Ahhh, this is even better. The old "Don't look at what he's done to destroy the country right now, wait ten years and he'll be looked back on as a savior" spin!!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

livin' in the State Of Denial like all Bush bitches.

DaddyHalbucks, you're always good for a laugh (at you)!!!

A few questions for you Bush haters...

Does Congress deserve any blame for the situation?

Does Congress deserve any blame for wasting time on ridiculous witch hunts while the homestead burns?

Does Congress deserve any blame for passing laws which enabled the sub prime mess?

How about the Mexican border being wide open?

The Iraq War..?

Sure, the Republican lead congress of his first 5 years in office did a great job of helping him ruin the country. Now the Democratic run congress is a lame duck trying to just hold on because they don't have enough votes to break a filibuster threatened by their Republican counterparts everytime they try and bring anything useful to the table. Besides the Dem's are a bunch of pussies.

At least you've finally admitted the "homestead burns"!

All rehabilitation starts with admitting you were wrong!!

As rome burrns all we hear is blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

All perfectly stated... it takes more than one man to fuck things up.

It's not a state of denial, it's a state of reality. How many Republicans out there can you find that say everything is ideal right now? Not many, if any... but you also can't judge Bush right now when you don't have all the information, you only have what's available to you.

I thought Clinton was pretty fucked up during the time he was in office... in retrospect, not a bad job... could have done some things better, but all in all not a terrible job. History gives you perspective that the moment doesn't.

So as bad as you think Bush is right now, his true worth and effect on the country won't be judged until he has been well out of office and perhaps longer than that.

I agree with DaddyHallbucks though, my assumption is that eventually information will come out which we have no clue about that will paint GWB as being the leader of the group that had a clue, rather than the opposite that people perceive now. No way to prove it.. just my hunch.

The most astonishing thing I've discovered on GFY is how many of my colleagues are moralizing hypocrites who vote Republican. I suppose it's no different than log cabin Republicans like Larry Craig, whose conservative politics are a reaction to the terrifying secret he (apparently) can not really contain.

You don't care what I think, and I feel the same way about you, so let me just say, if you you voted for Bush, and even if you didn't,

:GFY

W and the Republican lead congress put thru tax cuts while the country was at war. Wanna try and blame clinton for that? They burned thru the surplus and had to borrow from foreign countries which made the dollar worth shit.

I can only presume that you are not familiar with nico-t. IMHO, he is nothing but a troll and therefore is not worth the effort to respond to beyond reminding him that he is an idiot.

I believe if you re-read his post you will see what an idiotic statement it was.

Saying "it can't get worse" is an open invitation to fate showing you it can.

Yep. I am curious to hear baddog's rebuttal to this comment.

I've read Nico-T's posts. He's a mac lover and a designer, and as far as I can tell from those two things... well, good for him.

In my post, I just meant it's difficult seeing YOU post without any substance. You've got shit to say. Don't you? You're one of the few with a red nick. And you're one of the few with a red nick to post in threads that may offer some sort of challenging thought. But you don't. That's what's displeasing and irritating. You don't post shit about "pies / emus / i'm off my meds / i'd hit it" like the others in your "red nick club".

Was just hoping for something different. All apologies.

As long as it is a politician running, we have no chance.

Did you get so jaded when you stopped being a neo-con?

yeah those fucking war hero types, fuck them.

It's YOUR fault, and people like you, for being so easily by the repub spin machine. Kerry was 10x the man Bush is by ANY measure.

But he's french and a coward who's out of touch with the common man because he likes windsurfing and a flip flopper right?

Douchebag.

How about the Mexican border is a made up crisis for the bigoted repub base, just like trial lawyers are a made up crisis on behalf of the insurance companies.

How about Bush stood up and said we KNOW FOR A FACT that Saddam has wmd's and oh my he's planning to blow us up anyday, LYING to make it impossible for a responsible legislator to vote against authorizing funds for the war. They have the information they're given.

How about it's the red meat right wing that has prolonged the biggest money and time waster in our national history, the drug war?

Pretty much every problem we have ultimately can be laid at the feet of the stupider half of our population, the conservatives and those gullible enough to believe their bullshit.

