I'm sorry.

[Byzantine Prince]

Check out everyone going crazy over showing how smart they are. That shows a lot of insecurity on the part of most members.

[Kanamori]

Tautologies aren't only semantically redudant in nature, like saying "SPIN (Special Prize ID Number) Number" in those stupid wheel of furtune commercials.

They can also be used to form false conclusions, like trying to say: Red skittles are always red; therefore red is a primary quality (of the Lockean type) of red skittles, for to be a red skittle it must always be red.
(Santa's chuckle always gets me)

Anyways, I'm sorry for the digression.

[solypsist]

i prefer these I'm sorry-ies....

[Strike For The South]

i prefer these I'm sorry-ies....

Wait why are they going to kill my dog???????????!!!!!!!!!!

[Spetulhu]

So now we can add a marine general to the airforce general ,the marine colonel , the army major , the special forces senior NCO , the Captain with the Airbourne.
I wonder who will be attributed to the next right wing blogsphere masterpiece , a navy Admiral perhaps , retired of course .

The Admiral might be able to read maps. That way he can at least say he's sorry for invading the wrong country. The 1109 hijackers were mostly from Saudi Arabia, the big country south of Iraq.

[Divinus Arma]

I always like it when one of these blogs come out put forth these "Retired marine genral with 3423 purple hearts says F**K the Arabs" I mean I seriously thought these guys could come up with something better. Iraq has brought nothing but death and haterd to America and that wont change not when we leave and after 2 months the goverment falls and Iraq is thrown into anarchy creating a bigger mess. We need to cut and run. Or be faced with more death for something that will eventually become an even bigger shit storm

This was worth coming out of hibernation for.

SFTS, a few months ago you quoted me in your sig. Can't remember what it was, but it was pro-war. You have taken a turn down a sad sad road my friend.


You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

The liberals see America as the world's greatest problem. The liberals want us to believe that we will fail and that we must give in to the terrorists of Iraq. The liberals say this because it will help them politically. Because this is all they have left. They have no platform. They have no argument. All they have to offer is American defeat. The Democratic Party, this once great party of Truman, JFK, and Roosevelt, has become irrelevant and stands against America.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.


I am deeply saddened to see you take this road SFTS. But you are a Texan. And an American. And I also know that you are still formulating your view of how our country should be led.


There is NO wrong in questioning our leadership. There is NO wrong in voicing your beliefs. There is NO wrong in making your points heard.

But we must never, ever, ever play to the enemy in order to make gains politically. We must NEVER pursue American failure to promote a political ideology.

And make no mistake: The Liberals want America to fail. If America fails, then the Republican party fails. And if the Republican party fails, then the Democrats will increase their power.

The failure of America is Democratic Party policy when conservatives lead the nation.

[Lemur]

Really, is there anything wrong in the world that we can't blame The Liberals for? I think not.

So DA, what percentage of Americans do you believe are rooting for America's failure? Just curious. I'd love to hear a number, and not just about The Liberals, whom you seem to have an intimate understanding of.

[Xiahou]

You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

Well that much is accurate- at least when it comes to the Democratic leadership and the "liberals" on this board.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.

This is also true. Failure in Iraq? - good for their party. Recession? -good for Democrats. I'll leave it up to the reader to do the math themselves on Iraq, but no doubt, economically Democrats have been striving to paint a negative picture despite strong growth in almost every statistic and low unemployment.

Clearly, any opposition party benefits when things go bad for the majority party. The question is, are they rooting for failure? Personally, I think Democrats would be doing much better if they were making real suggestions or constructive criticism rather than just being negative.

[AntiochusIII]

Well that much is accurate- at least when it comes to the Democratic leadership and the "liberals" on this board.

Perhaps, just perhaps, it's because, the war is unwinnable?

Just playing with you.

[Addressed to others] But I'll have to get back to my gay porn now, and to finish the Communist Manifesto. In fact, I might need to print out another dozen of the Che posters with my welfare money.

Liberals, sir, can be blame for anything. For we are the progressive ones. We change, and for that, we are hated.

Now, that sounds cool.

This is also true. Failure in Iraq? - good for their party. Recession? -good for Democrats. I'll leave it up to the reader to do the math themselves on Iraq, but no doubt, economically Democrats have been striving to paint a negative picture despite strong growth in almost every statistic and low unemployment.

Clearly, any opposition party benefits when things go bad for the majority party. The question is, are they rooting for failure? Personally, I think Democrats would be doing much better if they were making real suggestions or constructive criticism rather than just being negative.

