It is lengthy, but have a look:
synopsis please, i can’t youtube from this computer.
50x
Not a bad speech, but it was so filled with utter BS and partisan crap that the whole message was basically killed for me.
One big problem I had was his statement about our court systems. If the courts don’t make social policy decisions… who will? Who has that authority? He was obviously alluding to abortion, but what about integration? Should we undo Brown v BoE? That was certainly social policy being decided by a court.
As well, it’s hard to not laugh when he says the Democrats will bring “power seeking incompetency” to the White House… as if it is SO competent and willing to give up power currently. Haha.
I’ll say this much: Despite his ass backwards social stances, and his views on defense (being stronger brings us less war… worked during the Cold War right?), I like him better than Rudy and Mitt. Or at least, i like this speech better than the speeches I’ve heard from the others in the GOP (with the exception of Ron Paul, whom I disagree with plenty, but in whose speeches I find a lot less foot-in-mouth syndrome).
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…
One big problem I had was his statement about our court systems. If the courts don’t make social policy decisions… who will? Who has that authority? He was obviously alluding to abortion, but what about integration? Should we undo Brown v BoE? That was certainly social policy being decided by a court.[/quote]
Perhaps the legislature?
Just a thought.
[quote]
…
I’ll say this much: Despite his ass backwards social stances, and his views on defense (being stronger brings us less war… worked during the Cold War right?), I like him better than Rudy and Mitt.[/quote]
You’re kidding, right?
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
…
One big problem I had was his statement about our court systems. If the courts don’t make social policy decisions… who will? Who has that authority? He was obviously alluding to abortion, but what about integration? Should we undo Brown v BoE? That was certainly social policy being decided by a court.
Perhaps the legislature?
Just a thought.
…
I’ll say this much: Despite his ass backwards social stances, and his views on defense (being stronger brings us less war… worked during the Cold War right?), I like him better than Rudy and Mitt.
You’re kidding, right?[/quote]
Wow - exactly my thoughts, TGunslinger.
… Can someone just explain the point of the court if it is not meant to interpret the law… thereby setting social policy? Is it just for show then? To settle high ranking cases only and never set precedents?
As for the Cold war… we fought PLENTY. We built PLENTY. And we kept on fucking fighting. Just because we never went to war, doesn’t mean we weren’t fighting.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
… Can someone just explain the point of the court if it is not meant to interpret the law… thereby setting social policy? Is it just for show then? To settle high ranking cases only and never set precedents?[/quote]
Interpreting the law is not setting social policy. The legislature passing laws is setting social policy.
If there is no relevant law in place (as if often the case when social issues go to court), the courts should, in theory, not decide the case because there is no justiciable issue. The legislature should pass the law first, and then have the courts apply the law to specific cases.
Instead, the courts simply pull something out of their asses when they have no law on which to base their decisions. That is when the courts ‘set social policy’.
Most people don’t understand the rather frightening implications of a court system that, due to stare decisis, essentially passes law from the bench. There are no checks or balances to judicially issued legislation.
Perhaps you misspoke, but courts-issuing-law is exactly what you suggested above.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
As for the Cold war… we fought PLENTY. We built PLENTY. And we kept on fucking fighting. Just because we never went to war, doesn’t mean we weren’t fighting.[/quote]
What fighting there was was peanuts compared to what would’ve happened had the U.S. and U.S.S.R. turned the Cold War into a Hot War.
The threat of the U.S. military was one of the main reasons the Cold War remained a cold war.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
… Can someone just explain the point of the court if it is not meant to interpret the law… thereby setting social policy? Is it just for show then? To settle high ranking cases only and never set precedents?
Interpreting the law is not setting social policy. The legislature passing laws is setting social policy.
If there is no relevant law in place (as if often the case when social issues go to court), the courts should, in theory, not decide the case because there is no justiciable issue. The legislature should pass the law first, and then have the courts apply the law to specific cases.
Instead, the courts simply pull something out of their asses when they have no law on which to base their decisions. That is when the courts ‘set social policy’.
Most people don’t understand the rather frightening implications of a court system that, due to stare decisis, essentially passes law from the bench. There are no checks or balances to judicially issued legislation.
Perhaps you misspoke, but courts-issuing-law is exactly what you suggested above.
Beowolf wrote:
As for the Cold war… we fought PLENTY. We built PLENTY. And we kept on fucking fighting. Just because we never went to war, doesn’t mean we weren’t fighting.
What fighting there was was peanuts compared to what would’ve happened had the U.S. and U.S.S.R. turned the Cold War into a Hot War.
The threat of the U.S. military was one of the main reasons the Cold War remained a cold war.[/quote]
Thanks for the explanation. I suppose I’d have to agree, I was just stipulating that often by interpreting the laws in place, the courts set a certain precedent for further cases. If the law says everything must be equal, and they interpret separate as inherently unequal, they are setting a new precedent. I guess I just called that “social policy”.
