George W. Bush

[HuskerExpat]

Yes, because George Bush, as we all know, is the source of every problem in this country. It couldn't be terrorism, liberal-socialism, natural disasters overwhelming poorly-placed cities, or failing moral standards and the entitelment mentality of a modern-day American.

 

Nope. It's Bush's fault!

 

Uh oh... you just defended George W on a thread that you know a Buff's been lurking on. Those who play with fire...

 

I hate to break it to you, but it's mainly Bush's fault. Everything you just listed also occurred during the Clinton administration, and yet Americans experienced more widespread success during those 8 years than during any other period of American history. Under Bush, Privacy and personal freedoms are at an all time low, and the size of the federal government is at an all time high, not to mention the fact that the government is throwing money around like Pacman Jones at a strip club... tell me again why (some) Republicans still defend this guy? The man's about as conservative as Lenin.

 

"Yeah, but Clinton never had to deal with an unwinnable war in Iraq", the right retorted.

 

And the people on the left replied, "exactly."

 

1. I am not a Republican.

 

2. I am not a Bush supporter or defender.

 

3. If you think that the Middle-eastern situation is a novelty in the Bush era, you're about as informed as you are about Clinton's so-called success story.

 

4. When you say the 'government' throws around money, what does that have to do with Bush? Bush is not in the legislative branch of the government. You can by and large thank your democratically-controlled House and Senate for that one––who, by the numbers, are a 1/3 as popular as George Bush, widely seen as the least effective congress in the history of the United States. And that is under a president which uses a veto as often as a handgun, and a congress stacked to the ceiling with limousine libs disguised as Republicans.

 

5. The war in Iraq is winnable. That's not a question, actually. The question is, 'Are you willing to do what is necessary to win?'. In an age where the military has to pussyfoot around the political correctness machine, is hogtied with regard to how and when they can engage the enemy, and our nation is mortified at the thought of offending the Muslims, it makes things that much more difficult. But at the end of the day they said virtually the same thing about the Japanese––they'll never support us, too steeped in their traditions, too patriarchal, too stubborn, too impoverished. I can't really see the Japanese islands from my window here, but from what they tell me, things are working out pretty well.

 

6. Oh, and what freedom was it specifically that you don't experience anymore that you did before? I know I was a little disappointed when I couldn't phone overseas and talk about the simple joys of terrorist plots and molotov cocktail making.

 

But back to the original topic, no, I'm not a Bush defender. And no, he's not a conservative. But almost as exhausting as Callahan's rhetoric is the left's rhetoric. I actually feel sorry for their ridiculous socialist party; after Bush is gone they'll have nothing. Their very beating heart is George W. Bush and his poor speaking ability and controversial administration. Much like they've always been, they're not a party of ideas, they're a party of anti-ideas.

 

Good luck with Hillary, by the way. This should be a good one.

 

X

Unitl the American pulbic is faced with making sacrifices in this war (IE rationing a la WWII) people will blindly support a war that has no end. This war is not winnable. A Soldiers job in Iraq is to keep from dying for 15 months until they get home. There is no strategy and there are no goals.

 

Yeah, I feel confident that our military is the most effective at destroying an enemy and occupying its territory. Our military did a masterful job of that. Our military cannot, and never has been able to make an enemy like us, which is the only way we will "win" the war in Iraq. That is the job of our civilian leaders, and one that the Bush administration has failed miserably at accomplishing.

[zoogs]

I tend to think it's the supreme arrogance of just having the belief that you can take over a country and make them "like" you. No matter how skillful the Bush administration, or another administration, may be...no matter how hard they try, you can never make them "like" you.

[zoogs]

 

The position of a lot of so-called 'liberals' seems to be, "Amend the constitution's definition of marriage."

 

 

 

That's funny, since there is no definition of marriage in the U.S. constitution.

 

Sorry - to make an amendment which defines marriage. (Is that right?) In any case, the idea is the amendment would expand the scope of the federal government.

[sarge87]

Yeah you are right about Bush Husker X, we should instead blaming the supreme court for overstepping their boundaries and gop racists to keep people from voting.