Some of what you said is certainly true, but others are not necessarily so. If Iraq fails, and the Dems win the election for president (which, if Iraq fails, is likely, unless they face a magical Republican spin -- ha! A realistic possibility considering America's majority idiotic voting blog who seems more concerned with women and their wombs and how God should be prayed (or not) than economic and political issues in an increasingly hostile world), they will inherit the problem at its worst. The economy is a natural tactic.

The Dems would not be realistically doing much better by giving constructive criticism if only because the dominating Republicans will not hear them in the first place. Remember: the Republicans control the government; the Supreme Court, the House, and the Presidency. And they won't like to show themselves as weak to (some of) their voters who "hate the traitorous Left."

[Slyspy]

This was worth coming out of hibernation for.

SFTS, a few months ago you quoted me in your sig. Can't remember what it was, but it was pro-war. You have taken a turn down a sad sad road my friend.


You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

The liberals see America as the world's greatest problem. The liberals want us to believe that we will fail and that we must give in to the terrorists of Iraq. The liberals say this because it will help them politically. Because this is all they have left. They have no platform. They have no argument. All they have to offer is American defeat. The Democratic Party, this once great party of Truman, JFK, and Roosevelt, has become irrelevant and stands against America.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.


I am deeply saddened to see you take this road SFTS. But you are a Texan. And an American. And I also know that you are still formulating your view of how our country should be led.


There is NO wrong in questioning our leadership. There is NO wrong in voicing your beliefs. There is NO wrong in making your points heard.

But we must never, ever, ever play to the enemy in order to make gains politically. We must NEVER pursue American failure to promote a political ideology.

And make no mistake: The Liberals want America to fail. If America fails, then the Republican party fails. And if the Republican party fails, then the Democrats will increase their power.

The failure of America is Democratic Party policy when conservatives lead the nation.

Does the Republican Party equal America now then? I can remember another superpower in which the ruling party was held to be the nation, and that nation was not the land of the free.

[Reverend Joe]

This was worth coming out of hibernation for.

SFTS, a few months ago you quoted me in your sig. Can't remember what it was, but it was pro-war. You have taken a turn down a sad sad road my friend.


You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

The liberals see America as the world's greatest problem. The liberals want us to believe that we will fail and that we must give in to the terrorists of Iraq. The liberals say this because it will help them politically. Because this is all they have left. They have no platform. They have no argument. All they have to offer is American defeat. The Democratic Party, this once great party of Truman, JFK, and Roosevelt, has become irrelevant and stands against America.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.


I am deeply saddened to see you take this road SFTS. But you are a Texan. And an American. And I also know that you are still formulating your view of how our country should be led.


There is NO wrong in questioning our leadership. There is NO wrong in voicing your beliefs. There is NO wrong in making your points heard.

But we must never, ever, ever play to the enemy in order to make gains politically. We must NEVER pursue American failure to promote a political ideology.

And make no mistake: The Liberals want America to fail. If America fails, then the Republican party fails. And if the Republican party fails, then the Democrats will increase their power.

The failure of America is Democratic Party policy when conservatives lead the nation.

Divinus,

You are a rather intellegent fellow, and I respect you. But this last post of yours is shocking and grotesque. I remember when I first wandered, half-drunk, into the backroom, and early on, you encouraged me to really think for myself. (Admittedly, you thought that I could be converted to conservatism by using this method.) Back then, I would actually make a coherent post in the backroom, this being before I became so burnt out on political crap that I just decided to spam at random. Strike still tries to make sense, and care about the issues that come up back here. In fact, he is finally thinking for himself politically, and he is formulating his own political ethos. And now, you try to discourage him from taking his own course of action, and scare him away from individualism. Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Then again, if he had started left, and had slid to the right, I would be rooting for whoever tried to scare him back to the left. But still consider what you are doing.

[Strike For The South]

[/QUOTE]

This was worth coming out of hibernation for.

SFTS, a few months ago you quoted me in your sig. Can't remember what it was, but it was pro-war. You have taken a turn down a sad sad road my friend.


You see, the liberals and Democrats would have all of us believe that this war is unwinnable. They tell the Amercian public, "We cannot win, we must surrender." Withdrawl now IS surrender, because the infant Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself.

The liberals see America as the world's greatest problem. The liberals want us to believe that we will fail and that we must give in to the terrorists of Iraq. The liberals say this because it will help them politically. Because this is all they have left. They have no platform. They have no argument. All they have to offer is American defeat. The Democratic Party, this once great party of Truman, JFK, and Roosevelt, has become irrelevant and stands against America.

Because what is bad for America... Is good for the Democrats.


I am deeply saddened to see you take this road SFTS. But you are a Texan. And an American. And I also know that you are still formulating your view of how our country should be led.


