PDA

View Full Version : obama vs Justice Clarence Thomas



Dutch
08-18-2008, 10:28 AM
from the WSJ, Aug. 18


Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy. Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.
So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.

Keith Wilson
08-18-2008, 10:36 AM
. . . he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.Nonsense. This describes Scalia or Roberts. Thomas has shown himself to be the court's intellectual lightweight, probably the least able and most ideological of all recent appointees. Obama's exactly right.

Post on a subject you know something about, OK?

pcford
08-18-2008, 10:46 AM
Not to mention that Thomas is a liar.

I never thought the country would fall for that "high tech lynching" defense, but I was wrong. He is clearly a fortunate person who has risen above his abilities. He rose on the basis of affirmative action, but wants to pull up the ladder for those that follow him.

ljb5
08-18-2008, 10:48 AM
At the time of his nomination, The American Bar Association had rated Justice Thomas "not qualified" on some aspects.

His performance on the Supreme Court is most notable in that he almost never asks questions or offers comments.

He has gone more than two years without saying anything at all during arguments.

John of Phoenix
08-18-2008, 10:48 AM
he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Got a link? :rolleyes:

Dutch
08-18-2008, 10:50 AM
xxx

Dutch
08-18-2008, 10:51 AM
Not to mention that Thomas is a liar. And a negro

Thats what you meant isnt it?

Keith Wilson
08-18-2008, 10:55 AM
So it bugs you when he tells the truth, rather than gives a carefully scripted answer that won't upset anyone? My goodness!

Maybe Obama can borrow McCain's "straight talk express" now that John isn't using it anymore.

I really recommend you post on subjects you know something about.

PatCox
08-18-2008, 11:07 AM
Dutch, whereever did you get the idea that a person who gets a string of political appointments is smart? It means they kiss ass really good, not that they're smart. It means they can be trusted to do the bidding of the person who appointed them, stuff like appointing their son president of the US.

Thomas is indeed the dumbest justice, noone disagrees. He freinds with that oxycontin addicted bufffoon, Limbaugh, for crying out loud. Doesn't that say it all? How dumb do you have to be?

Though he is some freak with the porno movies. Its too bad the dems agreed to the compromise with the republicans on the commitee under which they only brought on one witness to say he harrassed them; they had a half dozen.

Milo Christensen
08-18-2008, 11:12 AM
. . . I really recommend you post on subjects you know something about.

When the subject is trolling for Obamacans, the new, improved Dutch knows everything that's necessary to get a rise and reel y'all in hook, line, and sinker.

Tom Montgomery
08-18-2008, 11:23 AM
Not all of us. ;-)

Milo Christensen
08-18-2008, 11:26 AM
Not all of us. ;-)

Ahh, yes. You do rise to a different lure, don't you? ;) :)

Osborne Russell
08-18-2008, 11:36 AM
Actual qualifications aside, remember that President Bush 1 didn't say he was qualified, he said he was the most qualified man in America.

Anyone who doesn't call that ignorant and stupid is ignorant and stupid.

pcford
08-18-2008, 11:36 AM
Not to mention that Thomas is a liar. And a negro
Thats what you meant isnt it?

Yes. Hit the nail right on the head Dutch.....

Especially since I've been living with, as you would say, a colored gal for 20 years.

Dutch, I much preferred your v.1 Dutch. This one is just another nitwit cornservative. You can do better. You've done it in the past.

ron ll
08-18-2008, 11:38 AM
Thats what you meant isnt it?

What the HELL is the matter with your brain? Is it actually painful if and when you use it?

Tom Montgomery
08-18-2008, 11:42 AM
I do enjoy the Bilge, Milo. ;-)

Dutch
08-18-2008, 01:53 PM
Yes. Hit the nail right on the head Dutch.....

Especially since I've been living with, as you would say, a colored gal for 20 years.



wow :eek: no wonder youre still fuming about clarence thomas. He made all the colored women look like liars all at once didnt he? :(

Are the rest of you guys living or married to colored gals too? :)

Nicholas Scheuer
08-18-2008, 02:01 PM
Coming in late (a few days up in Wisconsin) I have to agree with Obama, and Keith Wilson.

