Party platform statements.

[RobertNashville]

The Republican Party is far from perfect but the Republican platform is far more in tune with the Constitution than the Democratic platform...and as a group, it's been my experience that Republicans tend to adhere to Constitutional principles much more than do Democrats as a group (but like all politicians; it's up to the people to keep them accountable).

Clearly, there are folks here who either don't like Romney or are pissed off that their candidate didn't win (or maybe really do like Obama) and are not going to vote for Romney - so be it. If you don't like Romney or you think another four years of Obama is no big deal then vote for Obama, or write-in a name or don't vote at all as all three actions have about the same outcome.

I may not live long enough to see the ultimate effects as such effects can take quite a while, but the two to four supreme court nominees the next President will likely get to nominate will have far more wide-reaching effects on our country and the liberties and freedoms most here claim to hold dear than the actual person sitting in the oval office for the next four years will have - I for one don't want Obama to be the one to make those nominations as I can't imagine him making good ones ("good" being defined as those who will truly follow the Constitution).

I have no illusions that Romney is a strong second amendment supporter but I've no fear that he is going to grab my "assault rifles" either. Obama, on the other hand, has made it clear that he doesn't even believe that a person has a right to use deadly force to defend himself in his own home...so if I'm voting just on that one issue (which I don't)...the choice is still pretty clear to me.

Edited September 10, 2012 by RobertNashville

[waynesan]

The Supreme Court issue for me is the most important consideration in this election. I have to believe that Romney will make a better pick for Supreme Court Justices than Obama. And it is pretty sure that the next President will make more than one pick for the Supreme Court. And since the 2nd Amendment was upheld by only a 5-4 majority, the person who appoints the next Supreme Court Justices will be crucial to our 2nd Amendment rights.

[gregintenn]

I was assured that Bush would make sound Supreme Court nominations. That really turned out well, didn't it? You guys have talked yourselves into supporting a liberal! There just no way around that fact. As long as you do this just because there's an "R" behind his name, you'll continue to get what you deserve.

[daddyo]

It's not about "settling", it's about reality.

This is how people rationalize it. It's still a "settle for" mentality.

[RobertNashville]

I was assured that Bush would make sound Supreme Court nominations. That really turned out well, didn't it?...

Yeah...as a matter of fact, is did turn out well.

I'd take a John Roberts and Samuel Alito any day of the week and ten times on Sunday compared to what we've gotten out of the socialist and especially what we will get out of the socialist.

Are you suggesting that Mr. Tree or Mr. Catsup would have made better selections? Do you think either of the two recent second amendment related cases ruled on by SCOTUS would have had the same outcome if Tree's or Catsup's nominees were sitting on the court?

Edited September 11, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

This is how people rationalize it. It's still a "settle for" mentality.

You and I agree on so many things, but you have to slap around a nation to accomplish what you're saying.

You know the same path will be followed until then.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I was assured that Bush would make sound Supreme Court nominations. That really turned out well, didn't it? You guys have talked yourselves into supporting a liberal! There just no way around that fact. As long as you do this just because there's an "R" behind his name, you'll continue to get what you deserve.

One decision and he's a liberal? Grow up! I guess the alternative would have done things much better. Choices were

made, the same as they have to be made each time. What were you saying at that time, when Bush won the nomination?

Did you have that great and all encompassing foresight? Or are you only as frustrated as the rest of us?

I trust it's the latter.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will matter after this election, with one of our choices, anyway.

Pick your poison. No one is going to satisfy anyone, the way our topics go around here.

[gregintenn]

Yeah...as a matter of fact, is did turn out well.

I'd take a John Roberts and Samuel Alito any day of the week and ten times on Sunday compared to what we've gotten out of the socialist and especially what we will get out of the socialist.

Yup. That's how we still have Obamacare. Let me know how that works out for you in a couple of years.

[gregintenn]

One decision and he's a liberal? Grow up! I guess the alternative would have done things much better. Choices were

made, the same as they have to be made each time. What were you saying at that time, when Bush won the nomination?

Did you have that great and all encompassing foresight? Or are you only as frustrated as the rest of us?

I trust it's the latter.

I have virtually no foresight, but I do believe in the old adage that says if you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it.

[RobertNashville]

Yup. That's how we still have Obamacare. Let me know how that works out for you in a couple of years.

So...just so I understand...

You hold up the decision leaving Obamacare in place as proof of Bush's bad SCOTUS nominations yet you seem content to leave the socialist in office who forced Obmacare on us because Romney isn't a good enough choice for you...yeah...that's logical!

Edited September 11, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There are things that can be done to reverse that. Of course cynicism gets in the way and stops people from doing

something that might allow that to happen. If it is allowed to happen, we know the course to chart, next time, but since

we have failed to see the message, we might not get the message, this time, either. I'm actually agreeing with you

before you take it wrong, Greg.

Enough people have to get it before the kind of change will take place. if you are active in the process, rather than

just posting on a forum, you might see something happening. This forum is not going to change anything.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I have virtually no foresight, but I do believe in the old adage that says if you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it.

