When you cast your vote for President, don't think about Bush or Gore!!!

[FlamingoBlue]

Think about the type of judges that they will appoint to the Supreme Court. There will be at least 2 appointments to the high court and countless other appointments to the federal bench.

I can't stomach another Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia. That's why I am voting for Gore.

blue

 

[KillerMuffin]

I can't tolerate another Jackass who wants to send off american troops to possibly die and probably get wounded in some manner for nothing more than spin doctoring stupidity. How many troops did Monica's blow job kill or wound again? I'm voting for Bill the Cat. He isn't running is he... *sigh* It's Bush then.

 

[FlamingoBlue]

K.M., at least Willie got a B.J....

Bush's war, (remember that), was a fucking and we all got fucked on that one. Think about it!! (And the son looks to his father for help)!

blue

 

[CreamyLady]

Yes, if Bush is elected he's already done a deal to appoint Orrin Hatch!!! THINK OF THAT!!!

 

[FlamingoBlue]

OMG, I just chocked....

Orin Hatch on the Supreme Court. I wouldn't want to think about what would happen to our civil rights. This site would be "toast".

blue

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

My very strong, somewhat educated belief....

is that global politics more often than not overshadow even the most powerful of US presidents. Gore or Bush, or Nader for that matter - it doesn't matter - global events, war capable events muscle presidents to do what they must do. They have little control over such matters.

The actual question to this matter is budgeting - which one would properly budget our military. Of course the word properly depends on your point of view. Bush will push for broader, larger budgets. Gore might cut.

Vote the way you want but until all the bad guys are gone - sending young'uns off to hot spots around the world is a fact of life for any president.

And you might thing - if they're going to be send - you might as well budget to arm them heavily.

 

[FlamingoBlue]

It still about the Supreme Court...

The "wars" don't mean dog poop. Think civil rights. If Bush gets in, the internet will be censored and so will everything else. Think about it.

blue

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

You Blue are absolutely right...

He (Bush) will have them monitor our work e-mails and we will all loose our gigs - those of us who have them.

Of course Tipper might get involved - man - I'd love to butt fuck her. One juicy piece of bottle blonde that - bet her snatch is black as coal. Bet it's wild as a thicket too.

Ummmmm!!!!! Tipper's muff!!!! On the Sparky dive bomber plan.

Warning, explicit lyrics inside.................

 

[FlamingoBlue]

Better Sparky butt fucking Tipper than

Bush fucking all the rest of us.

blue

 

[Lasher]

Hey, Flamingo, you musta missed my dissertation on this awhile ago. The Court is a non-issue in this election...

Did you know that 7 of the 9 current Justices have been appointed by Republican Presidents?

Did you know that all 7 have been appointed by Presidents who were elected with platform planks calling for a reversal of Roe vs. Wade?

Where have the drastic social changes been? How exactly would Bush skew this Court?

Can you explain any of this to me??

I'm not saying that people should vote for Bush just because the Court is already fucked and he can't make it worse... I just get tired of people saying things like this as a scare tactic when it is in fact a non-issue.

Instead of trying to scare people, how about talking about REAL issues.

How come no one is talking about the fact that BOTH candidates are proposing 10 year plans to spend a surplus that may not even exist?? Now that's scary...

Check out what Tom Brokaw had to say yesterday...

Brokaw: Vice President Al Gore joins us live from Los Angeles. Mr. Vice President, the topic tonight is the federal surplus. How reliable, how large? If the currently congressional spending and tax cut goes through, it will eat up about 40 percent of the surplus that has been projected for this year, as you know.

The rate of grow of the American economy in the third quarter is about half of what it was in the second quarter. At the same time, earnings are down in the corporate world and consumer debt is up.

Now, you’re counting on all those things to be at the top of their game for your spending program to succeed. Don’t you think the American public is willing to have both of you say, “Look, maybe we ought to cut back in our ambitions here, because that surplus is not going to be as great as we thought it would be.”

Al Gore: Blah, blah, blah, gobbledity guk, blah, blah, blah....

Brokaw: As you know, the Congressional Budget Office, which is the non-partisan agency that everyone relies on, says that, “substantial deviation can result from incorrect economic and technological assumption, not to mention the affect of new legislation,” in other words, these projected surpluses that we’re talking about come from the well-known Washington woman, Rosy Scenario.

There were more blah, blah, blahs after that...

I'm just wondering if anyone else is concerned that both candidates are attempting to buy your vote with money they don't have, and you won't get... Anyone?

 

[FlamingoBlue]

I respectfully disagree with you....

The Supreme Court IS an issue in this election. Insofar as money issues are concerned, as long as Congress continues to hold the purse strings, there isn't much the Prez can do.

Me, scare anyone?? My name is blue, not boo. All I try to do is to get people to think. Maybe that's what scares you so much, Lasher.

blue

 

[Unclebill]

Re: My very strong, somewhat educated belief....

Originally posted by Sparky Kronkite
Vote the way you want but until all the bad guys are gone - sending young'uns off to hot spots around the world is a fact of life for any president.

And you might thing - if they're going to be send - you might as well budget to arm them heavily.

Not true. Harry Browne would not use the military except in defense of the US and its citizens.

Originally posted by FlamingoBlue
The Supreme Court IS an issue in this election. Insofar as money issues are concerned, as long as Congress continues to hold the purse strings, there isn't much the Prez can do.

