Well, that is a somewhat vague start.

 

Since you refuse to exert any effort is finding the actual truth behind your original accusation, see post #6 of this thread for a more detailed explanation

Since you refuse to exert any effort is finding the actual truth behind your original accusation, see post #6 of this thread for a more detailed explanation

 

Well, cch5432, I have often concluded that you read much more into posts than were intended by the poster. In my case, that is certainly true. However, I did take time to check out your above "cite". My conclusion is that you have overdone it again.

 

Rockmom's post states "Education and vouchers are two other issues I feel should be included". The originator of the thread listed a number of topics for posters to respond as to their positions in regard to them. Leatherneck had requested that other applicable issues be posted. Rockmom's post added two.

 

Rockmom's post #6 clearly sets forth two more issues that she feels should be added to the original list of ten. She posted nothing as to her position on any of the original ten or to the two she wanted added.

 

If you see a declararion of philosophy in that post, I would submit that you are, at best, incorrect.

Well, cch5432, I have often concluded that you read much more into posts than were intended by the poster. In my case, that is certainly true. However, I did take time to check out your above "cite". My conclusion is that you have overdone it again.

 

Rockmom's post states "Education and vouchers are two other issues I feel should be included". The originator of the thread listed a number of topics for posters to respond as to their positions in regard to them. Leatherneck had requested that other applicable issues be posted. Rockmom's post added two.

 

Rockmom's post #6 clearly sets forth two more issues that she feels should be added to the original list of ten. She posted nothing as to her position on any of the original ten or to the two she wanted added.

 

If you see a declararion of philosophy in that post, I would submit that you are, at best, incorrect.

If you go back to the post that I cited, you will see that Rockmom included her own thoughts (in bold). It appears as LN's thoughts but she put her own in the quoted section.

Well, cch5432, I have often concluded that you read much more into posts than were intended by the poster. In my case, that is certainly true. However, I did take time to check out your above "cite". My conclusion is that you have overdone it again.

 

Rockmom's post states "Education and vouchers are two other issues I feel should be included". The originator of the thread listed a number of topics for posters to respond as to their positions in regard to them. Leatherneck had requested that other applicable issues be posted. Rockmom's post added two.

 

Rockmom's post #6 clearly sets forth two more issues that she feels should be added to the original list of ten. She posted nothing as to her position on any of the original ten or to the two she wanted added.

 

If you see a declararion of philosophy in that post, I would submit that you are, at best, incorrect.

 

 

My comments are in bold in that post. I didn't offer opinions on the two that I posted because I didn't read the original post carefully enough, I guess. I gleaned that we should just mention other issues we felt would be hot-button issues that someone could use to determine "right" or "left". I was "stealing" from my work to reply to leatherneck's original post, so I actually took a short cut and just recycled his questions and bolded my answers.

Some articles to ponder in re FDR. Hopefully President Obama will not go down this path or anything remotely similar in intent. It will tear this country apart to a degree much greater than Bush did with Iraq.

 

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm

 

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1958/3/1958_3_24.shtml

 

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA02/volpe/newdeal/court.html

 

And while you may be correct about the number of appointees ( I think it was actually 9), keep in mind that FDR appointed none during his first term. He appointed the 8/9 during his last two terms. What he was not able to accomplish via his proposed legislation (which failed miserably thank goodness), he was eventually able to do via the appointment route (which was to pack the court with Justices that agreed with his policies of expanded federal govt). I consider FDR, because of his total disregard for the independence of the Supreme Court and his devious attempt to pack it via legislation, to be the worst President ever. He was more sinister than Nixon in my opinion.

 

I concur. :thumb:

My comments are in bold in that post. I didn't offer opinions on the two that I posted because I didn't read the original post carefully enough, I guess. I gleaned that we should just mention other issues we felt would be hot-button issues that someone could use to determine "right" or "left". I was "stealing" from my work to reply to leatherneck's original post, so I actually took a short cut and just recycled his questions and bolded my answers.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with many of your statements.

 

Roe v Wade, in my opinion, will never be overturned. Though I believe it to be an abomination to our society, it is now pretty much accepted precedent. However, it will contnue to be a rallying point for both the right-to-lifers and to the pro-abortionists because both can continue to use it to raise both blood pressures and funds.

 

Overturning Roe v Wade is not the answer for those who are unwaivering in their support of the sanctity of life. As you imply, the struggle can only be won by changing hearts. In this day and age, that won't happen to any material extent. The present occupant of the White House has already done and will continue to do enormous damage to the cause. But, then, his radical position should be a surprise to no one.

 

All should understand that Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion. Abortion was already legal. However, it was treated as an issue to be decided by each state and some states allowed abortions. Roe v Wade made abortion a federal issue rather than a Tenth Amendment issue. The foundation for Roe v Wade was laid in Griswold v Connecticut in which the Court "invented" (my belief) a right to privacy. That started the avalanche.

Edited May 7, 200917 yr by Wyrostek

I'd like to publicly apologize for some of the criticisms I've had of Barack Obama. Turns out he's not such a bad guy after all. He even mailed me a package of iron-ons for all my clothes.

