Way to continue to erode our rights Republican judges

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
It's hard to take care of the environment if you bankrupt the nation.

Not saying environmentalism is cause of that. If you look at the congressional budget office's forecast for our national debt (not deficit)it is easy to see we are in trouble.

I think reducing our debt should be issue #1.

That being said, I dont see why we couldn't have the government invest in our updating our energy grid to be more efficient. Replacing old lines for more efficient ones and placing devices that eliminate energy loss would be a large nationwide project that would provide jobs and income for years.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 6% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed annually in the United States.1

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-u-s-power-grid-is-in-need-of-a-technology-upgrade/
We need to install fuel cells in consumer's homes and places of business. Electric and heat cogeneration at the point of consumption would do for power generation and transmission what LED is doing for the indoor agricultural industry.

Guess who's against the idea.
 

Big_Lou

Well-Known Member
Reducing America's debt is easy; just tax corporations and the rich. They're the ones who gamed the system and bought the political system so they could legally walk away from paying their share- and we see the logical consequences of this activity in our national debt.
200 (67).gif
 

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
What about the concept of a "liberal judge"? You posted here for a reason. What are your thoughts on the Clinton appointed Justice . . . Breyer? You know, the one who joined with the 4 Republican appointees which made this law?
I think his previous voting record makes up for it. This was a bad vote for him, but he's come down on the right side of much more important votes. Having judges (and politicians for that matter) who are willing to compromise instead of just toe the party line and support whatever their party says is a GOOD thing. Partisan politics are what has torn this country apart for years, and viewing a willingness to compromise as a flaw or weakness is going to continue the cycle indefinitely.
 

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
I've been thinking about it and I'm just not sure I can agree with you on this. She has always been willing to shill to the money. No bigger prize than getting your man on the bench, so I'm thinking not so liberal.

I mean, why would she? It would be out of character with her stated policy positions, campaign donor's wishes and hard to get past a conservative Senate.

She is NOT a progressive, so it makes little sense to assume she'd want to install any on the bench.

Have a look;
View attachment 3714941
Show me her liberal side? I'm afraid I can't find it.
Again, read the things AFTER what the graph on that site (A site which says that Obama is 2012 was more right wing than Palin was in 2008, so you know they are full of shit) and you will see that it is a site run without even the pretext of neutrality. It is just an ideologue's view of American politics, and their "Political Compass" has nothing at all to do with the paradigm of American politics. Within the context of American politics, Hillary IS a left wing politician (with some centrist leanings, but not as much as Bill had) and her appointees would be liberal as well.

A MUCH better and more accurate graph of where she actually falls on the American political spectrum based on her actual voting record:
s080_010.gif
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Again, read the things AFTER what the graph on that site (A site which says that Obama is 2012 was more right wing than Palin was in 2008, so you know they are full of shit) and you will see that it is a site run without even the pretext of neutrality. It is just an ideologue's view of American politics, and their "Political Compass" has nothing at all to do with the paradigm of American politics. Within the context of American politics, Hillary IS a left wing politician (with some centrist leanings, but not as much as Bill had) and her appointees would be liberal as well.

A MUCH better and more accurate graph of where she actually falls on the American political spectrum based on her actual voting record:
View attachment 3716273
That graph is useless because it doesn't have a space for liberalism. Your assumptions about political compass dot org are wildly incorrect, as well.

You're stuck in your own viewpoint, I'm not surprised that you think Shillary is anything but a die hard conservative.

DINOsaur.
 

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
I think his previous voting record makes up for it. This was a bad vote for him, but he's come down on the right side of much more important votes. Having judges (and politicians for that matter) who are willing to compromise instead of just toe the party line and support whatever their party says is a GOOD thing. Partisan politics are what has torn this country apart for years, and viewing a willingness to compromise as a flaw or weakness is going to continue the cycle indefinitely.
Which votes?

Im honestly asking because I can't see anything worse than allowing search without reasonable suspicion.

I think that is the whole point of the judges, to rule on the constitutionality of things. Illegal searches and seizures is police state.

They should all be ashamed. I doubt they are tho. Crooked fucks.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Which votes?

Im honestly asking because I can't see anything worse than allowing search without reasonable suspicion.

I think that is the whole point of the judges, to rule on the constitutionality of things. Illegal searches and seizures is police state.

They should all be ashamed. I doubt they are tho. Crooked fucks.
The chains of accountability to the people have been broken in our country.
 

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
That graph is useless because it doesn't have a space for liberalism. Your assumptions about political compass dot org are wildly incorrect, as well.

You're stuck in your own viewpoint, I'm not surprised that you think Shillary is anything but a die hard conservative.

DINOsaur.
Uhhh what's that word under Left?
 

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
Which votes?

Im honestly asking because I can't see anything worse than allowing search without reasonable suspicion.

I think that is the whole point of the judges, to rule on the constitutionality of things. Illegal searches and seizures is police state.

They should all be ashamed. I doubt they are tho. Crooked fucks.
That's because you don't give a shit about gay marriage or women's choice or separation of church and state or gun control, issues he has been consistently in support of. Illegal search and seizure is bad, but the fact is the dude HAD warrants and those are what allowed him to be searched, only the initial stop was illegal. Protecting people who HAVE warrants is WAY down on my list of issues. Honestly, if this case had involved someone who was genuinely innocent I would feel differently, but personally I think this "You can't prosecute me for breaking the law because you shouldn't have even found out" is, to me, like a child saying that a parent can't get mad for finding drugs in their room because "you shouldn't have been looking in there in the first place". I'll go to bat for anyone who is actually innocent and gets railroaded by unfair laws, but I refuse to put my neck on the line for actual criminals with warrants who are sloppy about buying drugs, that's their own damn fault.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I noticed that years ago. They want to neuter the USA. Easier to control.
Republicans in this country scream about guns, but they're more than happy to toss the REST of our constitutional rights in the trash. Democrats have followed their lead in order to get money, too.

The only people who get screwed are the 90%.
 

Ace Yonder

Well-Known Member
Dood. The rest of the planet defines socialism as state owned corporations. In America, it's defined as public highways. With tolls.

I'm not going to argue basic definitions with you.
You said it didn't have a space for liberalism. Liberalism and socialism are not synonyms. Socialists do not constitute a large portion of either the politicians or the voters in American politics. Socialists are viewed as less attractive to Americans than Atheists are.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
You said it didn't have a space for liberalism. Liberalism and socialism are not synonyms. Socialists do not constitute a large portion of either the politicians or the voters in American politics. Socialists are viewed as less attractive to Americans than Atheists are.
You ever try speaking for yourself? Cuz you aren't saying what I would, nor most of my associates.
 
Top