the same Jimmah Cartah rhetoric... it's just that too many people are too young to remember his miserable presidency. Hell, even liberal academics recognize Cartah as one of the two worst presidents of the last century (Warren Harding being the other).
 
What it proves is that were are unwilling to remove and disbar judges who push things that are not compatible with the American Constitution and way of thinking.
Click to expand...
You mean with your interpretation of the Constitution and what you believe the American way of thinking should be.
 
There are SC justices who use sources outside of the Constitution to make their decision. That is wrong.
And I don't need my interpretation, just a strict constructionist interpretation.
"Strict Constructionists" - those who believe the Constitution should be read literally. That would satisfy me. I believe that would lead to limited government and increase personal responsibility.
 
strict constitutionalist

I doubt there are any real strict constitutionalist life alive. For in order to interpret what things meant with no doubt you must be able to have the same context and meaning applied as it would have been when it was written.

What we have today are dozens of interpretation of the Constution being passed around as what the meaning was when it was written. Each of those contain differences in opinions of what might have been the meaning two hundred years ago. You do not have to spend endless hours to find multiple thought on some aspects of what the founders meant.

In many ways it is like interpretations of the bible. You can easily find twenty differing opinions on every entry in the bible becasue no-one can be 100% positive of what the original said. You need to rely on faith that your interpretation is correct.

One thing that seems to be left out in many of the interpretations is the simple fact that the document was a compromise of ideas that had to be agreed to by all. Just becasue it was signed by an individual does not prove that those signed agreed 100% to every word it contained. Each signer had thoughts on what content was most important to them and each had the ability to agree to content they might not fully agree with.

When the SC makes any decision those who agree with them claim the court is right while those who do not quickly claim they are wrong. The idea of returning to the strict constitutionalist is a great theory but one in which few individuals would agree with 100% of the time.
 
those who agree with them claim the court is right while
Click to expand...
There has been at least one decision where some who liked the result admitted that it was a bad interpretation.
And too many say that they don't like what the Constitution says and are willing to violate it to get what they want. That's not a different interpretation, just a willingness to not live up to the Constitution.
When I discuss the Constitutionality of an issue, I can reference the Constitution to support my view. Those on the opposite side usually just want to ignore it. Again, that is not different interpretations, but sticking with a principle, or not.
 
sbpf
why is he even so popular? (re: Obama)
Click to expand...

Because he is the chosen one according to the media. The media tells us who we should vote for and "follow obama" is the message America is getting from most of the media. The only time this may not work is when we have a strong Conservative to thwart that message. This year, we only have McCain and he is having trouble with Conservatives so.... there ya go... it's Obama's year.
 
Follow the money . Obama says he doesnt take any contributions from PACS, but that doesn't mean there is no big money from special interests in his campaign.

For some reason over 300 employees at high levels in Goldman Sachs, Americas most powerful investment banking firm have given Obama the maximum contribution of $2300 for the primary.

Wonder Why?:

Obama's top contributers for the primary by employer:

Goldman Sachs $544,481 :eek:
University of California $371,266
Ubs Ag $363,257
JPMorgan Chase & Co $353,808
Citigroup Inc $331,946
National Amusements Inc $313,511
Lehman Brothers $312,597
Google Inc $293,974
Harvard University $292,441
Sidley Austin LLP $287,795
Skadden, Arps et al $266,413
Morgan Stanley $253,576
Jones Day $245,875
Time Warner $245,828
Exelon Corp $229,861
Wilmerhale Llp $215,231
University of Chicago $208,007
Latham & Watkins $199,966
Microsoft Corp $196,093
Kirkland & Ellis $190,976

If you look at McCain he hasn't received nearly the scratch from the big corporations that Obama has.:confused:

They do expect something in return.
 
McCain is about to make a campaign decision which will most likely result in his eventual defeat. He will accept public funds and this will prevent him from taking money from private donors. Thus, he will max out at 84 million. Obama will raise much more than that, and will outspend mccain. It's depressing to think about, but it looks more and more like an Obama land slide.

Damn'd republican party.... they need to get their stuff together and send us a conservative instead of someone like McCain.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080501/EDITORIAL/990331067/1013
Funding McCain's campaign

THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL
May 1, 2008

John McCain's fund-raising report for March revealed that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had returned nearly $3 million in contributions that had been earmarked for the general election. That action sets the stage for Mr. McCain to accept the $84 million in public financing for the general election. The money will be available after the Republican Party's convention in early September.

