Regret Your Vote Yet?

[PoliticalChic]

I'd say that your post is among the weakest defenses of this failure in the White House....

....put a little effort into it, even if Obama doesn't.

So what is success as president?

If we could have every President accomplish what Ronald Reagan did, the nation and the world would be in far better shape.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What were the alternatives again?

Funny you should ask.

The alternative was a man of courage, a hero who shut down his business to help a colleague search for a missing child, a man with proven successful executive and business experience.
Just what the nation needed.....

Hard to believe any dolts voted for the windbag in the White House, huh?

And we'd also have two more Conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

Thank you president Obama for giving us two Liberal justices. I'm hopeful we can get two more in the years to come under president Clinton.

A pretty ignorant post, ugly......

If that were to occur, America would be ruled by unelected European/United Nations folks.

1. In his book “Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges,” Judge Bork tells this tale of the American Bar Association’s 2000 meeting in London, which included attendance of four Supreme Court Justices. A London barrister accused the Supreme Court of “turning its back on the Continent,” complaining that the justices “rarely cite the decisions of European courts.” Of course, many American lawyers began effusively apologizing. But Justice Kennedy “did not succumb to this combination of insolent foreign browbeating and pusillanimous American response.”

a. Kennedy proclaimed that if US courts cede authority to remote foreign courts “there is a risk of losing the allegiance of the people.”




2. If only Kennedy was a man of his word! Kennedy wrote the majority in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18.
Kennedy referred favorably to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights. He also cited an European Union brief
.He excused himself by that these were not “controlling,” but the Court “has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ “Roper v. Simmons - 03-633 (2005) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center





3. In a blistering dissent, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas wrote: “I do not believe that approval by ‘other nations and peoples’ should buttress our commitment to American principles any more than…disapproval by other ‘nations and peoples’ should weaken our commitment. More importantly,”foreign sources were being cited “not to underscore our fidelity to the Constitution” or to the American heritage, but rather “to set aside the centuries-old America practice-a practice still engaged in by a large majority of the relevant states- of letting a jury of 12 citizens decide whether, in a particular case, youth should be the basis of withholding the death penalty.”ROPER V. SIMMONS

4. Scalia pointed out that Supreme Court Justices who cite international opinion do so only when it conforms to their own, liberal, preferences. Further, he point out that American law in the areas of the exclusionary rule, abortion law, church-state relationships law, our law is more liberal than European laws….and that the Justices do not refer to alien law in those cases.




5. In the last few years, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, O’Connor and Stevens have all invoked foreign law in making decisions and filing dissents.
Fonte, “Sovereignty or Submission,” p. 110.

a. In 2003, Breyer, Ginsburg, and O’Connor met with French president Chirac to discussFrench views on the death penalty.This, as the French were a prime mover on the Council of Europe with the announced intention of “abolishing capital punishment in the United States.”Multilateralism comes to the courts > Public Interest > National Affairs

b. “ In Grutter, Justice Ruth BaderGinsburg (joined by Justice Stephen Breyer) cited both the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (which the United States has ratified) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (which it has not) as evidence of an “international understanding of the office of affirmative action.”In Justice Ginsburg’s view, these international conventions provide the grounds for “temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality.” Ibid.

c. “In Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy prominently recurred to a friend-of-the-Court brief onforeign law and court decisionsfiled by Mary Robinson, the former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to a key decision of the European Court of Human Rights.” Ibid.



6. So…we see theLiberal regularly attempting to marginalize American law and American history, to supplant same with foreign versions.

a. Liberals intend to replace American law. Need more proof? See Breyer’s dissent in Prinz v United States, touting European concepts over American. And in Knight v.Florida, he quotes India and even Zimbabwe.



7. So what America does the American Left love? That is for those on the left to answer. But given their beliefs that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, it is a fair question.
The World Doesn't Hate America, the Left Does - Dennis Prager - [page]



Unlike you, I love America.....that's why I will never be a Liberal.

 

[R.D.]

