I forgive you, for I'm sure I laughed hard enough for both of us. (nod--wink--eh?)
But I am Joe six pack, and I'm easily amused, by golly geez, doncha know..eh? http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...nd10/shrug.gif
Boobage, and hockey, ummm things that America wants, John S. McCain he's a hero, Alaska...great State that Alaska...energy... and good-good people. http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...nd10/smile.gif

I really don't know whats wrong with Hobo. I think the choice is clear. Boobage. Now if you wanna cry about the size of Boobage, then that is sad really. I fear for Hobo if McCain is elected. I'm really concerned...but one might think Boobage would sooth and comfort those who can't cope with what is clearly a McCain victory.

McCain blew Obama away in that debate. He circled around that stage like a wolf studying his prey, and waited for the right moment to attack. Obama sat on a chair limp and unassuming like a dumb energizer bunny mouthing change-tax, change-tax, change-tax.....and you know Obama was thinking about Palins boobage.http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...10/s6vhaha.gif

With the more I hear about ACORN WHICH YOUR MESSIAH GHOBO OBAMA was an Atty for in Chicago along with Ayers gave them MILLIONS of bucks from a board that Ayers created Obama was the head of for years the more I am glad that the fraud that ACORN is being exposed and being ivestigated that Obama is being EXPOSED for the FRAUD AND THUG AND YES HE IS NOTHING BUT A CHICAGO THUG POLITICAN GOLFHOBO. He worked with a group that threatened to KIDNAP BANKERS FAMILIES AKA ACORN IF THEY WOULD NOT OPEN UP THEIR LENDING STANDARDS THEN ALSO TOOK THEM TO COURT TO MAKE THEM OPEN UP MORE AFTER THEY WERE FORCED VIA CORERCION TO DO THAT ALREADY.

No offense, golfhobo, but you are doing a hell of a job representing everything that is wrong with politics today, and you have been for quite some time now. Your "if you're not with me, you're against me" attitude is what is dividing this country down the middle, and is what causes things like your alleged "stolen election" of 2000. Rather than actually discussing real issues, it appears as if you'd sooner discuss why "your guy" beat "the other guy".

Who cares who won the debate? Does who the talking heads found to be more likable during a debate solve any of the crisis that we find ourselves in today?

I'd like to see you actually discuss the issues of the debate, rather than parrot what the talking heads said in the recaps about who won what. I'm not holding my breath that you are capable of doing it, however.

No offense taken, Rev. I guess you didn't understand the title of the thread. ;)

If I wanted to discuss the issues, I'd have titled it "debate the issues."

I have, actually, thought about that, but I'm not sure it would do any good. No one here is going to change their minds probably. I just remembered all the "whooping it up" a few weeks ago when Palin was selected, and how everyone was so sure that Obama was toast. Thought I might see if they all still felt that way. I just found it interesting that no one was saying anything about Tuesday's debate.

I think you're giving me way too much credit for the situation in our country today. Personally, I don't feel that I have a "with me or against me" attitude. That is a Conservative mantra. Ann Coulter is the queen of it.

"I" am not the one who comes on here with all the hate about the other side's candidate. Obama has been skewered on this board nearly on a daily basis. So has anyone who supports him or doesn't join in the hate.

Prolifers have called anyone who believes in choice a murderer. ProWar opinions paint anyone who is against it as a coward or traitor. Capitalists have called anyone who thinks the middle class is being exploited or at least abused a liberal pinko socialist or worse. The list goes on.

Sure, I have said some derogatory things about Conservatives here. But, I have never called them anti-American. I have never said they should be shot for holding the opinions they have. (Well, maybe Dubya...in jest.) Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, as well as Coulter, are the ones saying "with us or against us," and it seems to have infected many here.

I am only trying to say that we have a RIGHT to disagree with their oppressive and dogmatic views that this is somehow THEIR country and it should be run THEIR way. It is, in fact, THEIR rhetoric that has divided the country to the point it is. I have said many times that I hold certain conservative views, but when I feel my party is being labeled as anti-American, I fight back by attacking this agenda of domination.

