Racism

#27
#27
Good post by dantheman. IMO the number of people who will vote either for or against Obama because he is black will offset eachother.
 
#28
#28
CaedmonVol said:
That is a follow-up to a totally different thread, KB, about the Second Amendment, that Truevol and I were discussing earlier. Truevol may know a lot about politics, military affairs, etc., but when I made one point about the Constitution that he couldn't respond to (which was about state vs. federal power), he ran away to this thread. So that's what that response was.

Besides, I thought this was the politics area -- what's the point of just hearing other viewpoints that reinforce your own, when you can listen to other viewpoints that you disagree with? You all should welcome the opportunity to sharpen your debating skills, not just bully people unlike yourselves (or run away like Truevol when the person you're arguing against makes a good point).
Click to expand...

I missed the other thread and misunderstood then, I apologize.
 
#29
#29
rockydoc said:
But you are legislating morality by electing Presidents that appoint leftist supreme court justices.
Click to expand...

Or by electing a President that will place judge that are so far right they almost come left is any different?

I don't know if people will follow through or not, I certainly think the younger generations don't have as big an issue with race, however the older generations might?
 
#30
#30
VOLracerx said:
Or by electing a President that will place judge that are so far right they almost come left is any different?

I don't know if people will follow through or not, I certainly think the younger generations don't have as big an issue with race, however the older generations might?
Click to expand...

The balance is right about where it should be now, do you trust that Obama (who has voted down party lines when he even bothers to vote) will keep a balance with judges? Or do you think a man like McCain who has a very well documented history of being bipartisan will be a better choice for keeping the balance with justices where they should be?
 
#31
#31
KB5252 said:
The balance is right about where it should be now, do you trust that Obama (who has voted down party lines when he even bothers to vote) will keep a balance with judges? Or do you think a man like McCain who has a very well documented history of being bipartisan will be a better choice for keeping the balance with justices where they should be?
Click to expand...


And I agree that it is where it should be for now, that is what concerns me about this election.

yeah the economy is huge and Iraq is a problem but I don't think that people are keeping sight of the fact that as many as 3 spots on the supreme court could be up for appointment in the next term.

While McCain has that history the GOP does not and I for one believe that in this case the president will have some say in the pick(s) but the machine rules the day and I would fear for our civil liberties if a a pick such as oh - say Mrs Palin was appointed to the SC.

Let me elaborate here as I have not been posting in this forum a lot this time around. I am from a traditionally Dem family but have more central views. Early on I was for McCain but since his VP pick and selling out to the GOP as of late I am not settled on that pick.

I don't understadn why this country expects the best but elects the worst, if the federal governmet were accountable to a board or CEO - they all would have been fired long ago
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
VOLracerx said:
And I agree that it is where it should be for now, that is what concerns me about this election.

yeah the economy is huge and Iraq is a problem but I don't think that people are keeping sight of the fact that as many as 3 spots on the supreme court could be up for appointment in the next term.

While McCain has that history the GOP does not and I for one believe that in this case the president will have some say in the pick(s) but the machine rules the day and I would fear for our civil liberties if a a pick such as oh - say Mrs Palin was appointed to the SC.
Click to expand...

The president has some say but the rest of the government will be a democratic majority. If you are concerned what a Mrs Pailin might be just think about what a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress and Senate would do! No checks and balances what so ever and we could end up with three more Ruth Vader's on the bench! This would be a much more likely scenario than what you submitted!
 
#33
#33
KB5252 said:
The president has some say but the rest of the government will be a democratic majority. If you are concerned what a Mrs Pailin might be just think about what a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress and Senate would do! No checks and balances what so ever and we could end up with three more Ruth Vader's on the bench! This would be a much more likely scenario than what you submitted!
Click to expand...

No checks and balances? how quickly we forget that wonderfull surplus the last Dem left us with - Pay as you go - who scrapped that by the way?

I would like to see the bench stay nuetral, as it should, government should not legislate morality as everyone has a different set of moral fibers to live by, they should merely set the guidlines and allow the citizens to choose for themselves...just as I don't understand how people can choose their vote simply by party affiliation, I don't understand how one can choose a candidate based on an issue such as abortion or stem cells...its about the bigger picture...right?
 
#34
#34
VOLracerx said:
No checks and balances? how quickly we forget that wonderfull surplus the last Dem left us with - Pay as you go - who scrapped that by the way?

I would like to see the bench stay nuetral, as it should, government should not legislate morality as everyone has a different set of moral fibers to live by, they should merely set the guidlines and allow the citizens to choose for themselves...just as I don't understand how people can choose their vote simply by party affiliation, I don't understand how one can choose a candidate based on an issue such as abortion or stem cells...its about the bigger picture...right?
Click to expand...


You sir, have missed the bigger picture. The killing of babies for convenience or for medical research is not a grey area. If we cannot as a people and as a nation have a solid stance on basic moral issues, we have no hope of prosperity or longevity.

Do you want your children to have to stand an armed guard over their belongings and families as is done in many other countries because the only moral relevance there is the question " is the risk too high for what I want to take"?