Very proud of my vote for Obama in both General Elections. Would do so again in a heartbeat.

Oh brother!

No, I don't regret my vote. I regret her vote and the rest of her ilk

 

[PoliticalChic]

So would Foley be not dead if Obama hadn't been golfing?

That's not the point, and you darn-well know it.

The point is that it was a matter of bad form and bad taste and a show of insensitivity and callous disregard.

Not to mention outright arrogance.

How the President manifests, hard on the heels of tragedy, is always a matter for public scrutiny and comment.

So the President is supposed to stop everything and mourn? Where is the precedent for that?

I see your point....he could do so, or he call place a call to the first openly gay football player....

It's all about priorities.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.......

Nope. I don't do round-about. He's clearly not a failure.

Now...answer the question please. Have you ever voted for a presidential candidate and ended up regretting your vote?

Not a failure?

WE GAVE HIM EVERYTHING
CAUTION:
DO NOT HAVE ANY LIQUID IN YOUR MOUTH WHEN YOU WATCH THIS.
This is a very short 47 seconds to watch.

We gave him everything

Powerful.

 

[Kondor3]

So would Foley be not dead if Obama hadn't been golfing?

That's not the point, and you darn-well know it.

The point is that it was a matter of bad form and bad taste and a show of insensitivity and callous disregard.

Not to mention outright arrogance.

How the President manifests, hard on the heels of tragedy, is always a matter for public scrutiny and comment.

So the President is supposed to stop everything and mourn? Where is the precedent for that?

Nope.

But he should quite probably avoid flippant and pleasure-seeking activity, a metaphorical 10 seconds after making such a somber announcement.

Even Obumble knows he phukked this one up, and acknowledged the error.

Consequently, you've already lost this defensive sequence before you've even begun.

I suggest you suck it up, acknowledge that Your Guy screwed the pooch on this one, and just move on.

In light of his own acknowledgment on the subject, it's the only sensible thing to do.

Meanwhile, his critics will focus upon both (1) the callousness evident here, and (2) the idea that Obumble's Rookie Status is long past its sell-by or freshness date - that he should have known better, and didn't.

Those critics are both within their rights, and correct, to do so, in this instance.

Win some, lose some.

It was Your Guy's turn to lose one.

Man-up, admit it, then let it go.

Repeat after me: "Yeah, I guess you guys are right about this one. It was a bad call. Can we move on, now?"

See how easy that was?

 

[Faun]

What were the alternatives again?

Funny you should ask.

The alternative was a man of courage, a hero who shut down his business to help a colleague search for a missing child, a man with proven successful executive and business experience.
Just what the nation needed.....

Hard to believe any dolts voted for the windbag in the White House, huh?

And we'd also have two more Conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

Thank you president Obama for giving us two Liberal justices. I'm hopeful we can get two more in the years to come under president Clinton.

A pretty ignorant post, ugly......

If that were to occur, America would be ruled by unelected European/United Nations folks.

1. In his book “Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges,” Judge Bork tells this tale of the American Bar Association’s 2000 meeting in London, which included attendance of four Supreme Court Justices. A London barrister accused the Supreme Court of “turning its back on the Continent,” complaining that the justices “rarely cite the decisions of European courts.” Of course, many American lawyers began effusively apologizing. But Justice Kennedy “did not succumb to this combination of insolent foreign browbeating and pusillanimous American response.”

a. Kennedy proclaimed that if US courts cede authority to remote foreign courts “there is a risk of losing the allegiance of the people.”