There is NO wrong in questioning our leadership. There is NO wrong in voicing your beliefs. There is NO wrong in making your points heard.

But we must never, ever, ever play to the enemy in order to make gains politically. We must NEVER pursue American failure to promote a political ideology.

And make no mistake: The Liberals want America to fail. If America fails, then the Republican party fails. And if the Republican party fails, then the Democrats will increase their power.

The failure of America is Democratic Party policy when conservatives lead the nation.

Alright brotha I hear ya. First of all I dont want to see America fail in Iraq I just dont see even if we stay for 10 years and leave that the country will be able to support itself. If we stay I think a large amount of troops for a long time will be necesarry. I just dont think thats feasable or our country has the stomach for it. We are a milatary not the popo

But you are a Texan

Which means me Redleg Red Harvest and soon you are 121312423 times better than anyone else here... I still got my Texan pride

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

SFTS:

I may join your special club in the not too distant future too.
I'll invite you over for a beer/cup of tea if I do.

[KafirChobee]

Editorial in the Washington Post written by a Marine major getting ready to go back for his third tour:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121301502.html

The open divergence from the original topic; and this response, inclines me to respond in kind. First off, just because someone is dumb enough to take 4 tours of duty in an unwinnable situation doesnot make them a spokesman for others that are being forced to do the same - like it is impossible to leave the military now 'til you have served 6 years.

Two: Just because someone is an officer does not grant them wisdom ... of a military or hearts and minds nature. That someone says "60% of military officers" think we can win is nat a new deal - the same proportion thought the same in 'nam, Lebanon - name a lost cause (the Rebs during our Civil War thought they'ld win in a year - including Lee).

Three: At any time one sees or hears the use of "officers" as a source for winning an unwinnable situation - they must reffer back to WWI for a reality check on who they are listening to (men that need a war for promotion).

Four: Back to the cutesy "retired USMC General" that started this entire tirade. Go look him up. Check out his record. Find out how many men were ever under his command - and if any? How many gave their all - and how many letters of condolence did he actually write (versus "your son was a good marine that died well in the service of his country").

The occupation in Iraq may very well be a noble and necessary "thing". But, proposing the idea that the men dying there are doing it for anything but the ego of lesser men is bogus. If we pull out tomorrow or in 10 years, it will all be the same - except for the number of Americans on the newly planned "Wall".

[Divinus Arma]

Remember: the Republicans control the government; the Supreme Court, the House, and the Presidency. And they won't like to show themselves as weak to (some of) their voters who "hate the traitorous Left."

Uhm. No. The Democrats control the Supreme Court. Observe:

Conservatives:
Thomas
Scalia
Roberts
O'Conner, soon to be Alito

Liberals:
Ginsberg
Souter
Kennedy
Stephens
Breyer


And you will notice that it is along these party lines that the wrecthed liberals have managed to pass this heinous treacherous horrific ruling.
Washigton Post Article
Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108.
Off topic, but you would imagine that "evil" big business and therefore, republican support, would be dominant here, right? Wrong. Proof of the liberal elite. They say that government knows what is best, not free individuals. Taking homes away from the poor just to give the land to the rich. Truly hypocritical and a national disgrace. This ruling represents the elimination of private property rights in the U.S. because any company can take land away from the working class simply because it will increase the tax base and stimulate the economy. Blight is one thing. This is something far more dangerous to freedom and wholly socialist. It means that no one has property rights. Period. The government may take your property and give it another private individual if he can make more money from the land!

This is why I hate the libs. And BTW, I don't give a crap about abortion, and neither do alot of conservatives. I care about the misinterpretation of the constitution to serve a political agenda. The liberals, or "progressives" as the term they like to now hide behind, want to interpret the constituion to serve the prevailing mood of the era. The miracle of the constituion is its ability to govern despite temporary social trends. It is the rock of the nation, an anchor of our society. We should not be so quick to bend it excessively because of "modern" concepts. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew how it has been raped. And remember, I WAS a Democrat! I WAS a working class stiff who favored broader government authority! And I am NOT a religious zealot. My interest is in civil liberties and limited government. I am not wholly pleased with many Republican policy issues, but work within the party to promote the most conservative of agendas. Sodomy laws, homosexual laws, and abortion laws all represent a gross intrusion into freedom. Conservatives should be politically conservative, NOT socially conservative.

Oh and on topic: SFTS: We STILL have troops in Germany and Japan. Ten years is nothing. Us spoiled Americans live in a consumer oriented, throw-away, instant gratification society. The modern generation is used to getting its way and getting it NOW. Any military effort of worth in recent decades has required a sustained commitment to victory: WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Muslim nation mini-wars of Bosnia, Kosovo and etc. The GWOT is no different.