A legislated moral base line is a requirement for a positive future. therefore, these are not simply side issues but rather THE issues.
 
#36
#36
VOLracerx said:
No checks and balances? how quickly we forget that wonderfull surplus the last Dem left us with - Pay as you go - who scrapped that by the way?

I would like to see the bench stay nuetral, as it should, government should not legislate morality as everyone has a different set of moral fibers to live by, they should merely set the guidlines and allow the citizens to choose for themselves...just as I don't understand how people can choose their vote simply by party affiliation, I don't understand how one can choose a candidate based on an issue such as abortion or stem cells...its about the bigger picture...right?
Click to expand...

Yes but we are talking about justices right? The checks and balances statement was directed at the issue of nominating these justices. With Obama as president there is little to stop him from having three liberal judges put on the bench.

And don't forget that surplus was the result of a Clinton presidency with a republican majority. Under Bush's presidency we have had a Repub president with a repub majority and look where that got us! The best administrations are the result of a decent president with the other party in the majority, there is no arguing that point.
 
#37
#37
This country was founded on Christian principals, of that there is no denying. I do agree that we should not let religion dictate to the government. We do have a responsibility to be moral and just though.


You are making a very huge stretch here.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
KB5252 said:
This country was founded on Christian principals, of that there is no denying. I do agree that we should not let religion dictate to the government. We do have a responsibility to be moral and just though.


You are making a very huge stretch here.
Click to expand...
agreed. Pretending that we are en route to theocracy is just absurd.
 
#39
#39
KB5252 said:
Yes but we are talking about justices right? The checks and balances statement was directed at the issue of nominating these justices. With Obama as president there is little to stop him from having three liberal judges put on the bench.

And don't forget that surplus was the result of a Clinton presidency with a republican majority. Under Bush's presidency we have had a Repub president with a repub majority and look where that got us! The best administrations are the result of a decent president with the other party in the majority, there is no arguing that point.
Click to expand...


Sorry - i assumed you were headed a different direction....
 
#41
#41
And today Drudge has a photo of Obama holding a ghost placard. A "spook" association intended?

I think its a bit of a conicidence that he has a photo of him kissing a white woman one day and then the photo today. I know a lot people will think its a reach, but putting the two together I am suspicious of the symbolism.
 
#42
#42
Headed For Home said:
You sir, have missed the bigger picture. The killing of babies for convenience or for medical research is not a grey area. If we cannot as a people and as a nation have a solid stance on basic moral issues, we have no hope of prosperity or longevity.

Do you want your children to have to stand an armed guard over their belongings and families as is done in many other countries because the only moral relevance there is the question " is the risk too high for what I want to take"?

A legislated moral base line is a requirement for a positive future. therefore, these are not simply side issues but rather THE issues.
Click to expand...

Well put. Glad to see others who feel strongly about the issue. I have made references to partial birth abortion and the treatment of aborted babies who are still alive and then left to die...no one responds. A lack of moral conviction is what fuels the crap that goes on in Washington..on both sides.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
And today Drudge has a photo of Obama holding a ghost placard. A "spook" association intended?

I think its a bit of a conicidence that he has a photo of him kissing a white woman one day and then the photo today. I know a lot people will think its a reach, but putting the two together I am suspicious of the symbolism.
Click to expand...
Only a racist would notice the symbolism?

While I think you are reaching, I see the connection you are making... however, I didn't think twice about it until you mentioned it. Was the furthest thing from my mind.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
And today Drudge has a photo of Obama holding a ghost placard. A "spook" association intended?

I think its a bit of a conicidence that he has a photo of him kissing a white woman one day and then the photo today. I know a lot people will think its a reach, but putting the two together I am suspicious of the symbolism.
Click to expand...
You have to be kidding me. Halloween's approaching and the ghost was a sign belittling Palin.
 
#45
#45
rwemyss said:
Only a racist would notice the symbolism?

While I think you are reaching, I see the connection you are making... however, I didn't think twice about it until you mentioned it. Was the furthest thing from my mind.
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol said:
You have to be kidding me. Halloween's approaching and the ghost was a sign belittling Palin.
Click to expand...


Blogs are starting to take notice. Some newspapers picked up on yesterday's. Sorry, but in my heart of hearts I do think there is something intentional about it.
 
#47
#47
rwemyss said:
Only a racist would notice the symbolism?

While I think you are reaching, I see the connection you are making... however, I didn't think twice about it until you mentioned it. Was the furthest thing from my mind.
Click to expand...

Same here - this crap is ridiculous.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
Blogs are starting to take notice. Some newspapers picked up on yesterday's. Sorry, but in my heart of hearts I do think there is something intentional about it.
Click to expand...
I'm sure those are some pretty objective blogs.

How is a photo Obama kissing a white woman racist?
 
#49
#49
I don't think its ridiculous. I've always noticed Drudge picking the worst possible photos of people on the left to try to exaggerate their foibles or to take advantage of stereotypes. I think the one yesterday was pretty blatant. Today's less so, but in combination with yesterday's I think its pretty apparent what's going on.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top