I never thought Thomas was an optimum choice.

Moby Nick

Rum_Pirate
08-18-2008, 02:12 PM
Anyone read

The Appeal

by

John Grisham ?


With all due respect could the story outline in this book apply to Justice Clarence Thomas?

George Roberts
08-18-2008, 04:17 PM
Like the rest of the Justices, Mr. Thomas shows up for work and renders his decisions.

Since the facts are part of the court record, there is really no need for questions.

skuthorp
08-18-2008, 04:27 PM
What Pat Cox said,
"Dutch, whereever did you get the idea that a person who gets a string of political appointments is smart? It means they kiss ass really good, not that they're smart. It means they can be trusted to do the bidding of the person who appointed them, stuff like appointing their son president of the US.
Thomas is indeed the dumbest justice, noone disagrees. He freinds with that oxycontin addicted bufffoon, Limbaugh, for crying out loud. Doesn't that say it all? How dumb do you have to be?
Though he is some freak with the porno movies. Its too bad the dems agreed to the compromise with the republicans on the commitee under which they only brought on one witness to say he harrassed them; they had a half dozen"

A dodgy appointment to a decidedly dodgy court. After demonstrably failing at the most important decision they were ever likely to be part of, there will always be a political taint on their judicial decisions.

ljb5
08-18-2008, 05:24 PM
Like the rest of the Justices, Mr. Thomas shows up for work and renders his decisions.

Since the facts are part of the court record, there is really no need for questions.

So why do the other justices ask so many questions? :confused:

Osborne Russell
08-18-2008, 06:15 PM
What was McCain's response to the question?

Osborne Russell
08-18-2008, 06:17 PM
When the subject is trolling for Obamacans, the new, improved Dutch knows everything that's necessary to get a rise and reel y'all in hook, line, and sinker.

Yep, if substance is at the bottom of your list, and cheap entertainment at the top, you should be pleased.

George Roberts
08-18-2008, 06:56 PM
"So why do the other justices ask so many questions? :confused:"

Tradition?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-18-2008, 07:15 PM
George, as I think you know, the facts are never in issue before an appellate Court. A Judge asks a question to elucidate a point of law in the argument being put by Counsel.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-18-2008, 07:17 PM
Dear pseudo-Dutch, don't you know that you never, ever, read the opeds and leaders in the WSJ?

pcford
08-18-2008, 07:39 PM
Dear pseudo-Dutch, don't you know that you never, ever, read the opeds and leaders in the WSJ?

Tell that to our man Smalser. He's tried to sneak WSJ editorials in to support his ideas.

Bob Smalser
08-18-2008, 07:39 PM
Obama vs Justice Clarence Thomas?

If you criticize Thomas you're a hero, but if you criticize Obama, you're a racist.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/anthem.jpg

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-18-2008, 07:55 PM
I think Obama made the simple mistake of replying to the question as a lawyer. After all, he is one.

pcford
08-18-2008, 07:55 PM
If you criticize Thomas you're a hero, but if you criticize Obama, you're a racist.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/anthem.jpg

Hey Mr. Smalser....show me a highly respected member of the legal profession that thinks Mr. Thomas is one of the great legal scholars of our time.

The guy is an embarrassment.

skuthorp
08-18-2008, 07:56 PM
Bob, Thomas was compromised before he was appointed, that's why he was appointed, and what was that photo supposed to illustrate? It may go down well in a society where the pressure to conform to overt 'patriotism' is the norm but from here it looks like a case of advanced jingoism.
And I'm sorry if that offends you in advance, and I quote Samuel Johnson: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", aware that he was referring to false patriotism.

Bob Smalser
08-18-2008, 08:23 PM
Hey Mr. Smalser....show me a highly respected member of the legal profession that thinks Mr. Thomas is one of the great legal scholars of our time.



But I'm not lauding Thomas, I'm saying Barry is some half-assed state legislator who needs another dozen or more years maturity on the national stage before I'll willingly trust my children to him.

The guy is an embarrassment.

Joe (SoCal)
08-18-2008, 08:27 PM
But I'm not lauding Thomas, I'm saying Barry is some half-assed state legislator who needs another dozen or more years maturity on the national stage before I'll willingly trust my children to him.