To be honest, it really surprises me that this country IS so evenly split. Figure the odds of that. But, I believe our "representative" form of government is mostly to blame...not ME. Not saying we could have done differently, but what we've been doing doesn't seem to work too well.

I know it wouldn't work in this country, but I would love to see something more like a government by committee (a form of politbureau if you will.) Can you imagine a "co presidency" headed by the top choice of BOTH parties? Might things be more fair in this country if two guys (or gals) had to sit down and hash out an agenda that would satisfy us all? Or maybe it would just be easier if Presidents didn't feel the need to advance their OWN agenda over the objection of nearly half the citizens.

You want an issue? How about this one. Why is it even the power or responsibility of a President.... beholding to a party and an agenda..... to appoint the justices to the Supreme Court? How can that so-called "equal" branch of the government be impartial under such a selection process? If I'm not mistaken, MOST lower court judges have to run for and win an election. But, somewhere up the line, their decisions are subject to the "opinions" of politically appointed justices.

And, if you think of the logic of it, it frees them up from worrying about re-elections. They are appointed, so they do not have to worry about popular opinion when they hand down their decisions. They can work strictly off the issues as they see them, and look at the evidence objectively. But, it also leaves you with no recourse if their decisions are erronious. There's good and bad either way. Our founding fathers thought this was the best way to do it, and that's what we're stuck with, like it or not.

Windwalker

P. S. You are invited to put your two cents in on my thread as well. That should be a very good discussion.;):rolleyes::cool:

Okay, that is a good point.... freedom from the electoral process and all the baggage that goes with THAT! But, they are still confirmed by Congress, and "they" ARE subject to re-election. It's a vicious cycle.

Our country has long since lost the feeling of standing up for what one believes and winning or losing on one's own merits. I will say, to their credit, that most Supreme Court candidates DO stand in the box under their own merits and accept their fate accordingly. But, there is just no process whereby a justice would be there UNLESS he conforms to SOME degree to the agenda of the sitting president.

Our forefathers ALSO felt that a representative form of government was best, and that the electoral college would CLEARLY discern that. But, all of THAT has been corrupted, too!

I'm in no way dissing our forefathers. I think they did a remarkable job under the circumstances. But, never forget that they also said that the Constitution should be a "living document," one that could change as the country grew. And, of course.... it has, through ammendments.

I wish it were true. But, most recent cases have been decided by numbers that clearly represent their political views, or those of the president who appointed them. Surely, you haven't missed all the discussion about when and how many might be appointed under which administration? There is clearly a national concern over this.

Here's another of Hobo's wacky ideas..... instead of having an ODD number of justices, where a majority vote is at least "easier" to come up with, how about an EVEN number? Rationale behind that would be similar to the committee reference above. "Assuming" that they were impartial, or at least evenly distributed between the two parties, in order to make ANY decision, more than likely someone would have to be persuaded to vote their conscience, or to vote for the common good. Probably wouldn't work..... it's just an idea I've toyed with.

But you're not even debating the debate. You're debating the debaters.

You have assumed (on several occasions) that because I do not like Obama, and feel he is a poor choice for a candidate for the POTUS, that McCain was "my man". You've used that exact phrase, several times. Frankly, I believe McCain is as lousy a Presidential choice as Obama is, and stand behind neither of them. So I believe I am correct in stating that you are guilty of that same "profiling" that you are pointing the finger at others for doing.

There is a completely valid reason for that. Our forefathers did not want our representatives to be appointed for life. They saw our government as fluid, and changing hands over and over. Unfortunately, most of that has been lost over the years as those in power spent more and more money to keep themselves in power. Our forefathers are likely spinning in their graves, seeing what our Democracy has become.

You are absolutely right. This is why SC judges are, and should be, a lifetime appointment. That way, a POTUS appoints a justice, and then another POTUS appoints another one, and so on and so forth. No one President is capable of "packing the bench".

Rev.Vassago said:

Well.... I have barely had a chance to debate much of anything until the last few posts. If you'll note, in my opening post, I COULD have given my opinion on the debate, but I chose to just put the question out there to see what responses were offered. So far, it seems to have worked.