I conceded on the Cold War example. My bad.
I’ve been thinking a lot about Thompson lately. It’s been said that he doesn’t have any fire in his belly for this; that he isn’t a good campaigner. I’m not sure that I buy the idea completely, but I wonder if maybe he’s just a throwback. I’m talking about the John Adams, Thomas Jefferson model of actively NOT campaigning.
In any case, I’m going on the record in saying that if neither Paul nor Thompson get the nomination, the Republican party will be abandoned within ten years. Even though I’m voting for the man, I can see how a Goldwater/Reagan conservative wouldn’t vote for Paul. But the fact that Thompson is losing so badly to Guiliani and Romney speaks volumes for the Republican party. That party is so far removed from its founding principles that it is barely distinguishable from the Democrat party anymore.
Frankly, you know why we’re screwed up? It isn’t the Dems fault. I put the blame on Republicans and Libertarians who have demonstrated a lack of fighting spirit. They have become narrow thinkers with no conviction. Republicans haven’t been smart enough to move Libertarian and Libertarians have been too dogmatic to move Republican. And they both have given ground to Democrats without much of a fight.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
That party is so far removed from its founding principles that it is barely distinguishable from the Democrat party anymore.
mike
[/quote]
It’s true, and I think you and I both became disappointedly aware of it after having cast our ballots in 2000.
“Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.” --Aristotle.
Hillary in the oval office is precisely what I imagine a feminine democracy on the verge of tyranny looking like. And if it happens, Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Frankly, you know why we’re screwed up? It isn’t the Dems fault. I put the blame on Republicans and Libertarians who have demonstrated a lack of fighting spirit. They have become narrow thinkers with no conviction. Republicans haven’t been smart enough to move Libertarian and Libertarians have been too dogmatic to move Republican. And they both have given ground to Democrats without much of a fight.
mike
[/quote]
Perhaps the fight needs to be started earlier,ie local elections(county,parish,city, and state reps). Waiting for the presidency is like trying to pull a grand on your first attempt.
50x
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
That party is so far removed from its founding principles that it is barely distinguishable from the Democrat party anymore.
mike
It’s true, and I think you and I both became disappointedly aware of it after having cast our ballots in 2000.
“Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.” --Aristotle.
Hillary in the oval office is precisely what I imagine a feminine democracy on the verge of tyranny looking like. And if it happens, Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves.[/quote]
Agree with both of you guys, but I’d say a Giuliani White House, and the nation of cowards that would lead to such a thing, is even a bit worse.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Agree with both of you guys, but I’d say a Giuliani White House, and the nation of cowards that would lead to such a thing, is even a bit worse.[/quote]
I’ve often wondered, if the people of New Hampshire find that they can no longer live free, do they all die?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Agree with both of you guys, but I’d say a Giuliani White House, and the nation of cowards that would lead to such a thing, is even a bit worse.
I’ve often wondered, if the people of New Hampshire find that they can no longer live free, do they all die?[/quote]
That’s why I’ve never much been a fan of their motto. They need to replace it with something like “Live free or kill” or simply “Live free”.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
That’s why I’ve never much been a fan of their motto. They need to replace it with something like “Live free or kill” or simply “Live free”.
mike[/quote]
How about Dum Vivimus Vivamus Liberi? (Whilst we live, let us live free)
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
That’s why I’ve never much been a fan of their motto. They need to replace it with something like “Live free or kill” or simply “Live free”.
mike
How about Dum Vivimus Vivamus Liberi? (Whilst we live, let us live free)[/quote]
Reminds me of my wife’s first tat. It is the motto of one of the first continental regiments in the revolution. Domari Nolo. (I will not be subjugated)
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Reminds me of my wife’s first tat. It is the motto of one of the first continental regiments in the revolution. Domari Nolo. (I will not be subjugated)
mike[/quote]
Need pictures.
Mike Huckabee was declared the winner of the Iowa Republican presidential caucuses Thursday night, less than an hour after voting began.
With 25 percent reporting, Huckabee had 35 percent, Mitt Romney had 24 percent and Fred Thompson had 14 percent. John McCain had 12 percent, according to the reporting.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mike Huckabee was declared the winner…with 25 percent reporting.
[/quote]
Kinda like declaring the winner of a boxing match after the third round.
89% of precincts reporting:
Huckabee 34%
Romney 25%
Thompson 13%
McCain 13%
Paul 10%
Giuliani 4%
Hunter 1%
And on the other side:
99% of precincts reporting:
Obama 38%
Edwards 30%
Clinton 29%
Richardson 2%
Biden 1%