Gotta go with Lasher on this one. With the Supreme Court in its present make-up, Roe v. Wade hasn't been overturned nor has the first amendment. As far as the 'purse strings', Congress certainly doesn't hold onto them very tightly. Whether it's Democrats or Republicans in control of Congress, budgets and spending gets bigger every year. Both parties are variants of the same philosophical principles which is collectivism; the difference is a matter of degree, not fundamental principles.

Republicans are for BIG government, Democrats are for BIGGER government. Both are essentially pursuing a Socialist State. The Republicans merely at a slower pace.

Republicans still seem to grasp the idea that you can't drain the boat by drillig a bigger hole in the bottom, a concept the Democrats have lost if they ever had.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Re: It still about the Supreme Court...

The "wars" don't mean dog poop. Think civil rights. If Bush gets in, the internet will be censored and so will everything else. Think about it.

blue

Interesting you say that. Never been there? Kids sat out the last one? We're going back sweetie, you can bet your patootie on that one. It may not mean dog poop to you now, but the severity of our intervention in the middle east will be decided by only one man, the Prez. Clinton has a nice big history of sticking his nose deep into everybody's pie. Somalia, Haiti, everywhere in the middle east that has a rubber bullet, Bosnia, now we send Maddy Nottoobright into one of the most chauvanistic sovereignties in the world just to keep her fat ass from offending everyone in the middle east.

You may be bitchy about the Kuwait fiasco (we were given that little victory by the way, the Republican Guard only made an appearance, they didn't fight.) but that was the only major brouhaha we got stuck in during the Bush years. Regan gave us such joy as Grenada and some slurpage in Afghanistan, but mostly we been operating covertly with the majority of our boys at home.

I just remember my hubby telling me that he'd been ordered to turn in his Tier 1 and Tier 2 ammo, all he'd been issued, cause he might accidently shoot the enemy. Everyone was ordered that. The hand tying has become worse. We go over there, where there is, and we disarm the troops and send them into hostile situations with people on both sides of the conflict as our enemy.

We are going to war. You won't fight it, so it won't matter a puppy piddle to you, but to those of us who have to fight the fight and live with the scars after all the dust has settled, well, the supreme court can take a flying leap. I live with a man that carries debilitating scars from the Gulf and always will, scars above and beyond the syndrome, scars that he can never talk about.

Fuck the Supreme Court. I don't want a single American dying or getting shot because Israel and the Palestinians wanna duke it out and the rest of the mideast hops into the fray, on the side of their buddies, the Palestinians. Naturally, we have to help our Israli allies. How much we help them is going to be in the hands of our next Prez. I have faith that Bush will keep more home and properly equip those that go. Gore will send us in like lambs to slaughter. Next war, we're getting our keisters kicked. What if they decide to follow us home? Know how vulnerable we really are? Any idea at all? It's almost enough to give one nightmares.

 

[Lasher]

The Supreme Court IS an issue in this election

You said that already, Flamingo. I was just hoping you had something to back it up. I'm sure somewhere along the way you've heard some talking head say that and you've thought, "Hmmm, gee, he's got a point..". I was just wondering if you had something to add.

I gave the subject a lot of thought when Sparky brought it up a few weeks ago... I'd be more than happy to cut and paste my thoughts on it.

And something I didn't address in my previous posts on the subject. The Senate (which approves Supreme Court appointments) is going to be tight, somewhere around 53-47, or 54-46 Republican. No one who's views are extreme either to the left or the right is going to be approved with such a thin margin.

Like I said, it's a non-issue.

 

[CreamyLady]

I must support Flamingo Blue

Orrin Hatch cut a deal with the Bush camp early in the campaign; he'd bow out of the Presdiential race, but he wants a seat on the court.

Yes, many of the justices were appointed by Republicans, and some of the justices were a surprise when they got there. There are those who weren't, though, and you can bet the Republican right learned from their mistakes.

Abortion is one of those non-issues that can come back and bite -- Roe v. Wade has been under attack since the beginning, and it isn't going to go away. No, it hasn't been overturned, but the court has been hit with many, many cases involving parental consent, waiting periods, limitations on abortions for women with Medicaid, requirements that the patient be presented with full developmental information regarding the fetus and exactly what happens to it -- in short, everything and anything up to full reversal. How many women like having an escort into a women's clinic when they go for a Pap smear, because the Right to Life people scream at them that they are murderesses? I don't!

As for full reversal, it can happen, people. The next administration will probably have FOUR seats to fill -- and please, please PLEASE think about which bottoms are going to fill them. Hatch is not the only rabid abortion opponent who would be considered for a seat, and it isn't only abortion we have to worry about. While the Second Amendment will not doubt be bolstered and encased in titanium, the First Amendment might well find itself on the scrap heap.

As for the current court, I believe it was Scalia who wrote -- very profoundly! -- that innocence is no bar to conviction. Please think of THAT when you are voting, who appointed him, and just how in the hell that's going to sound, times four!

 

[FlamingoBlue]

Lasher, I couldn't have said it better

than Anna Quindlen in the 11-6-00 issue of Newsweek.Her article is on the last page.

Unfortunately, my abilty to give lenghty dissertations on subjects is hampered by the fact that I type with 2 fingers. I should have learned in High School.

blue