Okay. That is the end of my rant.
I will go back to lurking again.

[AntiochusIII]

And you will notice that it is along these party lines that the wrecthed liberals have managed to pass this heinous treacherous horrific ruling.
Washigton Post Article
Kelo v. City of New London , No. 04-108.

Perhaps you forget that the outrage against that ruling wasn't along party lines at all. Traitorous liberals... This decision clearly supports the business, no? Remember: if the decision to evoke the power of eminent domain better benefits the public, i.e. taxes...

Guess what makes more taxes? Offices and shops, or people's homes?

Off topic, but you would imagine that "evil" big business and therefore, republican support, would be dominant here, right? Wrong. Proof of the liberal elite. They say that government knows what is best, not free individuals. Taking homes away from the poor just to give the land to the rich. Truly hypocritical and a national disgrace. This ruling represents the elimination of private property rights in the U.S. because any company can take land away from the working class simply because it will increase the tax base and stimulate the economy. Blight is one thing. This is something far more dangerous to freedom and wholly socialist. It means that no one has property rights. Period. The government may take your property and give it another private individual if he can make more money from the land!

The liberal elite? If there is one I'd like to see; and please, real liberal elites, not political elites who like to ride behind the people's voice just to gain votes.

Sorry, but this is NOT a liberal decision at all, not by any non-deragatory definitions; the ones not used by Pat Robertson, you know.

Also, it is my understanding (that could be very, very wrong -- correct me if I am) that the power of eminent domain has an ancient root and that similar powers could be found in British common laws; I also believe (might be wrong, badly) that the power has long been established for centuries until recently (in legal terms) removed and then reinstated in Kelo vs City of New London.

This is why I hate the libs.

Hatred...

No doubt you'll make a good patriot...like the ones in the Revolutionary War, you know...

Hate thy neighbors, or oppress them, if they are too friendly with the Redcoats. Or the libs, in modern times.

And BTW, I don't give a crap about abortion, and neither do alot of conservatives. I care about the misinterpretation of the constitution to serve a political agenda. The liberals, or "progressives" as the term they like to now hide behind, want to interpret the constituion to serve the prevailing mood of the era. The miracle of the constituion is its ability to govern despite temporary social trends. It is the rock of the nation, an anchor of our society. We should not be so quick to bend it excessively because of "modern" concepts. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they knew how it has been raped.

We might as well reinstitute slavery if you take that mindset, mind you. And why should we not listen to what the people has to say?

And remember, I WAS a Democrat! I WAS a working class stiff who favored broader government authority! And I am NOT a religious zealot. My interest is in civil liberties and limited government. I am not wholly pleased with many Republican policy issues, but work within the party to promote the most conservative of agendas. Sodomy laws, homosexual laws, and abortion laws all represent a gross intrusion into freedom. Conservatives should be politically conservative, NOT socially conservative.

And you support the Republican party, which lately has been a voice for the "Morality Right" or whatever they called themselves (Christian Right?). I can't blame you that much, though. The opposition party doesn't have a clear opposing standpoint. They just can't take the liberal position if only because the magical spin caused "liberals" to be a bad word nowadays, as your words gladly show.

Oh and on topic: SFTS: We STILL have troops in Germany and Japan. Ten years is nothing. Us spoiled Americans live in a consumer oriented, throw-away, instant gratification society. The modern generation is used to getting its way and getting it NOW. Any military effort of worth in recent decades has required a sustained commitment to victory: WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Muslim nation mini-wars of Bosnia, Kosovo and etc. The GWOT is no different.

Let's see...

The bases in Germany seems to be used as springboards for Middle Eastern/Balkans operations; the strategic value of the garrison themselves is limited to that. The Germans aren't going to start a new war very soon, with or without the US garrison.

The forces in Japan are stationed there not to keep Japan in check. If yes, why would the US pressure Japan to build a military once again, with Japanese resistance, nonetheless? They stayed there to keep an eye on China, I suppose.

So I guess you could say they have value...but I don't either countries fought back against the American occupiers so ferociously like Iraq, no?

WWI: you can't possibly compare this to Iraq. It was a major--the largest war yet--in Europe. America, in fact, held back (even though leaned towards the allies) for years until the public mood turned to conflict. America, in fact, entered the war against an exhausted Central Powers. It had much to gain from victory, and it did.