2. If only Kennedy was a man of his word! Kennedy wrote the majority in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18.
Kennedy referred favorably to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights. He also cited an European Union brief
.He excused himself by that these were not “controlling,” but the Court “has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ “Roper v. Simmons - 03-633 (2005) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center





3. In a blistering dissent, Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas wrote: “I do not believe that approval by ‘other nations and peoples’ should buttress our commitment to American principles any more than…disapproval by other ‘nations and peoples’ should weaken our commitment. More importantly,”foreign sources were being cited “not to underscore our fidelity to the Constitution” or to the American heritage, but rather “to set aside the centuries-old America practice-a practice still engaged in by a large majority of the relevant states- of letting a jury of 12 citizens decide whether, in a particular case, youth should be the basis of withholding the death penalty.”ROPER V. SIMMONS

4. Scalia pointed out that Supreme Court Justices who cite international opinion do so only when it conforms to their own, liberal, preferences. Further, he point out that American law in the areas of the exclusionary rule, abortion law, church-state relationships law, our law is more liberal than European laws….and that the Justices do not refer to alien law in those cases.




5. In the last few years, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, O’Connor and Stevens have all invoked foreign law in making decisions and filing dissents.
Fonte, “Sovereignty or Submission,” p. 110.

a. In 2003, Breyer, Ginsburg, and O’Connor met with French president Chirac to discussFrench views on the death penalty.This, as the French were a prime mover on the Council of Europe with the announced intention of “abolishing capital punishment in the United States.”Multilateralism comes to the courts > Public Interest > National Affairs

b. “ In Grutter, Justice Ruth BaderGinsburg (joined by Justice Stephen Breyer) cited both the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (which the United States has ratified) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (which it has not) as evidence of an “international understanding of the office of affirmative action.”In Justice Ginsburg’s view, these international conventions provide the grounds for “temporary special measures aimed at accelerating de facto equality.” Ibid.

c. “In Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy prominently recurred to a friend-of-the-Court brief onforeign law and court decisionsfiled by Mary Robinson, the former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, and to a key decision of the European Court of Human Rights.” Ibid.



6. So…we see theLiberal regularly attempting to marginalize American law and American history, to supplant same with foreign versions.

a. Liberals intend to replace American law. Need more proof? See Breyer’s dissent in Prinz v United States, touting European concepts over American. And in Knight v.Florida, he quotes India and even Zimbabwe.



7. So what America does the American Left love? That is for those on the left to answer. But given their beliefs that America was founded by racists and slaveholders, that it is an imperialist nation, that 35 million Americans go hungry, that it invades countries for corporate profits, and that it is largely racist and xenophobic, it is a fair question.
The World Doesn't Hate America, the Left Does - Dennis Prager - [page]



Unlike you, I love America.....that's why I will never be a Liberal.

Put the bong down, rightie ...

"When we interpret a treaty, we accord the judgments of our sister signatories “ ‘considerable weight.’ ” Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 404 (1985). True to that canon, our previous Warsaw Convention opinions have carefully considered foreign case law. See, e.g., El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155, 173—174 (1999); Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530, 550—551 (1991); Saks, supra, at 404. Today’s decision stands out for its failure to give any serious consideration to how the courts of our treaty partners have resolved the legal issues before us." ~ Justice Scalia, OLYMPIC AIRWAYS v. RUBINA HUSAIN​

 

[frigidweirdo]

Those who deny that Reagan was a Great President were prolly not of age when he was president or are just liberal progressive loons. I was of voting age when that shithead Cater was President and saw the awesome turn around that came with the election of RR in 1980.

Like the highest post depression unemployment level, a long time at +7% unemployment, people claim he got rid of the one thing that allowed the Republicans to do what they like, the Cold War and USSR. Any president can look bad. Reagan was popular? Not as popular as Clinton.

On average Clinton had 55.1%, Reagan 52.8%, Bush senior 60.9% which reflects he didn't have a second term, 5 presidents had higher ratings than Reagan.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If we could have every President accomplish what Ronald Reagan did, the nation and the world would be in far better shape.

He wasn't that popular though, was he? In approval ratings he got lower than Clinton. So..........?

What did he achieve apart from the highest unemployment rate since the depression (and this still stands)?

 

[AmericanGirl05]

What were the alternatives again?

Funny you should ask.

The alternative was a man of courage, a hero who shut down his business to help a colleague search for a missing child, a man with proven successful executive and business experience.
Just what the nation needed.....