What a guy!

 

(Just having a little fun.)

I consider myself extremely right wing. But if government is going to bail out a failing industry I feel they should receive a return on the investment for the taxpayers paying the bailout. My problem is not with the Chrysler bailout but the GM bailout that sold out to the unions.

 

As a conservative I must say that I disagree with the left wing constantly. But questioning Rockmom on thinking with her politics instead of her head is totally out of line for anyone whom has actually read her posts. There are posters on here that dont feel they have to follow political lines on every situation.

Some ask for info to support that Obama is a socialist, it is in the news every day. The takeover of the banks and car companies for a start. The effort to take over the health care indusrty. The need for the next Supreme Court nominee to have "empathy" for a variety of groups. What he is saying is he needs the Constitution to be re-interpretted to change America into a socialist nation. I have read the Constitution and there is nothing about "empathy". Obama cares not what the Founding Fathers wrote, what he wants is a document that he can twist any old way when needed. Just because you wish to ignore the facts do not make them go away.

 

Bball, will you get off this stuff. The banks and the car industry were in a mess. They abused and misused money and are now running to the big bank, the government. Hell I would want an interest just like any other normal human being or company if I or they would lend the money that they asked for and accepted to bail them out. Bball if I asked you for a thousand dollars you would want me to pay it back to you wouldn't you.

 

Now about the constitution. Do you think that our Founding Fathers were thinking of everybody when this was written or only certain people, since they all were white and all. Just think about it. Everybody is created equal also, but some people in this country and especially in the south didn't get that memo did they, you know slavery????

Bball, will you get off this stuff. The banks and the car industry were in a mess. They abused and misused money and are now running to the big bank, the government. Hell I would want an interest just like any other normal human being or company if I or they would lend the money that they asked for and accepted to bail them out. Bball if I asked you for a thousand dollars you would want me to pay it back to you wouldn't you.

 

There was no need to take an ownership stake in any of the banks. They could have simply bought toxic assets similar to what was done during the Reagan administration and as originally proposed by the Bush administration. That method even made the government money in the 1980's. But that method gave the government less control over the banks.

 

The Obama administration also did not need to take ownership interest in the car companies either. They could have simply let them use the system to deal with unprofitable companies that had already been established for centuries....bankruptcy court. That is, there was no need unless you want to determine who runs the company, what cars they make, or if your interested in ensuring your political allies get a better deal.

 

 

Now about the constitution. Do you think that our Founding Fathers were thinking of everybody when this was written or only certain people, since they all were white and all. Just think about it. Everybody is created equal also, but some people in this country and especially in the south didn't get that memo did they, you know slavery????

 

It is beyond question that the Founding Fathers considered everybody, including slaves. Some of the Founding Fathers were trying to figure out a method of eliminating slavery and others were trying to find a way to preserve it. In the end they compromised by including some language in the constitution that protected slavery while at the same time institutionalizing the ideals that were sure to eliminate it.

There was no need to take an ownership stake in any of the banks. They could have simply bought toxic assets similar to what was done during the Reagan administration and as originally proposed by the Bush administration. That method even made the government money in the 1980's. But that method gave the government less control over the banks.

 

The Obama administration also did not need to take ownership interest in the car companies either. They could have simply let them use the system to deal with unprofitable companies that had already been established for centuries....bankruptcy court. That is, there was no need unless you want to determine who runs the company, what cars they make, or if your interested in ensuring your political allies get a better deal.

 

Well shooter there has been a lot of stuff that has happened to people (Can I say ENRON) on Bush's watch that should have never happened. You tell those people who worked their butts off for many years only to retire to nothing. You don't think companies, any and all, big or small, don't need to be policed. We have too many greedy crooks who have spoiled it for a lot of future greedy crooks. Which is all fine and dandy with me. Only people who are complaining are the ones who have gotten filthy rich from this crap.

 

 

It is beyond question that the Founding Fathers considered everybody, including slaves. Some of the Founding Fathers were trying to figure out a method of eliminating slavery and others were trying to find a way to preserve it. In the end they compromised by including some language in the constitution that protected slavery while at the same time institutionalizing the ideals that were sure to eliminate it.

 

Preserve it huh? Like I said earlier in my post, white people. All weren't looking at the best interest of all. Some wanted to preserve and then later on we will find a way to eliminate it. So we can say the constitution was tinkled with a little then huh??

Well shooter there has been a lot of stuff that has happened to people (Can I say ENRON) on Bush's watch that should have never happened. You tell those people who worked their butts off for many years only to retire to nothing. You don't think companies, any and all, big or small, don't need to be policed. We have too many greedy crooks who have spoiled it for a lot of future greedy crooks. Which is all fine and dandy with me. Only people who are complaining are the ones who have gotten filthy rich from this crap.

 

You can try to blame Bush for ENRON but I will then simply dismiss you as either biased or ill-informed since Ken Lay and other top ENRON executives began selling their stock when they realized ENRON was in trouble in August of 2000, 6 months before Bush took the oath of office.

I don't know what the big stink over Obama's spending is. We have plenty of ink and cotton/linen paper left.