The guy is an embarrassment.

ROTFLOL Bobby you sure don't like our next president do ya :)
Will you respect the office once he is elected for the next 8 years ? ;)

Osborne Russell
08-18-2008, 08:28 PM
I'm saying Barry is some half-assed state legislator who needs another dozen or more years maturity on the national stage before I'll willingly trust my children to him.

That's what they said about Lincolon.


But I'm not lauding Thomas

How come he didn't need another dozen or more years on the bench?

ccmanuals
08-18-2008, 08:36 PM
But the one that everyone must have really enjoyed was Harriet Meirs. That attempted appointment was the absolute height of audacity.

Tom Montgomery
08-18-2008, 09:09 PM
If you criticize Thomas you're a hero, but if you criticize Obama, you're a racist.

Naaah... That's hyperbole. Now, if someone were to attempt to demean either one of them by referring to him as "Buckwheat"... THAT I would regard as racist.

PatCox
08-18-2008, 09:12 PM
Scalia, when you think about it, he's the Court's SamF.

Oh, the futility of defending Thomas. Desperation.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-18-2008, 09:28 PM
All you Obama haters going to go to the barricades if he is elected president or are you going to honor the wishes of your fellow Americans who won fare and square??

PatCox
08-18-2008, 10:24 PM
Chuck, some of them have already started shooting liberals. I don't think they can play by the rules. They never accepted Clinton as president, they tried a perjury trap coup, and he was white and basically a conservative, whats he known for, curtailing welfare, deregulating the financial sector (thats working out great) and allowing the unimpeded export of american jobs. And he was a white man. No, the thought of a liberal (he's not) black man, and a democrat, being president is just unacceptable, and will produce cognitive dissonance in many, its already evident, and some outbreaks of violence, again, already evident. Black people I know are fatalistic, and doubt Obama will live to see an inauguration, if he is elected.

Its like when Lincoln was elected, I think. He was so unthinkable and unaccetable to the south, that they started to secede before he even took office.

There are lots of people in a bind, its no longer acceptable to openly hold racist feelings, its easy to say you think blacks should be equal, but PRESIDENT? There's gonna be some heads exploding and wierd things happening in America the next few months.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-18-2008, 10:44 PM
If you criticize Thomas you're a hero, but if you criticize Obama, you're a racist.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/anthem.jpg

Thomas has been around for a long time. He has not only become a Supreme Court justice he has become a celebrity. He also has a history. Some of it appears unseemly. Some of it appears irrational. His output on the Supreme Court is available for all to see. All the heavy hitters in the legal profession can look at it and compare it to every other justice who ever sat. In short he is a big, big target. And the fact that everyone knows how he is going to vote as soon as the court agrees to hear the case doesn't help his rep much.
The guy on the left is going to be the next president. Make sure all your buttons are buttoned your brass is polished and don't forget to salute.

Bob Smalser
08-18-2008, 11:12 PM
Yawn. You said all that last time.

In 2004 you could have beat Bush with almost anybody, but you managed to pick the one guy who couldn't.

Now you not only have the Bush record to run against, your opponent is a senile septuagenarian whose base hates him. And you're again losing your ass. You should be 20 points ahead.

And with this demonstration of mass incompetence you expect the rest of us to hand the country over to you? I'll believe it when I see it.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-18-2008, 11:36 PM
Yawn. You said all that last time.

In 2004 you could have beat Bush with almost anybody, but you managed to pick the one guy who couldn't.

Now you not only have the Bush record to run against, your opponent is a senile septuagenarian whose base hates him. And you're again losing your ass. You should be 20 points ahead.

And with this demonstration of mass incompetence you expect the rest of us to hand the country over to you? I'll believe it when I see it.

I remember the '04 election well. That was the campaign where the Neocons sponsered a speaker wearing an Army uniform who accused John McCain of traitorous acts while he was a prisoner. I doubt there is anything the Democrats can say about McCain that would be as low as that.
It's OK to favor McCain but don't bet your pension check on him. There's a fresh wind ablowin'.

pcford
08-18-2008, 11:37 PM
Now you not only have the Bush record to run against, your opponent is a senile septuagenarian whose base hates him. And you're again losing your ass. You should be 20 points ahead.

And with this demonstration of mass incompetence you expect the rest of us to hand the country over to you? I'll believe it when I see it.

You had best believe it.

All the inside the beltway bloviators are talking about how Obama is not faring well.

Current Electoral College Count:
includes leaners
McCain 169
Obama 264
toss-ups 105

Not real close, huh?

www.pollster.com

jbelow
08-18-2008, 11:41 PM
Scalia, when you think about it, he's the Court's SamF.

Oh, the futility of defending Thomas. Desperation.

Pat , you must love SamF to put him in the same company as Anthony Scalia.
Scalia is a strict constitutionalist and a genius that works hard at it.

pcford
08-18-2008, 11:54 PM
Scalia is a strict constitutionalist and a genius that works hard at it.

Indeed, one of the great legal minds of the 19th century.

jbelow
08-19-2008, 12:01 AM
You had best believe it.

All the inside the beltway bloviators are talking about how Obama is not faring well.

Current Electoral College Count:
includes leaners
McCain 169
Obama 264
toss-ups 105

Not real close, huh?

www.pollster.com

Don't count those chickens before they hatch or you may have egg on your face!
It aint over till them levers are pulled.
You PC guys have done a good job with white guilt and the fear of white people being called racist. If the polls are wrong and BHO loses, you can bet that the libturd media will blame white America.

pcford
08-19-2008, 12:16 AM
Don't count those chickens before they hatch or you may have egg on your face!
It aint over till them levers are pulled.
You PC guys have done a good job with white guilt and the fear of white people being called racist. If the polls are wrong and BHO loses, you can bet that the libturd media will blame white America.

Ah, I see you are from Texas. No white guilt with you I'll wager.

Did anybody worth a darn come out of that god forsaken state except Janis Joplin? There must be more?

jbelow
08-19-2008, 01:23 AM
Ah, I see you are from Texas. No white guilt with you I'll wager.

Did anybody worth a darn come out of that god forsaken state except Janis Joplin? There must be more?

You win your wager but you would lose your wager for any hint of racisum.
I have no shame in calling a joker a joker.

You must hate Texas. Your prejudice really shines through to claim the best thing that came out of Texas was a self desructive musician that commited suicide.

She lived aprox. 30mi down the road from me. I do like her music.

pcford
08-19-2008, 01:43 AM
You win your wager but you would lose your wager for any hint of racisum.
I have no shame in calling a joker a joker.

You must hate Texas. Your prejudice really shines through to claim the best thing that came out of Texas was a self desructive musician that commited suicide.


I know...some of your best friends.......

Well hate is too strong a word. I once drove through Texas from your part of the state to somewhere north of Amarillo. Long, boring and uninteresting would be the best I could say.

It will take years to erase the shame that W has brought upon the state.

jbelow
08-19-2008, 01:49 AM
Indeed, one of the great legal minds of the 19th century.

You forgot the 20th and 21st. He could transend time and never legislate from the bench.

pcford
08-19-2008, 01:54 AM
You forgot the 20th and 21st. He could transend time and never legislate from the bench.

Oh, "transend" time...and is he faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings?

And what does legislate from the bench mean to you? The extreme right always uses it when they disagree with a judicial decision.

Just curious.

jbelow
08-19-2008, 02:03 AM
I know...some of your best friends.......

Well hate is too strong a word. I once drove through Texas from your part of the state to somewhere north of Amarillo. Long, boring and uninteresting would be the best I could say.

It will take years to erase the shame that W has brought upon the state.

You don't know any of my friends.
Hate is a word that fits you well .
Four years of BHO will erase any shame that W has brought upon the Great State of Texas.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-19-2008, 06:29 AM
Ah, I see you are from Texas. No white guilt with you I'll wager.

Did anybody worth a darn come out of that god forsaken state except Janis Joplin? There must be more?

Lyndon Baines Johnson?

Dutch
08-19-2008, 07:47 AM
Lyndon Baines Johnson?

yep. the dems can be proud of him. The single worst thing that was ever done to the blacks in this country since slavery was perpetrated by this guy and the democrat party.

