Who is Bill Ayers?

[AllieBaba]

Did you even read the link you posted? It indicates there is almost no connection between Ayers and Obama.

If a weak connection is enough, how do you feel about McCain's must stronger connection to convicted felon Keating?

Yeah, I read the article and obviously the journalist who wrote it doesn't have a problem with a potential candidate for the presidency defends a guy who said, after 911, that he WISHED HE'D SET MORE BOMBS any more than any of you guys, who think people who believe in the Bible are WORSE than terrorists.

The point is, the guy said what he said, and I heard Obama, with my own ears, downplay the fact that the guy admitted to setting bombs with something like, "something he did 20 years ago...."

Obviously Obama doesn't think it was so bad, either. And THAT is the point. Not whether he chums around with the guy day and night..but that by his own admission, he just doesn't think it matters much that the guy is an admitted terrorist.

 

[ReillyT]

Yeah, I read the article and obviously the journalist who wrote it doesn't have a problem with a potential candidate for the presidency defends a guy who said, after 911, that he WISHED HE'D SET MORE BOMBS any more than any of you guys, who think people who believe in the Bible are WORSE than terrorists.

The point is, the guy said what he said, and I heard Obama, with my own ears, downplay the fact that the guy admitted to setting bombs with something like, "something he did 20 years ago...."

Obviously Obama doesn't think it was so bad, either. And THAT is the point. Not whether he chums around with the guy day and night..but that by his own admission, he just doesn't think it matters much that the guy is an admitted terrorist.

The length of time from the event conveys the fact that Obama was 8 when it happened. Didn't you notice in the link you posted where it said Obama has condemned the actions of the Weather Underground? Can you be any more fucking stupid?

You forgot to mention Charles Keating.

 

[GHook93]

No. What you're not getting (see, I'll individualize it instead of defining you by stereotype) is that the way I see it, I have a choice. None of these guys are perfect. They BOTH have associates that I find offensive. I find them EQUALLY offensive... I think Rev Hagee is a sick SOB who shoiuldn't be embraced by ANY politician.

Yep Hagee's a nut, but he is only an endorser of McCain, so its moot

Where did I say that ANY judge wants to overthrow Marbury v Madison? That WAS, however, pretty much what McCain said, which is why he could walk on hot coals and I wouldn't vote for him.

When and were did he say this.

However, anyone who knows Constitutional Law knows that the constitution is not intended to be read literally like a fundie reads a bible or koran. From day 1 Marbury v Madison, BY IT'S INTERPRETATION of the Constitution said there was a right of judicial review in order to effectuate the RIGHTS guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet NOWHERE DOES THE CONSTItUTION PROVIDE FOR JUdICIAL REVIEW. Yet, it exists. And it exists because people did not pretend that there is something called "strict constructionism" in terms of the words. When originally used, (by a LIBERAL JUDGE) it was used to say rights couldn't be abridged and you don't allow limitation of them.

M v. M was a unique and political case. Correct me if I am wrong, but President Adams appointed Marbury for commission and Marshall witheld then until Jefferson took off. At that point TJ told Marshall told Madison to refuse it.

Before then the Supreme Court could only hear diversity case but M v M allowed it to hear the Federal Question and Judicial review. Hence creating the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. But unlike Roe v Wade, the interpreted Federal Law. The Judiciary act of 1789!

U.S. Const. art. III, Section 2 Clause 2
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], 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."

I think YOU need to look into the "conservative judges" because I know all about them. And I will never vote for anyone who talks about how judges shouldn't engage in judicial review of legislation. That is the whole point of the bench, IMO... limiting the power of the other two branches. And if you think for a second that I think Antonin Scalia is upholding the Constitution, I'd reconsider that if I were you. You don't uphold the Constitution when you violate precedent by inserting the USSC's opinion in an election law matter over the highest court of a state and then stating within the decision that it has NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.

To tell you the truth I am not a big fan of Scalia. I like his philosophy; however, I don't think he follows it. I believe he makes some political moves. The Gore decision is one of them, but come on you know Gilberts would have done the same thing if the table was turned.

So, with every candidate it's about what the dealbreakers are for you.

Not sure I understand this question.

Obama's associates, while I don't appreciate some of them, aren't because ultimately they won't affect public policy. McCain's BECAUSE HE INTENDS TO ADVANCE THEIR AGENDA... are relevant to me... and ARE dealbreakers, especially when we're one, maybe two judges away from overturning RvW and the next president is going to get to appoint at least one justice, probably two.

I care more about Obama's fiscal policies then who he hangs with. I am just glad these things came to light, because it hurts a socialist, who is very charismatic!

Really that simple.... and talking about one's "associates" without talking about the others is silly... because each of us gets to decide on the dealbreakers.

McCain's are dealbreakers... for me. Obama's might be... for you.