You realize everyone on that list is a neo-con right? And yes I am glad I am no longer a neo-con :thumbsup

Its worth mentioning that Bush has also used his two terms in office to completely stack the Appellate and Supreme Courts with hardass conservatives. The only people who are making out are the ultra wealthy and oil companies. Right now the upper 1% of Americans control more wealth than at any time in history. The disparity between rich and poor is widening to incredible proportions.

Now here is a guy I could sit down and eat a steak with:thumbsup Good post.

Hillary will correct all that! :)

I sense a civil war coming on in the US within the next couple of decades or sooner. People on the left always assume that they are always right, that they are the smartest and that the people on the right are all dumb and should be shot in the head. The leftists are becoming more and more unhinged and belligerent and their numbers are growing every year. Their only tactics of debate are insults, shouting down their opponents and threatening or actually committing acts of violence.

One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to see what will happen when mentally unstable people who idolize lunatics like Che Guevera and Hugo Chavez are running the country.

Everyone seems to hate the right and capitalists but what good has ever come from a leftist running a country? How many countries have to be ruined by socialism before people decide that it's just not worth trying anymore? The left has committed more acts of evil in this world than any right-winger could ever hope to commit (yes more then Bush) and yet everyone seems to want to move further to the left. It boggles the mind.

:2 cents:

Oh well, I guess it's not all doom and gloom because if anyone can save the world, Obama-man can:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Rgt6YQiZTkc

:1orglaugh

You should be thankful for that. The last thing you want is a liberal court. You want one that will follow the letter of the law, not one that tries to make a statement.

Some call themselves Democrats, some Republicans. What they all have in common is that they are potato heads and are easy to distract:2 cents:


http://i.pbase.com/o6/74/637374/1/72....DSC2_6173.jpg

He can what? I hear all this crap about we need change and Obama is the only one that can do it, but I have yet to hear what he can change, much less how he would do it.

Just being a black guy in the White House isn't going to do much.

You have to watch the linked video.

Amen.

One thing that many peeps don't realize is how proficient a conservative court is at standing on issues that are generally considered liberal in nature...

Take one example... a big one...

The last time that the "legalization of marijuana" issue was up before the Supreme Court (2005), the Court upheld the idea that the Fed had the power to block Doctors from prescribing the drug, 6 to 3....

All 3 of the Dissenters - citing the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution as a basis for the matter to _not_ be in the Federal Jurisdiction - were appointed by Republican Presidents, and considered "Conservative" judges: O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas.

Every single one of the "Liberal" judges upheld the Fed's right to intervene in State's and Individual's Rights.

The track record shows that conservative judges are the best at preserving individual liberties. :2 cents:

Conservative Executives, on the other hand... :disgust

Most GFYer's will never get it, even though I have been trying to get that message across for several years.

I am changing my vote.

Please generalize somemore and show no facts. Typical right wing fight.

http://www.nbc6.net/news/15294927/detail.html
https://youtube.com/watch?v=4VRCeBSOOEM&NR=1
https://youtube.com/watch?v=l5lJrMvqahA

still in Canada ???? amazing ....


Nice " facts " btw....:1orglaugh

Yep, still in Canada - loving the current "right wing" government. :1orglaugh

Besides that, what the fuck is it to you?

Well, most of that was my opinion based on things I see happening.

If you doubt anything else I said feel free to look it up for yourself and prove me wrong.

oh yeah, brown v board of education, women's suffrage, all that liberal bullshit is just taking us to hell in a handbasket.

much rather have a conservative court to throw unruly citizens and journalists in the gulag, bring back the polltax and keep the darkies down right baddog?

you're confusing freedom of speech issues with states rights issues, conservative judges always rule on the side of govt when it comes to police state policies. The marijuana ruling was to NOT set a precedent that states could enact their own laws irrespective of federal law and have it take precedent, and you should be glad of that because 'states rights' is a made up issue from the deep south to defend slavery, and it has been on the evil side of every issue since then.

Watch what happens when it comes to issues of individual liberty against governmental powers of surveillance, search and seizure and other issues that REALLY matter and see if you still hold this belief.

I love it!! throw out opinions, and then tell people to prove it wrong.

right out of the neo-con handbook!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Finally someone that really gets it!!! :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

Well the argument could be made that there are better methods of transportation available, but society is so invested in cars, roads and parking lots that it makes it almost impossible to change now.