Unfortunately most of them havent figured it out yet.

pcford
08-19-2008, 10:45 AM
Lyndon Baines Johnson?

There was his little war in SE Asia.

Keith Wilson
08-19-2008, 11:07 AM
Did anybody worth a darn come out of (Texas) but Janis Joplin? There must be more?Molly Ivins.

jbelow; I have a request for you, and I'll try to put it as politely as possible. Could you please cut out the insults?

We live an a democracy; while it's certainly imperfect, we all have the right to our political opinions, and the authority of the government rests on the consent of the governed. To decide political issues, we need to talk about them. This is made more difficult what you reflexively use insults like "libturds" . You realize that you're talking about roughly half the citizens of your country, and describing them as sh!t because of their political beliefs? Do you really think this is consistent with American principles?

Milo Christensen
08-19-2008, 11:17 AM
. . . I have a request for you, and I'll try to put it as politely as possible. Could you please cut out the insults? . . .

. . . You realize that you're talking about roughly half the citizens of your country, and describing them as sh!t because of their political beliefs? Do you really think this is consistent with American principles?

I live for the day when the same thing is asked of those with whom you share the same ideology.

Keith Wilson
08-19-2008, 11:25 AM
Good idea. Go for it.

PatCox
08-19-2008, 11:30 AM
Hee Hee, Jbelow still hasn't gotten the "19th century" thing.

Osborne Russell
08-19-2008, 11:55 AM
But I'm not lauding Thomas, I'm saying Barry is some half-assed state legislator who needs another dozen or more years maturity on the national stage before I'll willingly trust my children to him.

The guy is an embarrassment.

You could triple the force of this observation by explaining why the Chimp was more qualified.

Nat Rackett
08-19-2008, 12:42 PM
Dutch

Back to your original post, Obama said that he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas for two reasons: 1) at the time he was nominated he did not have the qualifications and 2) he profoundly disagreed with his interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, Obama could have agreed with his interpretation of the Constitution, but still would not have nominated Clarence Thomas because Obama did not think that he had the qualifications.

As someone has already pointed out, the American Bar Association (ABA) also had questions regarding the qualifications of Clarence Thomas. The ABA committee has three ratings: well qualified, qualified and not qualified. The ratings are based on “integrity, professional competency and judicial temperament”. As I understand the ratings, they have nothing to do with politics, ideologies or constitutional theories.

Following is a run down of the ABA ratings for each of the current Supreme Court Judges:

Roberts – well qualified – unanimous vote
Thomas – qualified – 12 votes for qualified and 2 votes for not qualified
Alito – well qualified – unanimous vote
Ginsberg – well qualified – unanimous vote
Stevens – well qualified – unanimous vote
Breyer – well qualified – unanimous vote
Souter – well qualified – unanimous vote
Scalia – well qualified – unanimous vote
Kennedy – well qualified – unanimous vote

The ABA ratings are not the be all and end all, but as with the other 8 justices you would expect that a nominee to the highest court in the land would receive a unanimous well qualified rating.

McCain also said that he would not have nominated Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter or Stevens. McCain was in the Senate and voted on all of these justices except for Stevens who was confirmed before McCain became a Senator. McCain voted YEA on the confirmations of Ginsberg, Breyer and Souter. I will let everyone draw their own conclusions why John McCain would vote for the confirmation of these justices and then say he would not have nominated them.

By the way, Obama also said that he would not have nominated Roberts or Scalia and he voted against the confirmation of these judges.

PS

McCain also complained about the wasting money on a DNA study of bears during the debate. I agree, the study sounds like a waste of money, but it turns out that McCain voted for the bill that contained the appropriation for this study. According to FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html) McCain tried to cut the funding for other projects in the bill that contained the DNA study, but he did not try to cut the funding for the bear project.

In response to the question regarding evil McCain told a story about Al Qaeda in Iraq using two mentally retarded women with Downs Syndrome as suicide bombers who were sent into a market with bombs that were detonated by remote control. Unfortunately, it appears that McCain embellished the story. According to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/world/middleeast/21iraq.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=IRaq%20downs%20syndrome%20suicide%20bomber%20&st=cse&oref=slogin) although the initial news report featured the charge that bombers had Downs Syndrome, later reports stated that a review of the bombers’ psychiatric case files did not contain any information that the women suffered from Downs Syndrome.