How do you figure the Supreme Court overstepped it's boundaries? The proper appeals were filed all the way through the system. The votes were counted whether you liked the outcome or not, and certified under Florida law. The Federal courts stepped in, because the election for President is a Federal Election. All recounts including the one by CNN said Bush won. But unlike your statement, here is a link to the facts.

 

(Disclaimer): To all the Dailykooks subscribers you might want to: (1.) Stick your finger in the foam of your Starbucks latte. (2.) Rub finger on your forehead (acts as mental novocaine)

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.b...ories/main.html

 

Now about your libelous statement about "GOP racists keeping people from voting". I hope you have proof to back that up. All I saw were a bunch of "cry wolf" stories that never materialized. In '06 the same stories started resurfacing Election Day around 4:00 pm Eastern, and as Democrats started making gains until 9:00 pm Eastern, all the stories somehow vanished off the AP wire. Strange isn't it? I just can't figure this out. In the age of digital photo cell phones, there's not one picture of some GOP boogeyman keeping some poor soul from voting. But I did find one true story of voter disenchantment that was in the courts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7062902092.html

Both sources I've used are hardly Conservative leaning networks and publications.

 

Now go back up to the Football Forum and post your daily or and next time come armed with some facts.

[HuskerExpat]

How do you figure the Supreme Court overstepped it's boundaries? The proper appeals were filed all the way through the system. The votes were counted whether you liked the outcome or not, and certified under Florida law. The Federal courts stepped in, because the election for President is a Federal Election. All recounts including the one by CNN said Bush won. But unlike your statement, here is a link to the facts.

 

Believe it or not, running an election in Florida is a matter of state law, regardless of the fact that it is to elect electors who will then vote for a certain presidential candidate. There is no dispute among any legitimate legal scholar (conservataive or liberal) about that fact. The Supreme Court of Florida interpreted state law, and decided that certain things should be done in the recount, etc. It is widely believed that Gore would have won Florida if the Florida Supreme Court's order would have been followed. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court, on what was a matter of purely state law. Generally the U.S. Supreme Court has not authority to rule on a matter of state law. And the big conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court then (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) all have a long history of refusing to engage in matters of state law. They always claimed to be so-called "state's rights" advocates. Except in this issue of "state's rights," (a Florida interpretation of Florida law, rather than a federal government's interpretation) those same conservatives did away with their "state's rights" ideology, and interfered in a matter of state law, which was inappropriate and improper, as limited by the United States Constitution. That is how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries.

[sarge87]

How do you figure the Supreme Court overstepped it's boundaries? The proper appeals were filed all the way through the system. The votes were counted whether you liked the outcome or not, and certified under Florida law. The Federal courts stepped in, because the election for President is a Federal Election. All recounts including the one by CNN said Bush won. But unlike your statement, here is a link to the facts.

 

Believe it or not, running an election in Florida is a matter of state law, regardless of the fact that it is to elect electors who will then vote for a certain presidential candidate. There is no dispute among any legitimate legal scholar (conservataive or liberal) about that fact. The Supreme Court of Florida interpreted state law, and decided that certain things should be done in the recount, etc. It is widely believed that Gore would have won Florida if the Florida Supreme Court's order would have been followed. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court, on what was a matter of purely state law. Generally the U.S. Supreme Court has not authority to rule on a matter of state law. And the big conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court then (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) all have a long history of refusing to engage in matters of state law. They always claimed to be so-called "state's rights" advocates. Except in this issue of "state's rights," (a Florida interpretation of Florida law, rather than a federal government's interpretation) those same conservatives did away with their "state's rights" ideology, and interfered in a matter of state law, which was inappropriate and improper, as limited by the United States Constitution. That is how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries.

Hello HuskerExpat, I'm honored to spar with you on this topic --- Let's get to it then.....