You are partially correct, Rev. I don't recall using the term you quoted concerning you, but if I did, it MAY have been before I actually got some understanding of your position. Your one or two word answers don't give one much to go on, ya know. But, I DO recall you standing up for Obama when others slammed him, IIRC. And, I'll admit... that impressed me. If I have offended you by lumping you in with others, I apologize. However, you have made posts that indicate a position somewhat opposite of mine on many political issues. Does that mean you are "against us" on all issues? No. But, I contend that it is the result of the Conservative mantra against anyone who isn't ONE of them, that has made me respond at times in the same manner. Your point, though, is taken. I will make an increased effort to isolate you from the others. ;)

I certainly agree with this, and stated as much. My point to W/W was that popular opinion (AND presidential agenda) STILL had much to do with who got appointed to the Court.

I agree with the lifetime tenure part. I believe it is the only sensible thing about it. As for "packing the bench," your point is valid, and in principle, I don't disagree. However, that doesn't change my concern about the POTUS even having anything to DO with the process. I am just saying, and wishing, that there was a more impartial way to appoint/select our top judges. Not to gratuitously slam Bush.... but, a president with such a low approval rating should have NO input into the makeup of the Supreme Court. I don't claim to have an answer to the problem. It's just an issue for debate.... though not one even related to the elections.

You know, I debated for a while posting this, but after the last post, I'm laying out my cards.

This country is divided because half the country has forsaken God or morality or basic common sense and human decency. Now it's all about "if it feels good, it's A-OK." I don't nor will I ever subscribe to that tenet. So, because we don't believe in same-sex marriage or abortion or coddling criminals and murderers or propping up a nation of welfare cheats, we are automatically the problem or anti-American.

And that's bullspit.

I guarantee you...go back in history and see how and what this country was founded on and you'll see that today's liberal mindset isn't even in the same ballpark. Even if you want to keep God out of the equation, you still aren't even close.

But I don't worry about it. I continue to vote the issues and the person that most agrees with my philosophy in life. And it damn sure isn't Obama. You talk about getting angry when Obama is skewered? What has he done NOT to deserve it?!? You seem to think it's fine to take your own shots at Bush and McCain and Palin, but Lord have mercry if someone talks bad about your own personal Messiah.

Makes me sick.

I hope and pray that McCain wins in November. But if Obama wins, I won't sweat it. I'm already well prepared to deal with the fallout and I'll enjoy seeing liberals "get what's coming to them" because I promise you that it's coming and it's coming in spades. Right or wrong, that's exactly how I feel. I've grown so weary and sick of the garbage that gets spewed out every day by the liberal and far left talking heads and then have to hear it again parrotted by their followers and then told I'm stupid or intolerant because I happen to be old fashioned and practice and believe in conservative values, in this country's founding fathers visions, and in God. I don't have anything against anyone in particular that believes differently, but I'll not apologize for saying that I believe that your liberal ideology, if that is your system, is completely screwed up.

You, however, like most liberals, cannot do the same thing. You cannot seperate the mindset from the person and everyone that believes differently than you is automatically the enemy, stupid, clueless, racist, homophobic, and any other number of hate tags you can slap on us. Right there is your division and it's being led by your Messiah, Barak Obama.

The President's picks have to make their way through Congress. The whole "checks and balances" thing at work. The only other option would be to have Congress pick the judges, and the President approve of them. Either way, he has a hand in it. That's how our government system works, and for good reason. If a President picks someone, and Congress approves of that person, then Congress is as much to blame as the President. If Congress were to be given the choice, no judges would ever get picked, let alone approved.

Don't worry. It'll still be all Bush's fault, and the whole "stole the election" will never go away.;)

Now hold on there mister. As an Agnostic, I have to take issue with you putting that whole "not believing in God" thing on the shoulders of the liberals. That is the same stereotyping that I'm accusing golfhobo of being guilty of.

To be honest, it comes from both sides. You're guilty of doing it right here in your post. Just sayin'.:D


Rev; is so happy he no longer considers himself a Republican or a Democrat. Still voting for Ross Perot, too.:cool: