McCain picks Sarah Palin as VP

[killtrocity]

Who gives a shit about gold? The point is that money is nothing more than paper printed on a whim and this system cannot last forever. In fact, it's starting to implode.

And what's wrong with the We The People Act? Besides sounding corny, do you honestly care that much about gay marriage or abortion? Why not let state and local courts make those decisions while we debate relevant topics like foreign policy?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by killtrocity

Who gives a shit about gold? The point is that money is nothing more than paper printed on a whim and this system cannot last forever. In fact, it's starting to implode.

Uh, your hero Ron Paul certainly gives a shit about gold, dude. That's his magical elixir for fixing the economy; abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve and making the U.S. return to the gold standard. While the way things are isn't great by any means, thinking that the U.S. can return to an antiquated economic system that stopped being practical decades ago is foolish and shortsighted.

And what's wrong with the We The People Act? Besides sounding corny, do you honestly care that much about gay marriage or abortion? Why not let state and local courts make those decisions while we debate relevant topics like foreign policy?

I don't, but a lot of other people do...and I don't think they'll appreciate leaving things like abortion, same-sex marriage and Establishment Clause issues solely up to the states...that is exactly what the fundamentalist right wants to happen, and I for one don't want their prejudices to become the law of the majority of the U.S.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Nice wavy lines, dude.



Sorry, Ron Paul is still an idiot. And the above doesn't even cover the abomination that is the We The People Act.

My guess is you've never even read the act. yes, how horrible it would be to take some power from the feds and give it back to the states.

I'm not sure which is more of your troll, Tchocky or Cup.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Gish08

Ron Paul sucks and would be a horrible President and Vice Presicent. Anyone who actually thinks this guy would turn this country around is mentally challenged.

He was only popular at first because he was the only hardcore anti-war Republican who took the stage during the primaries. Once people learned how crazy he was when it came to mostly all of the other issues, the hype died real fast.

Please explain what you mean by "the hype died" because Paul got a significant amount of primary votes towards the end of the period and has a very vocal following.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Uh, your hero Ron Paul certainly gives a shit about gold, dude. That's his magical elixir for fixing the economy; abolishing the IRS and the Federal Reserve and making the U.S. return to the gold standard. While the way things are isn't great by any means, thinking that the U.S. can return to an antiquated economic system that stopped being practical decades ago is foolish and shortsighted.





I don't, but a lot of other people do...and I don't think they'll appreciate leaving things like abortion, same-sex marriage and Establishment Clause issues solely up to the states...that is exactly what the fundamentalist right wants to happen, and I for one don't want their prejudices to become the law of the majority of the U.S.

I really laugh at the fact that you're comparing Paul to the "fundamentalist right."

Anyway, it's nice to see you're coming off like a communist and a statist again.

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex unions, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law.

[Debaser]

time magazine is saying Romney

http://thepage.time.com/2008/08/21/2...es-its-romney/

[Eulogy]

NY Times: “People close to the [McCain] campaign also floated a wild-card choice, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq.”


uhhhhhh what

[Eulogy]

romney seems like the smartest choice at this point, doesn't he?

[jm9843]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

romney seems like the smartest choice at this point, doesn't he?

A flip-flopper who in his heart of hearts is pro-choice? No VP pick, imo, is going to help the old fart get elected.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I really laugh at the fact that you're comparing Paul to the "fundamentalist right."

Anyway, it's nice to see you're coming off like a communist and a statist again.

If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex unions, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law.

I never said Ron Paul was a fundy (though this article makes the claim that he is in fact a Dominionist). I’m saying that the problem is his "leave cases such as etc...to the states" mantra plays right into the hands of the fundys.

For example, not too long ago I remember seeing a map of the U.S. that showed how many states would immediately instigate and likely pass anti-abortion laws if Roe v. Wade was overtured, and it was a sizeable chunk of it. What Ron Paul is proposing would effectively make Roe v. Wade worthless. Like I said earlier in this thread, I do not want to see the prejudices of the Christian Right to become the law of the majority of the U.S., and I'm sure many other Americans out there do not as well. Therefore, the We The People Act must not be passed. And yes, I am aware that not all anti-abortion advocates are from the fundamentalist right, but the fact is, they are the driving force behind the movement.

Paul also claims that separation of church and state was not the intention of any of the Founding Fathers:

From Christmas in Secular America:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

HOWEVER...

In 1785, James Madison listed 15 reasons why he was in favor of separation. Among them were that faith must come from reason, not coercion; that it is wrong to make someone pay to support a sect he is not a member of; that civil officials are not competent to handle religious matters; that Christianity flourishes in opposition to, not collaboration with, civil authority; that official status corrupts religion; that it would discourage immigration; and that it would create conflict.

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Jam....pdf?docID=144

The moral of the story: Ron Paul is a paleoconservative bonehead who is woefully out of touch with America, and the only people who like him are libertarians who want a spineless national government and people who think that that godawful Zeitgeist movie is Scripture.

[Tchocky]

Anyhoo, considering the top choices of McCain seem to be Romney, Pawlenty or Ridge, I'd go with Pawlenty if I were McCain.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I never said Ron Paul was a fundy (though this article makes the claim that he is in fact a Dominionist). I’m saying that the problem is his "leave cases such as etc...to the states" mantra plays right into the hands of the fundys.

For example, not too long ago I remember seeing a map of the U.S. that showed how many states would immediately instigate and likely pass anti-abortion laws if Roe v. Wade was overtured, and it was a sizeable chunk of it. What Ron Paul is proposing would effectively make Roe v. Wade worthless. Like I said earlier in this thread, I do not want to see the prejudices of the Christian Right to become the law of the majority of the U.S., and I'm sure many other Americans out there do not as well. Therefore, the We The People Act must not be passed. And yes, I am aware that not all anti-abortion advocates are from the fundamentalist right, but the fact is, they are the driving force behind the movement.

Basically your argument boils down to "we can't let people vote on these issues, because the side I support might not win." It may be a shocker to you, but the votes of the fundamentalist right count just as much as yours. Or at least they would if the Supreme Court didn't hand down poorly reasoned, legally bankrupt edicts from on high that shift the balance of power inordinately towards the secularist left. All Paul's act is meant to do is even the playing field back to where it's supposed to be. Sure, sometimes what the majority wants isn't going to be the right thing legally, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the federal courts should used preemptively to try and thwart any majority decision that you don't like.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Basically your argument boils down to "we can't let people vote on these issues, because the side I support might not win."

Yes. Exactly. This is the only way to overcome the stupidity and bigotry of the American People.

The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't put to vote before the general populace.

[Future Boy]

It also wuldnt have done jack shit if the North lost, thats a stupid point. Oh look, its turylyon.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Basically your argument boils down to "we can't let people vote on these issues, because the side I support might not win." It may be a shocker to you, but the votes of the fundamentalist right count just as much as yours. Or at least they would if the Supreme Court didn't hand down poorly reasoned, legally bankrupt edicts from on high that shift the balance of power inordinately towards the secularist left. All Paul's act is meant to do is even the playing field back to where it's supposed to be. Sure, sometimes what the majority wants isn't going to be the right thing legally, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the federal courts should used preemptively to try and thwart any majority decision that you don't like.

If by 'evening the playing field', you mean 'deepening the fissures in an already divided nation.'

All the We The People Act does is bring the U.S. one step closer to making this

http://web.knoxnews.com/silence/archives/jesusland.jpg

a reality. And I don't think most Americans want to see this happen.

I believe that people should be able to vote for or against things like abortion, gay marriage, etc, but on a national level, not at a state level. The result won't always be what myself or someone else wants, but in the end I think it's for the best.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

It also wuldnt have done jack shit if the North lost, thats a stupid point. Oh look, its turylyon.

oh shut up, insert your favorite federal mandate

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't put to vote before the general populace.

You're probably confusing the E.P. with the Thirteenth Amendment...which wasn't put to vote before the general populace either, but whatever.

[Tchocky]

"When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic... not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart,— Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!"

~Daniel Webster, 1828

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Basically your argument boils down to "we can't let people vote on these issues, because the side I support might not win." It may be a shocker to you, but the votes of the fundamentalist right count just as much as yours. Or at least they would if the Supreme Court didn't hand down poorly reasoned, legally bankrupt edicts from on high that shift the balance of power inordinately towards the secularist left. All Paul's act is meant to do is even the playing field back to where it's supposed to be. Sure, sometimes what the majority wants isn't going to be the right thing legally, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the federal courts should used preemptively to try and thwart any majority decision that you don't like.

so anything that the majority says should go? or just within reason? where does that line get drawn?

[killtrocity]

Huckabee is easily the best choice

[TuralyonW3]

Kay Bailey Hutchison would be a big gamble, but it could also pay-off bigtime

[Gish08]

Apparently the final four was Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, and Lieberman. McCain already picked though.

I expect him to announce right after Obama gives his speech. Be it immediately after he gives it or tomorrow.

I hope he picks Lieberman. Democrats hate him, moderates hate him, Republicans hate him, Jews hate him, his own state hates him, NOBODY likes him. He's one of the biggest tools in Washington and everyone knows it.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

Kay Bailey Hutchison would be a big gamble, but it could also pay-off bigtime

Agreed. I don't think they've got the balls to pick her though.

[sppunk]

I love me some Kay Bailey. She's one of the few republicans I've voted for on more than a local level.

[Eulogy]

from wikipedia:

Hutchison is against outlawing abortion.[5] She also believes that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures a constitutional right, and that it should not be overturned.[6]

so uh. i dunno if that'd be his wisest choice. isn't that a big deal to a ton of people? the party's official stance is that abortion should be illegal and roe v. wade should be overturned. according to this, anyway: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...Q6VSQD92QBA0G2

[Eulogy]

uh, del

[Eulogy]

um, also this:

In 2006, Hutchison received more campaign contributions from large oil and gas corporations than any other member of Congress.[7] In 2005, Hutchison voted against prohibiting oil leasing in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and has supported legislation promoting drilling in the refuge in 2002 and 2003. In 2005 she also voted against including oil and gas smokestacks in the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury regulations.[8][9] In 1999, she voted to remove funding for renewable and solar energy, although she has more recently stated she supports the development of alternative energy sources.[10] According to the League of Conservation Voters environmental scorecard, Hutchison received a rating of zero — the lowest possible score — in the 104th Congress.[11]


you guys don't think this woman would get a new asshole torn?

[sppunk]

It's Pawlenty.

Edit: Or not, apparently - multiple confusion from the GOP to throw up false alarms.

[sppunk]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

um, also this:

In 2006, Hutchison received more campaign contributions from large oil and gas corporations than any other member of Congress.[7] In 2005, Hutchison voted against prohibiting oil leasing in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and has supported legislation promoting drilling in the refuge in 2002 and 2003. In 2005 she also voted against including oil and gas smokestacks in the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury regulations.[8][9] In 1999, she voted to remove funding for renewable and solar energy, although she has more recently stated she supports the development of alternative energy sources.[10] According to the League of Conservation Voters environmental scorecard, Hutchison received a rating of zero — the lowest possible score — in the 104th Congress.[11]


you guys don't think this woman would get a new asshole torn?

She represents the most oil-dominated region in the continental United States, you must take some things in context of her constitutes.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by sppunk

She represents the most oil-dominated region in the continental United States, you must take some things in context of her constitutes.

is texas one of the most abortion rich states too or what.

i can understand what you're saying to a point, but that doesn't mean that the dems wouldn't hammer the shit out of her for it. and "she's from texas!" doesn't seem like a rebuttal that many voters would accept. edit: even if they should. which is debatable anyway.