 

First let me apologize for the mis-speak on the President - Federal Election statement. Sometimes I think faster than I type. What was meant on that statement poorly written by me, is that the election for President, albeit a state election, has to conform to Federal law and the U.S. Constitution. Your implication that the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries by invoking "States Rights" is mistaken. "States Rights" do not supersede the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Supreme Court of Florida only decided "the intent of the voter" issue, however they refused to decide any uniform procedure in recounting the votes, which basically resulted in a free-for-all. Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Wells wrote his dissenting opinion;"This majority opinion will not withstand U.S. Supreme Court review, and cause a Constitutional crisis." He knew this would be in conflict with the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because their ballots could be devalued by later arbitrary and disparate treatment. It meant basically, that the same methods to counting the ballots could not be uniformly guaranteed to be applied county to county making it unconstitutional. The time to fix this would violate the "safe harbor" provision as prescribed in Sec 5 of Title 3 of the U.S. Code having to do with "determination of controversy as to appointment of electors" which reads: If any State shall have provided...for its final determination of...the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State...at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination...shall be conclusive. This was argued as a basis under Article 2 Sec. 1 Cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution which applies to the matter that electors are selected. How could the Supreme Court not intervene?

 

I wasn't going to bring politics into this, but since you brought it up.... In my opinion, I believe the Florida Supreme Court played politics with this case, and purposely screwed the pooch, to make the Supreme Court intervene to take the pressure off themselves and the Democrat Party. Let's face fact, all 4 of the counties involved were controlled by Democrat election officials. They had every chance to upgrade to the optical sensor voting machines like most of all of Florida's counties. There wouldn't be any "hanging chads" with these machines, but they chose not to. Florida's election law should have been written in crayon ---What the hell is "implied intent of the voter"? Now we're supposed to read the mind of the voter to see who they meant to vote for? Come on, this would be funny if it weren't true. In my opinion, Bush didn't steal the election. Democrat Officials in that state were either too lazy or apathetic and thusly screwed themselves.

 

Unlike most State Supreme Court Justices, Florida's Governor picks names from a list selected by a commission and then each justice must face voters in a "merit retention" vote in the next election and then every six years, five were picked by Lawton Chiles (D), one by Bob Graham (D) and one jointly by Chiles (D) and Jeb Bush ® -- and in a process that makes the judges more partisan and more influenced by public opinion than the U.S. Supreme Court. The President picks his nominee for the Supreme Court, then said nominee has to go through an up or down vote by both Republicans and Democrats, and are appointed for life. I don't like to impugn judges but Florida Supreme Court Justices look more like politicians than judges. In an interview on CBS, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, phrased his comments like the Florida Supreme Court was playing political gamesmanship with the more conservative members of the Supreme Court. (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) Turley argued the justices are "in something of a bind" since the majority believe in federalism and the Florida Supreme Court wrote an opinion out of state law as "they iron-plated their decision to make it as difficult as possible for this court to review it and to try to make those conservative justices look slightly hypocritical if they try to re-define what they did." Then I ask "Why did the Florida Supreme Court so obviously in their decision, violate the "Equal Protection" clause, if not to goad the Supreme Court into stepping in on this case?" Looks to me when the perverable sh*t hit the fan, they acted like most politicians, they passed the buck.

 

Cheers

[HuskerExpat]

The problem with the equal protection argument is as follows. There is no "suspect class" as defined by current supreme court doctrine. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court should not have found an equal protection violation unless there was no "rational basis" for the Florida Supreme Court's order regarding the recount. That is an extremely hard standard to overcome. It rarely is overcome, and Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, have NEVER found an equal protection violation when using the rational basis standard, except in the Bush v. Gore case. Never. And the majority even recognized how stupidly political their decision was, when they refused to name the author of the majority opinion (rarely if ever done) and they said that the case could never be used as precedent in any other case. Seems the majority didn't want to apply the same standard of equal protection law when the outcome might be helping the downtrodden or some other group, other than a conservative Republican trying to win the presidential election.

 

While we're at it, why not stop insulting a significant portion of the population by referring to their party as "the Democrat party" like the president does? It is the Democratic Party. Surely name games are the thing of grade school, and not for rational adults. Or should I start referring to the Repub Party?

 

By the way, Nebraska's Supreme Court members are picked the same way. A lot of states flat out elect their judges, which is truly the political method. Don't think that getting on the U.S. Supreme Court is not about politics, because that would be pretty naive.