Sorry to be the one to turn your concept of how the universe works upside down (it happened to me once upon a time, too), but every judge that was a Dissenter in Brown vs. Board of Education (all 4) was appointed by a Democratic President. Every "Conservative" judge on the court voted in favor of the court's decision. :2 cents:

That said, Woman's suffrage was a legislative issue - not judicial.

I like my bikes, what can I say? Would never vote for anyone that would make it impossible for me to enjoy the thing I love the most.

shhh, you are going to disturb his illusions.

I'm speaking of individual liberty, in general.

You're mistaken. Conservative Judges are, historically, the staunchest defenders of our Rights expressed in the first 10 amendments, as I said earlier.

The Federal Government simply has no jurisdiction over the matter. I've offered it before, and I'll offer it again... to make my point: show me where, in the U.S. Constitution (as read by a reasonable person), the Federal Government is granted the power to stop me from growing marijuana in my back yard and selling it to my neighbor (who lives in the same state), and I'll pay you $100.

I'm now convinced you haven't read the Constitution of the United States, because you're blatantly mistaken. Refer to Amendment #10 in the Bill of Rights to see where you're incorrect in this regard.

It's not a belief. It's a trend noted by many academics. It's "Liberal" judges that will most often toss aside issues of liberty for what they consider a "greater good."

Ironic, perhaps - but no less true.

Again... sorry to be the one to turn your world upside down here... I felt it myself when I came to this realization a few years back.

I remember when this whole realization hit me several years ago... it was after a lecture given by a Doctor of Philosophy I've come to have a great deal of respect for.

Took me about a week to really shake the daze, I think... but it's generally a good thing to see past the bullshit, and witness things more clearly... so I got over it.

Still... I'm of the mind that no amount of potential benefit to the courts can make up for the atrocities committed by our current President. He's a disgrace to the country - on multiple fronts.

I know scoreman went to law school, what law school did D and baddog go to? Im curious.

I didn't go to law school, nor do I ever plan on doing so.

You listened to one lecture, I have a degree from the U. of Missouri in political science.

You're talking about old time dixie democrats in brown v. board, who are all conservatives now. When it comes to tapping your phone, taking your property without cause, violating your civil liberties - your ability to inform yourself and make choices based on the information - it is the conservatives who want to shut you down. If they had their way, dissent of any kind would be illegal. Conservatives want to throw journalists from the NY times in jail RIGHT NOW. They want to detain US citizens indefinitely, without trial, RIGHT NOW. They want absolute freedom to monitor your private conversations without showing cause or warrant RIGHT NOW. They want to legalize torture. They want to throw you in jail forever for possessing small amounts of narcotics. They want to keep the draconian three strikes law, which throws people in prison forever for stealing a dozen donuts in some cases.

The 10th amendment deals with powers not delegated to the federal government being left to the states to decide, true, but the commerce clause has an effect on what is strictly a state issue and what is a federal issue, and in practice the 10th amendment has been used almost exclusively as a tool for evil, for states that wanted to keep Jim Crow laws or circumvent federal labor laws or environmental laws. If you're asking whether a liberal or a conservative would be most likely to legalize marijuana, I think you already know the answer.

I mean, seriously... if you think that conservative judges are more likely to protect your civil liberties, you're just not paying attention.

This pose of 'oh i'm a wise old head, he'll come around, the young pup..' is really irritating. You're just dead wrong in a situation where the right answer isn't hard to find. It just takes a little work and a little knowledge besides your personal interpretation of your narrow personal experience. You need to read some books.

man a great post

A little more about the 10th amendment:

"You might be asking yourself: Doesn't this contradict the Ninth Amendment? Why state that the Constitution does not disparage unenumerated personal rights, then say that any powers not specifically laid out in the Constitution are reserved for the states?

Explanation: When the Tenth Amendment was originally proposed, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; it applied only to federal law. States had their own constitutions and their own bills of rights. Some states also had slavery, which was protected under the Tenth Amendment. The American Civil War made it clear that this wasn't a workable system, so the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights and made it applicable to both state and federal law. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment, while still relevant, no longer holds as much power as it once did.

