"Ssshhh! I'm Listening to Bull****!" wrote in
message oups.com...
From:
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:04:45 GMT
That's the way the GOP does it, or else Ginsburg would not be on the
bench.
Let's look at how the Democrats handled Ginsgurg an Breyer. Do you know
who President Clinton called to ask about potential nominees? That
great pinko commie left-wing liberal Orrin Hatch. Read on, dear Nob,
and see how government *should* work (as opposed to how the GOP does
it):
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/01/...treated-hatch/
Don't worry, I nkow you'll miss the point. That's why you're 'Nob.'
Irrelevant. Ginsburg is who Clinton nominated and there was a straight vote
in the Senate.
What was the vote results in the Senate? Oh yeah, 96-3. When was the last
time any GOP nominated Supreme Court Justice got that kind of support from
the Dems?
Same as it was in RVN.
Difference being there were over a million soldiers just in the army
then, and a draft to fill the pipeline...
No ****?
And before you go off on your patented "the Democrats did that to the
military!" let's look at a couple of things: If, as you say, the army
is perfect the way it is, just remember that it was Clinton who made it
the way it is right now. Bush has not done a thing to it since taking
office. No new weapons systems, no increase in manpower, nothing.
I think it had more to with Reagan than with Clinton.
Does that shoot my arguments in the foot (Clinton reduced the size of
the military, etc.)? Not at all. He took over just after the Cold War
ended. We faced a different situation then. Reducing the military was
the right thing to do at that time. We were not at war.
No argument from me on that.
There's still the bull**** you tried on teh Bin Ladin memo and how the
Clinton administration warned Bush about him, Problem is, the memo should
have told where Bin Ladin was being held and what steps to help secure the
airports had been done by the Clinton administration.
Instead Bush got a vague daily memo about a guy who was going to do
something but wsa not arrested when the Sudanese offered him up. Bubba
couldn't be bothered even though there were plenty of reasons.
Now we are supposedly at war. The military is being used quite a bit in
this 'war.' Historically, when we are at war we beef up the military
and draw it down when the war is over. Bushie and Rummy apparently feel
that the military offers them the best avenue for imposing their
foreign policy, and that we are at war, and that they will use the
military quite a bit, yet they are not doing anything to increase its
manpower. They are nincompoops.
What would you have them do, you just got through saying how hugethe
incentives were now. make up your mind.
As for being a 'strict follower' of the Constitution: I want to own a
couple of nuclear weapons. According to the Bill of Rights, I have a
right to bear arms. The Constitution does not specify which arms those
strictly might be. Come to think of it, I want an aircraft carrier too,
and a squadron of F-16s. And an Ohio -class nuclear ballistic missile
submarine. Strictly speaking, why should I not have them?
So you're for gun control? Why is it you leftists always take things to
the
most absurd extremes?
Of course the evidence that gun control doiesn't work has never stoped you
guys from wanting more of it. How about we try enforcing the 300 or so
laws
concerning gus we already have on the books?
Another straw man from the Beacon of the Right, Nobber. Where did I say
anything about gun control? Take your meds, Nob.
You seemed to hinting at it.
My point is that if you have a strict interpretation of the
Constitution (which is what we were talking about), I am not limited by
it to small-caliber arms. It simply says 'arms.' So, with a strict
interpretation of the Constitution, why shouldn't I be allowed to own
whatever kind of arms that I want? I want an aircraft carrier, some
F-16s, and a few nukes. And a submarine. According to a strict
interpretation of the Constitution, I should be able to buy them.
I do not know what laws concerning gus are on the books.
Concerning gun control: if you strictly interpret the Constitution,
remember the whole article: "*In order to form a well-trained militia*,
the people shall have the right to have and bear arms."
The National Guard is the nation's well-trained militia. You no longer
have farmers rushing from their fields to battle with their musket,
which was the point of that article. I am not philosophically opposed
to people having guns. They should, however, be 'well-trained.' I think
a strict reading of the Constitution bears this out.
Sorry but that bull**** has been debunked already.
I also do not
believe that any ninny should be able to get a gun. They should be
trained in gun safety, gun laws, gun operation and maintenance, how to
clear a weapon, and so on.
So do I, so do most legal gun owners. It the criminals who don't, and the
more of them who are afraid of robbing someone because they think the victim
might be armed the better.
You, for example, may be found to be
mentally incompetent and therefore not eligible for gun ownership,
especially if you keep forgetting to take your meds.
Sorry, but I don't take that kind of medication.
The VA can help
you with your mental problems, by the way. They're there to help.
Voice of experience no doubt, seems it didn't take. Your still nuts.
You haven't heard of Howard Dean or Teddy Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer?
The Dems have more than their share of whack jobs.
Hm. Do I choose liberal 'whack jobs' that want me to keep the rights I
am supposed to have, or do I choose fascist whack jobs that want to
*take away* rights that I already have?
Clinton is gone, and when the Barret report comes out we'll get to see how
he palyed fast and loose with IRS files.
The fascist crap doesn't wash with Bush, every step he's taken has been
either approved by a judge or clearly in the interest of national security.
Tough choice. After much deliberation, I choose the non-fascists.
I have to go now. I think my email is being read by the NSA.
By the way, where is your degree from, Nob? I'm curious where you
learned to analyze problems.
Not for the Democrat talking points like you do.