Presidential candidates who accept public financing for the general election cannot raise funds from private donors. Thus, Mr. McCain's decision also sets the stage for the Republican nominee to be grossly outspent throughout the fall campaign, regardless of whom the Democrats nominate. It is almost certain that neither Barack Obama, whose campaign has already raised more than $250 million, nor Hillary Clinton, whose campaign coffers are already bulging with about $25 million that can only be spent during a general-election campaign, will join Mr. McCain in accepting public funding. Tellingly, at a Monday luncheon with reporters and editors at The Washington Times, an otherwise loquacious Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who is a former chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), spoke haltingly before he demurred and declined to comment about Mr. McCain's apparent decision to accept public funding.
Click to expand...
 
McCain already made the decision on funds

When McCain filed the paperwork that allowed him to loan himself campaing funds he put the paperwork in place. Now he has no actual choice but to comply with whatever elevtion/campaing laws he agreed to follow. He can not simply say OPS I want to change the rules at this point in the game.
 
I think many of his supporters are simply grossed out by 8 years of Bush.
Click to expand...

no doubt.

For some reason over 300 employees at high levels in Goldman Sachs, Americas most powerful investment banking firm have given Obama the maximum contribution of $2300 for the primary.

Wonder Why?:
Click to expand...

I dunno, maybe because the average salary at GS is pretty dang high and if they are going to support a candidate, the maximum doesn't seem as high as it does to you and me?

Maybe a better question is why isn't McCain getting as much money? To the average GS guy, capital gains taxes is one of their primary motivators.
 
When McCain filed the paperwork that allowed him to loan himself campaing funds he put the paperwork in place. Now he has no actual choice but to comply with whatever elevtion/campaing laws he agreed to follow. He can not simply say OOPS I want to change the rules at this point in the game.
Click to expand...

Except the FEC can't enforce squat without enough members essentially rendering it defunct.

What would be the response if McCain violated election rules AND gets elected? Is that officially a SHTF moment where we break out our 2nd amendment to take back the government, or do we all simply remain sheep? Cause option (b) is what I would expect from this board if I put out a poll.
 
I dunno, maybe because the average salary at GS is pretty dang high and if they are going to support a candidate, the maximum doesn't seem as high as it does to you and me?
Click to expand...


Yes Obamas philosphy must me right in line with Goldman Sachs, after all they are an arm of the Communist party, and would like to see their firm subject to strict government regulation, heck they all wish they could give all their money to the Government and the poor I'm sure:rolleyes:

The point is their managment is directing the contributions they are making. What has Obama promised them? Or are they all looking forward to shorting stocks or loosing all of their money???
 
The point is their managment is directing the contributions they are making.
Click to expand...

Completely invalid point. All you have is contribution totals. Maybe you have internal memos or something?

Why must you assume conspiracy?
 
When McCain filed the paperwork that allowed him to loan himself campaing funds he put the paperwork in place. Now he has no actual choice but to comply with whatever elevtion/campaing laws.
Click to expand...
There is a certain irony in McCain gettng smoked by the very pro-Democrat "campaign finance" bill that he himself authored.
 
There is a certain irony in McCain gettng smoked by the very pro-Democrat "campaign finance" bill that he himself authored.
Click to expand...

Ah, the irony of it all. Ironic that such a thing could happen and even more ironic that the republican that conservatives like the least is the nominee of the republican party.
 
even more ironic that the republican that conservatives like the least is the nominee of the republican party.
Click to expand...

McCain got nominated because of Republicans being divided so vastly between the candidates and democrats crossing over and voting McCain. I'm not saying dems alone got McCain nominated but they helped.
 
I'm not saying dems alone got McCain nominated but they helped.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. . . what exactly did the dems do again to help? Just by not being Republican?

I'm pretty sure the spastic actions by the republican party is purely self-induced. (same with the pelosi/reid leadership problem on the other side)
 
The next 4 to 8 years could be the most critical in the history of the American Republic. Internally, we will decide whether the ideals of freedom - free speech, freedom of religion, Second Amendment rights, and free markets - will prevail, or whether we degenerate into a communist/socialist government run welfare state.

It is a genuinely slippery slope. Once the citizenry cedes power to the government, the bureaucracy rarely passes it back, without extreme measures.

Externally, the Islamic movement will continue pressuring Western democracies to accommodate and share power. Those who do, France, for example, will find that power sharing was not the aim, and may find Western values subjugated to the dictates of Sharia law.

The question to ask is, which of the presidential candidates is most likely to protect and defend the Constitution, without reservation, as did Ronald Reagan and George Bush? Every other consideration aside, absent an unqualified commitment to freedom, we may well compromise our freedoms out of existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top