Obama's fiscal and immigration (same with Clinton's for that matter) are dealbreakers for me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I love when Jillian ignores the fact the Bush versus Gore was decided 7 to 2 as to whether or not it violated Federal Law. So I guess 7 of the 9 Justices at the time were all conservatives?

It has no Precedent because it is a unique case and if it happens again it will be another UNIQUE case, depending on State law and whether State Courts violate Federal law.

 

[ReillyT]

I love when Jillian ignores the fact the Bush versus Gore was decided 7 to 2 as to whether or not it violated Federal Law. So I guess 7 of the 9 Justices at the time were all conservatives?

It has no Precedent because it is a unique case and if it happens again it will be another UNIQUE case, depending on State law and whether State Courts violate Federal law.

You neglect to mention the other very important portion of the case that was decided 5-4.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You neglect to mention the other very important portion of the case that was decided 5-4.

Jillian keeps claiming the Court had no business hearing the case and that it was a partisan decision. 7-2 is proof it was not partisan. Simple enough even you geniuses can grasp the concept.

 

[GHook93]

I love when Jillian ignores the fact the Bush versus Gore was decided 7 to 2 as to whether or not it violated Federal Law. So I guess 7 of the 9 Justices at the time were all conservatives?

You don't think it was politically motived decision at all? Either Scalia's justifications that this is not a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, was not totally off base

 

[Shogun]

Indeed, if she expects the pro-life crowd to get over RvW then perhaps you and her both need to get over 2000's gore decision.



by the way,

Zionism = Racism 100% of the time.

 

[jillian]

Zionism = Racism 100% of the time.

only to retards

 

[Shogun]

Case in point. If you understood what Dean meant when he said right-wing traits included "mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic", you wouldn't respond in a manner that confirms his diagnosis.

um, has Dean ever qualified for each of those adjectives?

 

[Shogun]

Conservatives can't understand this point; they are intellectually childlike. They can't understand the simple concept of listening to someone with whom they disagree, especially authority figures, so they assume Obama has the same immature quality, and therefore must agree with Rev. Wright.

Intellectual adults know otherwise. We can listen to opposing viewpoints without blowing a gasket. Obama has intellectual maturity, so he could listen to an authority figure like his pastor without agreeing in lockstep with everything he says. He can make up his own mind.

In the wake of the last few abortion threads I have to say you are full of shit.


and, i'll be voting for Obama, but I don't think the man is a fucking messiah like you seem to.

 

[Shogun]

My dad was like that for the longest time but he eventually came around.

Al Franken said conservatives love their country like children love their mommy: with no tolerance for any criticism. Liberals have an adult relationship - we see the normal human flaws, and the room for improvement, but we love them all the same.

what a crock of shit. Liberals have every bit of potential to be childish tantrum throwing babies just like those on the right side of the spectrum.

You really are no better than your antithesis.

 

[Shogun]

And, assuming that's correct, and I haven't seen it, so I don't know, but I'll take your word for it, will those comments in any way influence Obama's policies the way Hagee will influence (has influenced) McCain's?

Given Hagee's flagship issue would you really care if it did?

 

[Shogun]

Please tell me: how do you interpret the Ninth Amendment?

HA!

the NINTH!


if only I had a peso for every time i've brought up the beloved ninth amendment.

 

[Shogun]

only to retards

or, people who are not quick to rationalize a double standard for the ethnic group they belong to..



Shall I expect a neg rep to really DRIVE that point home?

 

[jillian]

I told you, it wasn't disagreement. I rep people who disagree with me all the time if they give me a good argument.

but i'll leave it to you to figure out what earned your neg since you're still whining about it... which is pretty retarded anyway.

 

[AllieBaba]

I told you, it wasn't disagreement. I rep people who disagree with me all the time if they give me a good argument.

but i'll leave it to you to figure out what earned your neg since you're still whining about it... which is pretty retarded anyway.

I told you, it was because you were caught out either lying or making stupid mistakes, and you knew the comments you wanted to make were too obnoxious for the open board and would show you up for the no-talent little bitch you are.

 

[Yurt]

I told you, it wasn't disagreement. I rep people who disagree with me all the time if they give me a good argument.

but i'll leave it to you to figure out what earned your neg since you're still whining about it... which is pretty retarded anyway.

you have something against people who are mentally disabled from birth?

 

[Shogun]

I told you, it wasn't disagreement. I rep people who disagree with me all the time if they give me a good argument.

but i'll leave it to you to figure out what earned your neg since you're still whining about it... which is pretty retarded anyway.

Hey, it's no skin off of my nutsack, jill. If lording over the board with your uber rep means something to you then so be it. Hell, your a mod, take it all if you think doing so will prove your point.

 

[Shogun]

I told you, it was because you were caught out either lying or making stupid mistakes, and you knew the comments you wanted to make were too obnoxious for the open board and would show you up for the no-talent little bitch you are.

well, im not going to go THAT far. clearly, I made a point that she didn't like but i'll save the female dog nomenclature for Ravi.