Tenth Amendment and Desegregation: The last major Tenth Amendment battle took place as the result of 1960s civil rights legislation, which attempted to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment against Southern states that continued to impose second-class citizenship on black residents. Subsequently, most references to "state's rights" in the common political vernacular are actually veiled references to segregation--unfortunate, given that the question of federal vs. state's rights is a legitimate issue that the Supreme Court has been attempting to resolve for two centuries."

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equ..._amendment.htm

This is a great example of civil debate on GFY. I'm reading and learning.

One lecture might have been what opened my eyes, but it's not what leads to the sum of my knowledge on the subject. I try to keep myself knowledgeable about my constitution. I wish more Americans did the same.

The dissenters I'm talking about were 4 justices who were all installed during or after the administration of FDR.... at least two of which weren't from the South. So, again, you're mistaken. Please save me the hassle of having to look such matters up next time by making sure you're correct in what you say.

I agree with you absolutely when it comes to conservative LEGISLATORS. But we're not talking about legislators here - we're talking about JUDGES. As you majored in it, I'm sure you took a few political science classes in your time, and know the difference.

As with your "woman's suffrage" example earlier, nearly all of your examples above deal with making and executing laws... not reviewing them.

I'm trying to do my part to fight most of what you've talked about, up there, myself... but it's legislators I'm writing/calling - not judges.

The commerce clause is just what the federal government uses as a catch-all these days to claim jurisdiction over anything the government deems . On two separate occasions, when asked if they could think of anything the interstate commerce clause would not apply to, (Chief Justice Warren was one of them, if I recall), they couldn't come up with anything. It's a clause whose purview has been abused, imho... an opinion I'd share with most Constitutionalists, I think.

No reasonable man would consider me growing beets (or whatever) in my back yard and selling them to my neighbor to have anything to do with Interstate Commerce... yet, our modern government does.

On the Federal Level? I do, and I've stated such - per my example a few posts ago. Maybe on the state level it'd be another matter, but we're talking about _Federal Judges_ here - and you continue to argue the point. There was actually a vote on this matter 3 years ago - as reported above - and the record is self-evident.

Too... Using a word such as "evil" in a political science context is asinine, imho. The 10th amendment has been used (albeit not always successfully) in hundreds of Supreme Court Cases. It's a part of our Constitution, and the wording's quite clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Not very confusing, I don't think.

I respect posts of yours now and then, but I think you're speaking more from your heart than from your head right now.

If you want to split hairs to that extreme, I will cede to you that conservative judges and conservative legislators are two very different things, but imho the current crop of conservative judges are very different from what you've seen before, and they are hand picked not on the basis of their legal background and the respect they've earned from their peers, but on their likely willingness to make the rulings that the neo-conservative congressional and executive branch want them to make.

You seem to believe that the whole issue of conservative v liberal judges hinges on who wants to allow you grow weed in your back yard. If conservative judges have to allow you to grow weed to sell to your neighbor in order to set the precedent that states can do anything they want regardless of federal law, they will do so. Then they will happily allow states to torture you to near death and shitcan you in a state prison for 50 years without trial, and they'll 'disappear' your wife and kids for complaining about it publicly.

Actually, VERY confusing, and one of the biggest bones of contention among Justices and legislators for a very long time now.


In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm--that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat.

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), the Court changed the analytic framework to be applied in Tenth Amendment cases. Prior to the Garcia decision, the determination of whether there was state immunity from federal regulation turned on whether the state activity was "traditional" for or "integral" to the state government. The Court noted that this analysis was "unsound in principle and unworkable in practice," and rejected it without providing a replacement. The Court's holding declined to set any formula to provide guidance in future cases. Instead, it simply held "...we need go no further than to state that we perceive nothing in the overtime and minimum-wage requirements of the FLSA ... that is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision." It left to future courts how best to determine when a particular federal regulation may be "destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision."

In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court's 1985 Garcia opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject.

Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana, citing the Wickard v. Filburn decision. It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the penumbra of the Commerce Clause.

There is a lot more to the interpretation and enforcement of the 10th amendment than whether you can grow weed or not. If growing weed is your only concern, then get conservative legislators and judges to legalize marijuana or at least not throw people in a penitentiary for it.