WWII: Hitler's blitzkrieg on Europe no doubt left America uneasy; what else, it's Pearl Harbor, an open effort by a country to attack America, that put the nation into war. Don't compare that to 9/11, where it is a terrorist network's effort. And don't give me crap about Saddam's ties to bin Laden.

Korea: An international effort spearheaded by the US against a direct, open, dangerous invasion of Korea by the Chinese forces following Truman's anti-Communist rhetoric and the "Red Threat" still hot and young. How is that similar to Iraq, considering a clear objective in Korea from the start?

Vietnam: was a failure. And please, don't blame the activists. Cowards do that. Even then, America's efforts aren't pre-emptive. They entered to keep South Vietnam alive from Communist North Vietnam's invasions; apart from all the "conspiracy" involved. That was the goal.

The Balkans: there was a huge civil war, a mess, in the Balkans. Again, the effort was NATO's. Don't tell me it was a perfect job, either. Nonetheless, there was a clear goal: to bring order to a completely messed-up area near the homes of many NATO leaders.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a pre-emptive invasion based on inconclusive evidence and screwed-up reasons against a sitting duck that allowed extremists in the Arab world a golden opportunity to enter that nation and make a mess out of it and the world. What is the goal there? "Democracy," "Liberty," "Iraqi Freedom..." HA! With all the torture, assassinations, the new Sharia Constitution, the split, and all those troubles, I don't see our Western ideals embraced at all.

And I opposed the war from the start...while I was still not in America, and my opinion concides with many. The world knew this war is bull from the start. Now you can find reasons to attack by unpatriotic-ness because I am not one of the citizens of this country now, if you wish.

[Geoffrey S]

Bugger, could have sworn I posted a lengthy and well-reasoned post here on the nature of Republicans and Democrats. But it seems I didn't, and I can't be arsed to do so again. So just assume I was right, and you were all wrong.

[Divinus Arma]

Perhaps you forget that the outrage against that ruling wasn't along party lines at all. Traitorous liberals... This decision clearly supports the business, no? Remember: if the decision to evoke the power of eminent domain better benefits the public, i.e. taxes...

Guess what makes more taxes? Offices and shops, or people's homes?
The liberal elite? If there is one I'd like to see; and please, real liberal elites, not political elites who like to ride behind the people's voice just to gain votes.

Sorry, but this is NOT a liberal decision at all, not by any non-deragatory definitions; the ones not used by Pat Robertson, you know.

Also, it is my understanding (that could be very, very wrong -- correct me if I am) that the power of eminent domain has an ancient root and that similar powers could be found in British common laws; I also believe (might be wrong, badly) that the power has long been established for centuries until recently (in legal terms) removed and then reinstated in Kelo vs City of New London.
Hatred...

No doubt you'll make a good patriot...like the ones in the Revolutionary War, you know...

Hate thy neighbors, or oppress them, if they are too friendly with the Redcoats. Or the libs, in modern times.
We might as well reinstitute slavery if you take that mindset, mind you. And why should we not listen to what the people has to say?And you support the Republican party, which lately has been a voice for the "Morality Right" or whatever they called themselves (Christian Right?). I can't blame you that much, though. The opposition party doesn't have a clear opposing standpoint. They just can't take the liberal position if only because the magical spin caused "liberals" to be a bad word nowadays, as your words gladly show.
Let's see...

The bases in Germany seems to be used as springboards for Middle Eastern/Balkans operations; the strategic value of the garrison themselves is limited to that. The Germans aren't going to start a new war very soon, with or without the US garrison.

The forces in Japan are stationed there not to keep Japan in check. If yes, why would the US pressure Japan to build a military once again, with Japanese resistance, nonetheless? They stayed there to keep an eye on China, I suppose.

So I guess you could say they have value...but I don't either countries fought back against the American occupiers so ferociously like Iraq, no?

WWI: you can't possibly compare this to Iraq. It was a major--the largest war yet--in Europe. America, in fact, held back (even though leaned towards the allies) for years until the public mood turned to conflict. America, in fact, entered the war against an exhausted Central Powers. It had much to gain from victory, and it did.

WWII: Hitler's blitzkrieg on Europe no doubt left America uneasy; what else, it's Pearl Harbor, an open effort by a country to attack America, that put the nation into war. Don't compare that to 9/11, where it is a terrorist network's effort. And don't give me crap about Saddam's ties to bin Laden.

Korea: An international effort spearheaded by the US against a direct, open, dangerous invasion of Korea by the Chinese forces following Truman's anti-Communist rhetoric and the "Red Threat" still hot and young. How is that similar to Iraq, considering a clear objective in Korea from the start?