Hard to believe any dolts voted for the windbag in the White House, huh?

Man, I guess I just didn't know McCain's history.

Of course that business experience would have been useless in government since they serve opposing interests.
Just what we'd need - an even wider DC revolving door.

So as always --- lesser of two evils. Gotta love "choice". Gotta love the illusion anyway, since that's as close as we ever get.

The President is Chief Executive. Why does it matter where executive experience was attained?

And I say this as a retired career Federal employee with a public administration degree.

You worked for the Federal Government?
Whenever someone asks you where do you work do you have to say "Define work".

Do you mean now that I'm retired or then when I actually had to show up and do what they told me?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If we could have every President accomplish what Ronald Reagan did, the nation and the world would be in far better shape.

He wasn't that popular though, was he? In approval ratings he got lower than Clinton. So..........?

What did he achieve apart from the highest unemployment rate since the depression (and this still stands)?

1. "As in most prior studies, the three presidents ranked as "Great" are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. In this survey, Ronald Reagan joins the group of "Near Great" presidents with Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, James Polk, and Woodrow Wilson."
Rating the Presidents of the United States 1789-2000 A Survey of Scholars in History Political Science and Law Publications The Federalist Society


2. "What did he achieve apart from the highest unemployment rate since the depression (and this still stands)?"

Are you nuts?
Beside saving the world from the Soviet Communists....The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. 1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
   2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
   3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
   4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
   5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
   6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

And...

3. "During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics Facts And Figures - Forbes

 

[asaratis]

Not a failure?

WE GAVE HIM EVERYTHING
CAUTION:
DO NOT HAVE ANY LIQUID IN YOUR MOUTH WHEN YOU WATCH THIS.
This is a very short 47 seconds to watch.

We gave him everything

Powerful.

...and absolutely truthful! The man is a complete failure!!!

 

[Moonglow]

Thanks in much to Silicon Valley and the tech revolution...

 

[Moonglow]

Thanks in much to Silicon Valley and the tech revolution...

For Reagan that is...

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't regret my vote at all. I voted for McCain and Romney so I am not responsible for this clusterfuck of an administration. It is funny to see the libs cling to his coat tails no matter how badly Obama fails.

No worse than the pontificating Reaganites...

There's nothing to pontificate about. We had a better economy during Reagan's term and it would have been even better without the dems failure to spend responsibly.

It's easy to have a good economy when you stick your successors with the bill.

 

[Synthaholic]

What were the alternatives again?

The Wacko From Wasilla, and Eddie Munster.

 

[mdk]

I voted for Johnson in the last election, so no, I don't regret my vote in the least. Admittedly, I voted for Obama in 2008 but I wasn't going to make that same mistake twice. I can take pride in knowing that I didn't have to put a bag over my head when I voted last Presidential election.

 

[Synthaholic]

What were the alternatives again?

Funny you should ask.

The alternative was a man of courage, a hero who shut down his business to help a colleague search for a missing child, a man with proven successful executive and business experience.

THAT'S the part that gets wingnuts all weepy. Not that he helped a friend try to find their child, as most anyone would do.

It's the fact that he SHUT DOWN HIS BUSINESS FOR THE DAY! OMG!! What a SACRIFICE!!!

That's what impresses greedy Right-Wingers. Even though Romney's money makes money whether he shows up for work or not.

 

[Pogo]

Unlike you, I love America.....that's why I will never be a Liberal.

-- a nation that is completely a Liberal creation. You have a paradox.
Not that that's a surprise.

Regret your thread yet?

 

[Synthaholic]

for those of you who want to know the facts, here's a lengthy article:

Romney 8217 s Food Stamp Stretch

Au contraire.....

Here are the facts:

1. Fact-Check: a political fact-checking website created by the St. Petersburg Times, which endorsed Obama in '08.

'In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper.'
Tampa Bay Times - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Facts have a Liberal bias.

But thanks for trying to shoot the messenger rather than look at the facts.

Par for the course for you.