Finally, I found McCain’s statement that “I will follow him (Bin Laden) to the gates of hell” and his statement that he would "defeat" evil in the world reminiscent of Bush’s “dead or alive” or “bring it on” bravado. Even Bush has said that he regrets that kind of talk.

McCain says that Teddy Roosevelt is one of his heroes. Rather than talking big and inflating the importance of Bin Laden, I suggest that we should take a page from Teddy’s playbook and walk softly and carry a big stick.

PatCox
08-19-2008, 12:57 PM
Nat, the response will be that the ABA is a bunch of liberal elites, like the media, like academia, like all scientists, and so on and so on. To the conservative mindset, if a decision-maker, mediator, judge, rating organization, any theoretically non-partisan, nuetral observer makes any finding which in any way goes against the conservative position, then that observer is by definition a partisan liberal elite. They seem to believe that because their positions, all of them, are true and correct beyond any honest cavil, disagreeing with them is per se proof of dishonesty, partisanship, prejudice, and/or stupidity.

jbelow
08-20-2008, 08:42 PM
Molly Ivins.

jbelow; I have a request for you, and I'll try to put it as politely as possible. Could you please cut out the insults?

We live an a democracy; while it's certainly imperfect, we all have the right to our political opinions, and the authority of the government rests on the consent of the governed. To decide political issues, we need to talk about them. This is made more difficult what you reflexively use insults like "libturds" . You realize that you're talking about roughly half the citizens of your country, and describing them as sh!t because of their political beliefs? Do you really think this is consistent with American principles?

Request granted . I will find a less offensive word.

PatCox
08-20-2008, 09:03 PM
Cicility will not be possible so long as both sides believe that their beleifs are completely in opposition, totally opposed, good and evil, black and white. We will just naturally be civil if we could just understand that we are not so opposed, so different, as we think. I agree with all conservative values, government should be as small as possible to do what we agree we want it to do. People should have as much freedom as possible, intrusive, nanny-state rules are all bad. Taxes are bad, they should be as low as possible to fund what we want the government to do. Charity programs should not encourage sloth, they should help the needy. Free enterrpise and capitalism are forces for good, but the government does have a role in keeping the market truly open to competition, so as to make free market forces work better and do what they are capable of doing, promoting efficiency and innovation.

I am able to see that both sides have merit, and both sides have excesses, both sides have noble ideals, both sides have forces that corruptly pervert those ideals.

I am a liberal, true, but I work in regulatory affairs, I work for industry fighting against government regulation. Much of which is unnnecessary, stupid, restrictive, and wrong. But much of which is also necessary, and works.

The right balance is created when both sides have input and are willing to compromise. Nothing good can happen when both sides have a scorched earth, we're right, you're wrong, approach from the outset.

When you think any liberal is a commie and a libturd who wants to have gay teachers recruiting your kids and outlawing religion and turning america into a communist state, when you won't grant any validity whatsoever to any of the ideas and values of your opponent, then meaningful discourse is impossible.

There is common ground, we are not so far apart, but our leaders for 30 years or so have been engaged in exaggerating the differences and polarizing their followers that the very possibility of the compromise that is necessary for democracy to work has been eliminated. Democracy is compromise. When compromise is regarded as capitulation, compromise becomes impossible. Democracy becomes impossible, instead there is only a dictatorship by the majority, which then further polarizes. Our country and its political climate has become so poisonous it threatens the working of the system created by our forefathers in the Coonstitution. We must, we must, believe that we are all Americans first with the best interest of our country and its people in our hearts, even when we disagree, for our government to work and function, for it to do its job. And if you think government is per se evil and always wrong, its hopeless.

Paul Girouard
08-20-2008, 09:12 PM
This is made more difficult what you reflexively use insults like "libturds" . You realize that you're talking about roughly half the citizens of your country, and describing them as sh!t because of their political beliefs?

Do you really think this is consistent with American principles?




It is how ever quite consistent with most political threads here in the bilge:D, from both sides of the political aisle I might add. :rolleyes: