A Conservative for Obama

The author, from the article you referenced, put into words the idea that had been floating around in my mind but I coud not find the words to express it. He expresses what is wrong very well.

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod...s&tier=3&gid=B33A5C6E2CF04C9596A3EF81822D9F8E

 

But this guy seems to think George Bush was a conservative. Conservatism is not about tax cuts, its about spending cuts.

 

Everyone makes mistakes. :laugh: You are right, Bush has cut taxes, but has spent like a drunken sailor in a 'house of pleasure and drink' in old Shanghai. And now he has become the greatest socialist in our history. I read an article this morning, entitled How We Became the United States of France, that made the statement that what Bush has done makes François Mitterrand, the most socialist of all French prime ministers, look like a Capitalist.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...843168,00.html

 

Bush is not a conservative - I have been saying that for years. He is a liberal who ran under the guise/cloak of conservatism. He is middle of the road like Hillary, not a radical liberal like Obama.

 

Hillary is a true left wing liberal. Bill is as well but he is more politically savvy. Bush has forsaken his conservative values in order to get along. A lot of good that has gotten him. True conservatives do not compromise core values.And there is no such thing as a conservative for Obama.

 

I think anyone like Obama who supports partial-term abortion should make people's decision.

 

(Quote extracted from linked article.) While this description of conservatism is true, I'm not sure how it reconciles with Obama's economic agenda which is solely based on optimism in federal institutions.

ETA: it seems that the author admits that neither candidate is a conservative and then oddly tries to pick one based on conservative standards.

 

A conservative for a man who supports infanticide.
A conservative for a man who supportsunfettered abortion
A conservative for a man who will destroy our military.
A conservative for a man who is the most radical leftist to run on a ticket since McGovern.
A conservative for a man who will put the left over radicals of the '60s into positions of importance.
A conservative for a man who will nominate and get throught the most liberal SCOTUS in history.
A conservative who supports a man who believes in expanded gay rights.
A conservative for a man who will pass more social programs and get them funded than any president we will ever have.
A conservative for a man who will be a one-term (or less, after the GOP congressional takeover in 2010 impeaches him).
A conservative supporting a man who wants to set up a national paramilitary police, AND take our guns away?

I'll see you in the concentration camp--but I'll say, "I told you."

 

Whoppadeedoo. He was a lecturer in Constitutional law, but that doesn't seem to stop him from wanting to ride roughshod over the Constitution.

I've read the Koran, but I'm not Muslim. I've read the Book of Mormon, but I'm not Mormon. I've read Rush Limbaugh's books, but I'm not overweight and don't abuse pain killers. I've read Keith Olbermann, but I still have a logical working brain in my head.

Just because you've read something doesn't mean it affects you. The Federalist papers obviously haven't affected Obama one whit.

 

Anyone who reads the Papers and thinks there is any case for a "living constitution," that changes with every whim of radical judges, has not read the same documents I read.

Here is a handy little tidbit by Hamilton on the Judiciary. #78 (emphasis mine)

"...Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. ..."

 

People have been squabbling over this question since Washington was president.

Interesting this 'conservative court' stepped in on the 2000 election with no mandate from the Constitution and later overturned 700 years of habeas corpus precident. These Republicians say they are conservative, but their actions the last 8 years says otherwise. And yet, people who say they are conservative continue to cheer this administration's socialist, totalitarian moves. It makes no sense.

 

Not really. beginning in 1803 (Jefferson's first term) Justice Marshall, deftly, and very subtly, without fanfare, and under the noses of several presidents, won for the court the basic power it would someday use to overwhelm the people's elected representatives. Jefferson was prepared to defy the court in 1803, noting the fact that SCOTUS had no way to enforce any ruling he did not agree with. Marshall, in a brilliant move, distracted all of those involved in the Marbury v. Madison case by saying that Marbury had a right to his position as judge, but that the judiciary act of 1799 was unconstitutional, so it was all moot. It was over 40 years later before anyone realized that Marshall had set the precedent of SCOTUS deciding on constitutionality of a law. SCOTUS did not even have its own building until 1935!

"...This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.''2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security. " #78

Like Lincoln, who jailed most of the Maryland Legislature for the duration, and who suspended other constitutional guarantees, (Habeas Corpus ) nations in wartime go overboard--ask the American Japanese of WW 2. Sooner or later the bucket rights itself. I am personally waiting for a group of congressional leaders to exercise the following little-known but potentially explosive part of the Constitution:

from article III

"...the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. ..."

Congress could remove any issue from the authority of SCOTUS by a simple majority vote. Oh, to have a Congress with the guts to put SCOTUS where it belongs and restore law making to the people.

 

Fear monger talk it is to be expected by those who are losing

Major B in his frustration wrote:

A conservative for a man who supports infanticide.(extremist fearmongering)
A conservative for a man who supportsunfettered abortion( Jesus did not even protest it but encouraged life with the "Great Commission" abortion demagogued beyond the pale end of story)
A conservative for a man who will destroy our military.(not gonna happen, Bush has got the whole world mad at us)
A conservative for a man who is the most radical leftist to run on a ticket since McGovern.(McGovern was a war hero, and loved in his native state, go figure)
A conservative for a man who will put the left over radicals of the '60s into positions of importance.(what John Birch Books have you been reading)
A conservative for a man who will nominate and get thought the most liberal SCOTUS in history.(Oh really, or perhaps the best qualified)
A conservative who supports a man who believes in expanded gay rights.(even christians support civil rights for people who die in wars and pay taxes, let the states decide.)
A conservative for a man who will pass more social programs and get them funded than any president we will ever have.(We the people are the government)
A conservative for a man who will be a one-term (or less, after the GOP congressional takeover in 2010 impeaches him).(you are suppost to pray for Obama and give him a chance ,this is pathetic)
A conservative supporting a man who wants to set up a national paramilitary police, AND take our guns away?(crazy extremist talk, even liberals want guns because of all the crazies out there especially people who walk into churches and kill , who like to read Michael Savage and Sean Hannity Books)

I'll see you in the concentration camp--but I'll say, "I told you (This is stupid)

Major B you voted for Bush twice right? typical frustration of someones failure now reflected in desperation, One thing for sure the fear mongering will stop under Obama/Biden.

I am more optimistic than this extremist talk from "B" and that Obama/Biden will allow the best and brightest to be around them and make decisions that are wise after using the filter of wisdom from all walks of life, through an all knowing God who will be with them because Obama and Biden are both Christian and the doctrine of sanctification, Obama and Joe will need our prayers as they clean up the enormous mess of the Bush Administration that was filled with secrecy and deception. Major B might be right in his negative, cynical way if all are like him and try to throw monkey wrenches into the works to prevent success , the Bush mess might be so bad, even Barack Obama cannot over come it but I think he will give it his best work and performance.

Mark my words everyone who is on the abortion demagogue bandwagon , abortions will go down under Obama/Biden to the point it will be off any political table, I would wager you on that.

Why Republicans want it there to inflame and start culture wars, Demacrats want it mightily reduced to have it off the table to stop the demagoguery of it all.

 

Anyone who refers to infanticied as fear mongering has some serious problems.

 

Did not like voting for Bush--better than the alternatives.

We did not start the culture war, Satan did.

 

Actually what they want is their loose morals off the table.

 

I prefer to call it what it was called in the Bible... child sacrifice. There are plenty of examples of how admired infanticide (on a larger scale as from the view of the extreme left) / child sacrifice (on the personal scale as when it is done for a "better life".)

To have someone dismiss it in the way the poster did because they are so enthralled with their candidate, is sickening and concerning.