Vietnam: was a failure. And please, don't blame the activists. Cowards do that. Even then, America's efforts aren't pre-emptive. They entered to keep South Vietnam alive from Communist North Vietnam's invasions; apart from all the "conspiracy" involved. That was the goal.

The Balkans: there was a huge civil war, a mess, in the Balkans. Again, the effort was NATO's. Don't tell me it was a perfect job, either. Nonetheless, there was a clear goal: to bring order to a completely messed-up area near the homes of many NATO leaders.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a pre-emptive invasion based on inconclusive evidence and screwed-up reasons against a sitting duck that allowed extremists in the Arab world a golden opportunity to enter that nation and make a mess out of it and the world. What is the goal there? "Democracy," "Liberty," "Iraqi Freedom..." HA! With all the torture, assassinations, the new Sharia Constitution, the split, and all those troubles, I don't see our Western ideals embraced at all.

And I opposed the war from the start...while I was still not in America, and my opinion concides with many. The world knew this war is bull from the start. Now you can find reasons to attack by unpatriotic-ness because I am not one of the citizens of this country now, if you wish.

You never addressed my first point, which is that the Supreme Court is liberal dominated 5-4. Would you like to retract your statement, or can you show me a series of rulings that reflect the "conservative" nature of any of these five?


Fact: Eminent Domain in the United States could previously only be undertaken in two instances: (a) blight or (b) public use, such as highways, etc. Never before has any body of the government said that eminent domain is justified as this ruling has established. The fact of the matter is that with this ruling any private party can take another's land and real estate if the new owner will develop it in a way that generates more tax revenue.

My assertion: We see the very beginnings of this now, but certainly you must see the consequences? This ruling has completely eliminated private land ownership in the United States!


Fact: The Supreme Court decided this right along ideological lines. Sandra Day O'Connor clearly expressed her outrage through her dissenting opinion over what this ruling means for private property rights. Read it. This is a fact, not my opinion.

My assertion: The problem here is the ideology behind the Democratic Party. When leaning to the left, the government takes on socialist policy. This ruling is socialist to the bone! It has nothing to do with gain for businesses, it has to do with "what is best for society". When I say liberal elite, I am refering to the core foundation of modern liberal social theory, i,e,: redistribution of wealth.


Let's make some distinctions here if I am to continue this conversation, shall we? In my vocabulary, the terms liberal and conservative refer to two seperate social concepts: (1) Constitutional interpretation, and (2) A collective body of national understanding including values, ethics, existential perspective, and the various theories on social responsibility, social interaction, etc, which I will just term here as "culture". constituional interpretation and culture are not mutually exclusive and an individual can be liberal in both or liberal in one and conservative in the other.

It is unfortunate that we (and I am included here) do not make the distinction between constitutional interpretation and culture for the purposes of political social theory. It has been left to the party leadership to define for themselves what is in the party's best interest in relation to American political motivation. More justly, Americans would decide the party tilt. In other words, Americans are left to choose between a turd sandwich and a giant douche because we cannot choose how a party will "lean".

I am a pure constitutional conservative. It is my opinion that culture is secondary to the constitution, not the other way around. Because of this, I have a problem with dramatic constitutional interpretations that attempt to meet the needs of a "modern" society. This is succinctly expressed in Scalia's originalism.

Because Conservatives place constituional interpretation before culture, we view liberals through the light of constitutional interpretation. This is why conservatives are so outraged over liberals.

Conversely, liberals place culture before the constitution, believing that the constituion should be interpreted to meet the prevailing collective opinion on social theory. Thus, Liberals view conservatives through culture first. Liberals see "the religious right" and pro-life and other socially restrictive concepts and instituions as being culturally conservative.

If you can attempt to view the concept of conservativism as applying to the constitution instead of culture, you may find yourself exposed to a whole new perspective of thought.

Or not. In which case we will simply have to agree to disagree.

[Divinus Arma]

Bump.


Well?

[Adrian II]

Bump.


Well?

God, we have another jojo.

"I'm lurking. Now I'm posting! Now I'm lurking again. Now I'm posting. I can't stand the Backroom. I love the Backroom. I'm hibernating, guys. Look, I'm out of hibernation!"

What's it gonna be, Mr Flip-flop?

[Goofball]

Uhm. No. The Democrats control the Supreme Court. Observe:

Conservatives:
Thomas
Scalia
Roberts
O'Conner, soon to be Alito

Liberals:
Ginsberg
Souter
Kennedy
Stephens
Breyer

Uhm. No. Observe:

Thomas: Appointed by a Republican (Bush Sr.)
Scalia: Appointed by a Republican (Reagan)
Roberts: Appointed by a Republican (Bush Jr.)
O'Connor: Appointed by a Republican (Reagan)
Ginsberg: Appointed by a Democrat (Clinton)
Souter: Appointed by a Republican (Bush Sr.)
Kennedy: Appointed by a Republican (Reagan)
Stephens: Appointed by a Republican (Ford)
Breyer: Appointed by a Democrat (Clinton)

It's interesting that you claim the Democrats "control" SCOTUS there are only two Democrat nominees out of a total of nine currently sitting on the Court.



What is happening on the Supreme Court is what is supposed to happen: the Justices are rendering their decisions based on whether or not they believe the decisions are in keeping with the Constitution, regardless of who gave them the job. The SC is not supposed to vote along party lines.

Unfortunately, Republicans can't seem to get this through their heads.

[Proletariat]

Unfortunately, Republicans can't seem to get this through their heads.

The liberal judges on the bench decided personal property bedamned, big government can and will own your property as they see fit. It doesn't matter who appointed who. The fact that the Republicans have appointed many moderates and left-leaning judges means nothing here. This became a right/left issue when all the left members of the SCOTUS decided private property can be seized any time the government can make more cash off of it than they can with you there.

Don't even bother bringing up the Constitution here, it's ignorant. Anyone who's familiar with the Constitution and the history of this nation knows that freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom to worship the moon fairies, all were icing on the cake after securing the right to own your own property.

The scumbags who voted in favor of this ruling should be waterboarded and so should Bush for considering another possible Souter with his personal lawyer stunt.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

i prefer these I'm sorry-ies....

Which is why we should grant CA independance, say they seceeded, then bomb them.

Problem Solved.

[Divinus Arma]

1st point:
4 or 5 posts in one thread worth hitting up and a total of maybe 6 or 7 in the last couple of months compared against my usual 10+ per viewing day. Even the moderators could probably tell you that my actual lurking/thread-viewing status has taken a gigantic dump. I thought this was a conversation worth getting into. So there.

2nd (and more important) point:

The idea that a Republican or Democrat put a judge on the bench is irrelevant when you look at the rulings they make. Souter is the Republican rallying cry for more careful judicial nominations. This is a perfect example of a Republican pick who instantly went left once on the bench.

The idea that Kennedy, Souter, and Stephens are conservative simply because a republican nominated them is absolutley groundless. You are essentially arguing that because they were picked by the GOP, therefore every ruling they make is somehow conservative, regardless of how they came to their conclusions, what the results of the rulings were, and how the constitution was interpreted. So EVERY ruling these justices make are AUTOMATICALLY conservative and republican leaning simply because they were picked by the republican party years and years ago?!?!

I don't mean to be offensive here, but your argument displays a very real lack of understanding in regards to constitutional interpretation.

When justices begin to make assumptions and stretch constitutional application to fit an ideological point of view, they are then liberally interpreting the document regardless of original or stated party affiliation.

The expansion of federal power under the commerce clause is a perfect example of liberal interpretation The ruling makes the assumption that the federal government has the power to regulate commerce both between the states and within the states, regardless of whether interstate activity transpired or could transpire. They concluded that because the activity may affect trade between the states, it therefore falls under one of the enumerated powers of the federal government: the commerce clause.

The commerce clause states that the federal government has the limited power:
"to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes".

Regulate commerce among the states. Among. Not activity within an individual state where no interstate activity occurs. Among.

Does this make sense goofball? If not, then please explain to me how the current sitting justices represent a conservative majority. I'll stick around provided this stays interesting. Not that anyone gives a rats arse.

[Soulforged]

This became a right/left issue when all the left members of the SCOTUS decided private property can be seized any time the government can make more cash off of it than they can with you there.

If the issue navigates between left and right tendences, and talking about Courtrooms, then there's a bigger problem than any ruling.
This non-private property amazes me, but being a capitalist economy that will not last much longer, the law will fall in desuse, it will become useless because it ignores a prime material reality, the economic one. Everything that's not just tends to fall very quickly.

[Goofball]

The idea that Kennedy, Souter, and Stephens are conservative simply because a republican nominated them is absolutley groundless. You are essentially arguing that because they were picked by the GOP, therefore every ruling they make is somehow conservative, regardless of how they came to their conclusions, what the results of the rulings were, and how the constitution was interpreted. So EVERY ruling these justices make are AUTOMATICALLY conservative and republican leaning simply because they were picked by the republican party years and years ago?!?!

If you are going to create a straw man, at least creat one that has some resemblence to what I actually said. I was simply responding to your claim that (and I quote you here, so there can be no confusion):

The Democrats control the Supreme Court.

I made no claims about whether individual Justices were right or left leaning; conservative or liberal. I simply pointed out that 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees, therefor any claim that the Democrats "control" the SC is simply sublime in its idiocy.

I don't mean to be offensive here, but your argument displays a very real lack of understanding in regards to constitutional interpretation.

Perhaps, if my argument actually was what you were trying to make it out to be.

I personally think that your arguments display a very real lack of understanding about how your own Supreme Court functions. Your statement that a political party controls the SC is just ludicrous. No political party controls the SC, beyond what little influence they can exert by trying to nominate Justices they believe to be "friendly" to their cause.

SC Justices are appointed for life. Once they attain the position, they need have no loyalty to whomever it was that appointed them, and they don't have to worry about getting reelected. They are beholden to no political party. This leaves them free (as I said before) to make rulings that they believe are in keeping with the Constitution. You may disagree with their decisions (as do I, especially with respect to the property rights issue), but I still maintain that they each believe they are making the right decisions based on the Constitution.

So please stop trying to sell this "Democrats control the SC" crap. It just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about, and based on some of your other posts I know that's not really the case.

[Divinus Arma]

I made no claims about whether individual Justices were right or left leaning; conservative or liberal. I simply pointed out that 7 of the 9 were Republican appointees, therefor any claim that the Democrats "control" the SC is simply sublime in its idiocy.

Very well. I will correct my original point: The liberals control SCOTUS. And I make this judgment based on their rulings exclusively.

I personally think that your arguments display a very real lack of understanding about how your own Supreme Court functions. Your statement that a political party controls the SC is just ludicrous. No political party controls the SC, beyond what little influence they can exert by trying to nominate Justices they believe to be "friendly" to their cause.

SC Justices are appointed for life. Once they attain the position, they need have no loyalty to whomever it was that appointed them, and they don't have to worry about getting reelected. They are beholden to no political party. This leaves them free (as I said before) to make rulings that they believe are in keeping with the Constitution.

I have to disagree with you on much of this, but not all. An ideological persuasion controls SCOTUS and that ideological persuasion is the foundation of the Democratic party. The court is ruled by leftist thinking, the Democrats are leftists, so therefore Democrats have the greater influence within SCOTUS than do Republicans. I agree with you that that they are beholden to no party because they are unelectable, a critical component of the checks and balances within our government despite what some would say about it now. However, their ideological perspective of culture and society in relation to the constitution still makes the Supreme Court a Left-dominated government entity. They are Democrats in all but name; walks like a duck, etc.

You may disagree with their decisions (as do I, especially with respect to the property rights issue), but I still maintain that they each believe they are making the right decisions based on the Constitution.

I completely concur with this statement. I do not believe that any within the court are actively seeking the anihilation of the United States. Are they making the right decisions? That is for them to decide and us to despise.

So please stop trying to sell this "Democrats control the SC" crap. It just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about, and based on some of your other posts I know that's not really the case.

See the above argument. Constitutional-Cultural Liberals control the Supreme Court. These Republican justices are party affiliated in name only. The rulings of the recent court do not represent the tenets of Republican governance theory.

[Divinus Arma]

So DA, what percentage of Americans do you believe are rooting for America's failure? Just curious. I'd love to hear a number, and not just about The Liberals, whom you seem to have an intimate understanding of.

I am, of course, refering to the public figures within the Democratic Party. There are exceptions, such as Lieberman.

The "grass roots" liberal is usually just a social liberal and simply desires more civil liberties and a little oversight of capitalism. I believe that many of these individuals would actually find themselves to be constituionally conservative.

After all, if you are a strict constitutional conservative, then you will almost automatically become a social liberal. Why? The constitution does not define marriage. So let polygamy and homsexuality be embraced. The constitution grants the Federal government enumerated powers. The bastardization of the Commerce clause via the Supremacy clause has resulted in the "enumeration" of a limitless power to interfere in State Affairs. Gay marriage, drug laws, prostitution, pornography, laws of indecency: These are state affairs and the federal government has no place here.

Most "liberals" fear and distrust Republicans and the blanket term "conservatives" because they view them as socially conservative only. I too take issue with social conservatives because they are willing to rape the Constitution in order to force their existential values upon others. These social conservatives are blind liberals under the banner of conservatism. They don't even realize that they are liberals all the while screaming about how they hate liberals!

From now on, I will address apples as apples and oranges as oranges. Never again will I put the fruit in the same basket. This discussion has shown me the error of this thinking. I will define my issues with conservative/liberal cultural-constitutional perspectives in mind.

[Upxl]

154 I estimate.

Jeez!