That's all well and good. Remind your neighbor what you just said, and remind him to remind someone else, other than staying frustrated about it. If you're past the point, don't bother. Paul wasn't the answer enough people were willing to here. It takes

a massive effort to move mountains.

[Jonnin]

One decision and he's a liberal? Grow up! I guess the alternative would have done things much better. Choices were

made, the same as they have to be made each time. What were you saying at that time, when Bush won the nomination?

Did you have that great and all encompassing foresight? Or are you only as frustrated as the rest of us?

I trust it's the latter.

Bush was no liberal. he made a ton of mistakes, and did a lot of good stuff as well. Who could have predicted 911? Anyone in the know might have realized the housing bubble crash was coming --- the banks were playing hot potato with the worthless debt tokens --- but the timing and extent of the damage was anyone's guess, very few probably knew the truth and those kept it quiet for personal gain. Who could have predicted bush would cave in to the left for that union bailout? I know my crystal ball is busted, always has been....

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Bush was no liberal. he made a ton of mistakes, and did a lot of good stuff as well. Who could have predicted 911? Anyone in the know might have realized the housing bubble crash was coming --- the banks were playing hot potato with the worthless debt tokens --- but the timing and extent of the damage was anyone's guess, very few probably knew the truth and those kept it quiet for personal gain. Who could have predicted bush would cave in to the left for that union bailout? I know my crystal ball is busted, always has been....

Mine, too. Thanks for adding that, Jonnin.

We can sometimes predict outcomes, but seldom does the prediction come true.

With the two parties' platforms, it doesn't help much that the Dems are obvious what they want to do. The Republicans,

if they stick to their platform, are the ones for me. Yep, things can be difficult, but at least one enemy is easily identified.

The other remains to be seen.

[gregintenn]

So...just so I understand...

You hold up the decision leaving Obamacare in place as proof of Bush's bad SCOTUS nominations yet you seem content to leave the socialist in office who forced Obmacare on us because Romney isn't a good enough choice for you...yeah...that's logical!

That is correct. As long as we reward the Republican party with votes for the turds they foist upon us, that is all we'll continue to get. A socialist with an "R" isn't much of an improvement over a socialist with a "D" in my opinion. That's why we all get to vote I guess.

[gregintenn]

Bush was no liberal. he made a ton of mistakes, and did a lot of good stuff as well. Who could have predicted 911? Anyone in the know might have realized the housing bubble crash was coming --- the banks were playing hot potato with the worthless debt tokens --- but the timing and extent of the damage was anyone's guess, very few probably knew the truth and those kept it quiet for personal gain. Who could have predicted bush would cave in to the left for that union bailout? I know my crystal ball is busted, always has been....

Bush was a fiscal liberal by any measure. He was the biggest spender in the history of our country...until he was later outspent by Obama. I give you the medicare prescription plan, bailouts, etc. He aligned with my views on a lot of issues; but not on economics. I do readily admit Al Gore would have been incalculably worse in every way.

[Guest HvyMtl]

All I'm suggesting is that he ain't gonna lead the charge like you may think. I think he may be more sane than you

do. That dog won't hunt.

Neither candidate will lead the charge on this. They know it is too detrimental to their party to do so. The one you have to watch is not the President, it is Congress.

[RobertNashville]

That is correct. As long as we reward the Republican party with votes for the turds they foist upon us, that is all we'll continue to get. A socialist with an "R" isn't much of an improvement over a socialist with a "D" in my opinion. That's why we all get to vote I guess.

If you are saying that Romney is anything close to a socialist then I don't believe you know very much about Romney. There are certainly plenty of Republicans and Democrats who are socialists and/or progressives but complaining about it won't change that...working for and voting for better candidates will.

This isn't about "rewarding" anyone; it's about doing what is best for the country and doing what is best for the country is NOT leaving Obama in office.

Edited September 11, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Neither candidate will lead the charge on this. They know it is too detrimental to their party to do so. The one you have to watch is not the President, it is Congress.

Leading the charge through legislative means is one thing, but making an EO, which is what the current one is doing all the time is another. If you think Obama wouldn't do that on his own after re-election, you're dreaming. Watching Congress is absolutely necessary, but Congress isn't going to do that with it's current makeup in the House. The Senate is altogether another issue until it is changed.

Damn! Hvymtl. You made me go back to where I said that, because I forgot it!

Edited September 11, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Bush was a fiscal liberal by any measure. He was the biggest spender in the history of our country...until he was later outspent by Obama. I give you the medicare prescription plan, bailouts, etc. He aligned with my views on a lot of issues; but not on economics. I do readily admit Al Gore would have been incalculably worse in every way.

That same argument can be used against any past President. Presidents usually do make "deals with the Devil" to get certain things done, and like Jonnin said, Bush got hit very hard, compared to a lot of Presidents. How do you think you would have fared in his shoes?

I can live with just about everything he did, except the Patriot Act. We're paying a much heavier price with that one than you're considering, and I understand the reason we got stuck with it. Still doesn't make it right, but given the circumstances, and the way people expect the government to "protect and feed them", I do understand.

POTUS can't be all things to all people. You might consider your alignments. He did what he was equipped to do:good and bad.

Edited September 11, 2012 by 6.8 AR