If you're voting either (R) or (D) for president...

[Blackjack200]

This is true. If you feel that SCOTUS' proper role is to look at who SHOULD win a case, protecting the little guy from the big boys - the wise Latina model of jurisprudence - then Obama is your man. If you think SCOTUS' proper role is to impartially interpret the law and Constitution, regardless of the relative power or need or moral qualities of the parties - the strict interpretationalist model of jurisprudence - then Romney is your man.

What a complete load of horsecock. I read an excellent article a few months ago when the ACA ruling came out that talked about how Obama is a constitutional conservative and Roberts's steps to limit congressional and executive power under the commerce clause was a huge judicial overreach. The narritive of hard right-wing judges being the constitutional conservatives has no merit, and there is little doubt in my mind that they would reverse Roe v. Wade if given the chance.

 

[jackstar7]

This is true. If you feel that SCOTUS' proper role is to look at who SHOULD win a case, protecting the little guy from the big boys - the wise Latina model of jurisprudence - then Obama is your man. If you think SCOTUS' proper role is to impartially interpret the law and Constitution, regardless of the relative power or need or moral qualities of the parties - the strict interpretationalist model of jurisprudence - then Romney is your man. If you think that SCOTUS is irrelevant compared to the damage the two parties are inflicting on the nation, then Johnson is your man. If you believe that SCOTUS' proper role is to dismantle American, rob from the rich to give to the poor, disarm America and support suicide bombers over Israel, thereby ushering in a worker's paradise, then Jill Stein is your man (and hopefully can drive you to therapy after the election.)

Your interpretation of Romney's selection process doesn't jive with his statements about SCOTUS picks.

 

[zsdersw]

Seems super-permeable.

Nope, not at all. Air-tight.

 

[NoStateofMind]

This thread is a prime example of why not to vote. Look at you all bickering about who did what and who's better than the other guy and what your guy will do that the other won't. Guess what? You will still be fucked. You will be lied to. Your tax dollars will be stolen from you to pay for things you don't agree with. You all know its true and you've been doing this circle jerk shit for as long as you've been voting. Stop the madness. Take control of your country. The only way to get their attention is to not vote. You'll gladly ignore this post or dismiss it as being irrational but let me remind of you of a famous quote and you decide if it fits.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

 

[werepossum]

Fuji apples are different from Gala apples, too, but that doesn't mean the differences are significant.



Yes I am. Some judicial appointments drift right while on the bench, others drift left.



Yes. I believe Obama and Romney are exactly alike on gay rights.



I don't care if I insult anyone and their idiotic belief that there are serious differences between the Rs and the Ds.

They probably are exactly alike on gay rights in their heart of hearts, but Obama has the courage (and granted, the political latitude) to do something about it. I can't see Romney going against the Republican hierarchy (or probably even against his church) to do anything about discrimination against gays.

 

[zsdersw]

They probably are exactly alike on gay rights in their heart of hearts, but Obama has the courage (and granted, the political latitude) to do something about it. I can't see Romney going against the Republican hierarchy (or probably even against his church) to do anything about discrimination against gays.

I wouldn't say Obama had any "courage".. he was just smart enough to react to pressures from within.

As far as Romney on GLBT issues, I look to his performance as governor of MA: moderation.

 

[OutHouse]

I want elimination of farm subsidies and the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, for starters.

20 billion in farm subsidies for american farmers is a drop in the bucket of what we give to countries like pakistan, do you even know what the purpose of farm subsidies is for?

PDC is necessary due to the high cost of drugs. without it many seniors would die, is that want you want?

 

[zsdersw]

20 billion in farm subsidies for american farmers is a drop in the bucket of what we give to countries like pakistan, do you even know what the purpose of farm subsidies is for?

It wasn't meant for Big Ag, that's for sure.

PDC is necessary due to the high cost of drugs. without it many seniors would die, is that want you want?

No, I want us to have the freedom to import drugs from Canada. If the prescription drug benefit is to be kept, Medicare should be able to negotiate for lower prices.

 

[werepossum]

I wouldn't say Obama had any "courage".. he was just smart enough to react to pressures from within.

As far as Romney on GLBT issues, I look to his performance as governor of MA: moderation.

Well, certainly Obama waited until the issue couldn't hurt him politically. That's par for any politician; they show courage where and only where it will help and not hurt their election chances.

I look to Romney's performance as governor of MA as a guide to everything about his future performance if elected. What a politician does in power (or in the private sector) is a much better guide to future performance than are campaign ads and statements, which are designed merely to get them elected. I like how Romney governed, therefore I suspect I'll like how he presidents.

 

[zsdersw]

Well, certainly Obama waited until the issue couldn't hurt him politically. That's par for any politician; they show courage where and only where it will help and not hurt their election chances.

I look to Romney's performance as governor of MA as a guide to everything about his future performance if elected. What a politician does in power (or in the private sector) is a much better guide to future performance than are campaign ads and statements, which are designed merely to get them elected. I like how Romney governed, therefore I suspect I'll like how he presidents.

Unfortunately, how he governed is not so good on fiscal issues.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

As far as Romney on GLBT issues, I look to his performance as governor of MA: moderation.

You apparently haven't learned much about Romney from this election cycle.

He governed MA the way he did because he was expected to due to it being a liberal state. They put him in office and so he (mostly) did what they expected.

He will be beholden to a different crowd now. The same right wing to whom he claimed to be "severely conservative" in getting elected, he'll have to cater to in order to get RE-elected.

You really have absolutely no idea how he will govern. Nobody does -- probably not even him.

Obama was a coward for his initial stance, but he did eventually come around. The right is not going to let Romney do anything for gays.

 

[zsdersw]

You apparently haven't learned much about Romney from this election cycle.

He governed MA the way he did because he was expected to due to it being a liberal state. They put him in office and so he (mostly) did what they expected.

He will be beholden to a different crowd now. The same right wing to whom he claimed to be "severely conservative" in getting elected, he'll have to cater to in order to get RE-elected.

You really have absolutely no idea how he will govern. Nobody does -- probably not even him.

Obama was a coward for his initial stance, but he did eventually come around. The right is not going to let Romney do anything for gays.

I don't think Romney will be good on GLBT issues, but neither will Obama.

ENDA remains withering on the vine, DOMA remains on the books (even if it isn't defended).. and his purported support of gay marriage is just lip service because it's never going to become federal law in the next 20 years.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't think Romney will be good for GLBT people, but neither will Obama.

You mean, aside from being the first president to publicly come out in favor of gay marriage, and ending DADT?

Uh huh.

Remember that your thesis was that there is no difference between the parties. The idea that McCain would have done these things is beyond preposterous. So now you're ignoring that and pretending that Romney is going to be good for LGBT?

Here's what Mitt Romney said less than six months ago:

During my tenure, our conservative values also came under attack. Less than a year after I took office, the state’s supreme court inexplicably found a right to same-sex marriage in our constitution. I pushed for a stay of the decision, fought for a marriage amendment to our constitution, and successfully prohibited out-of-state couples from coming to our state to get married and then go home. On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage. When I am President, I will preserve the Defense of Marriage Act and I will fight for a federal amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.

Are you seriously going to say that this is no different from what Obama has done?!

I like you and your posts in general. But you seem unwilling to concede points even when the obvious is staring you in the face.

 

[SheHateMe]

I sure will... right up your ass. And you'll like it, too... because when I fuck someone, they always beg for more.

Sure, except I'm not gay. From the sounds of it, I'd be dodging HIV anyway..

You can go fuck somebody else in the ass because they aren't voting for your 3rd Party Candidate.

 

[zsdersw]

You mean, aside from being the first president to publicly come out in favor of gay marriage, and ending DADT?

Uh huh.

Remember that your thesis was that there is no difference between the parties. The idea that McCain would have done these things is beyond preposterous. So now you're ignoring that and pretending that Romney is going to be good for LGBT?

I don't think Romney is going to be good, but Obama doesn't pay any more than lip-service to GLBT issues.

I want someone who will be good for GLBT issues without needing to be politically prodded.

Here's what Mitt Romney said less than six months ago:

Are you seriously going to say that this is no different from what Obama has done?!

Talk from Romney or from Obama is cheap. What Obama has actually done on GLBT issues was only done for political convenience and expediency.

I like you and your posts in general. But you seem unwilling to concede points even when the obvious is staring you in the face.

There's nothing to concede here. Obama repealed DADT only because he was pressured politically to do so. Romney talked an awful lot out of both sides of his mouth on GLBT issues, but has done nothing for or against GLBT issues.

My ideal is a leader who does what neither Obama nor Romney have done: advance GLBT issues without needing to be pressured to do so. That's why I consider Obama and Romney the same on GLBT issues: they're both interested in nothing but political expediency and will otherwise do nothing for GLBT issues (in the case of Obama) or against GLBT issues (in the case of Romney).

 

[zsdersw]

Sure, except I'm not gay. From the sounds of it, I'd be dodging HIV anyway..

No, I'm HIV-negative. I like your assumption that I had HIV, though. It's a typical response from ignorant liberals.

You can go fuck somebody else in the ass because they aren't voting for your 3rd Party Candidate.

No no, you'll do just fine (assuming your body shape doesn't more closely resemble a beach ball than it does a height-weight proportional human male, and that you're not ugly).

 

[Emos]

Sure, except I'm not gay. From the sounds of it, I'd be dodging HIV anyway..

You can go fuck somebody else in the ass because they aren't voting for your 3rd Party Candidate.

Not that my opinion means anything, the HIV remark is uncalled for, you should be better then that! It's OK to disagree with the OP and even think that he's nuts though

 

[SheHateMe]

Not that my opinion means anything, the HIV remark is uncalled for, you should be better then that! It's OK to disagree with the OP and even think that he's nuts though

He was being a douchebag. If he wants to be sassy, I can be sassy right back.

 

[SheHateMe]

No, I'm HIV-negative. I like your assumption that I had HIV, though. It's a typical response from ignorant liberals.



No no, you'll do just fine (assuming your body shape doesn't more closely resemble a beach ball than it does a height-weight proportional human male, and that you're not ugly).

Oh, I'm ignorant and a liberal, but you threatened to fuck me in the ass because I called you out on thinking your vote means more than somebody elses... :sneaky:

Is that what you do to anyone who doesn't agree with you? Threaten to fuck them in the ass? You're the scary i love you rapist-type Christians make up stories about.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't think Romney is going to be good, but Obama doesn't pay any more than lip-service to GLBT issues.

DADT was not lip-service.

And a lot of people really appreciated Obama's gesture, regardless of how late it was when it finally came. A hell of a lot more than you'll ever get from Romney.

I want someone who will be good for GLBT issues without needing to be politically prodded.

And I want a pony.

There's nothing to concede here.

:whiste:

My ideal is a leader who does what neither Obama nor Romney have done: advance GLBT issues without needing to be pressured to do so.

More ponies. Welcome to American politics -- where a good chunk of the country still wishes you were in jail for being gay.

Look, this is simple logic: if A is less than C and B is less than C, that doesn't mean A is equal to B.

Obama is not the "ideal leader" on gay rights, nor on much of anything else. To say that this makes him equivalent to Romney is utterly nonsensical.

 

[zsdersw]

He was being a douchebag. If he wants to be sassy, I can be sassy right back.

 

[SheHateMe]

That's funny since I was never a male to begin with.

 

[zsdersw]

Oh, I'm ignorant and a liberal, but you threatened to fuck me in the ass because I called you out on thinking your vote means more than somebody elses... :sneaky:

You said "voter superiority"... as in "smarter voter", not whether it means more. One vote is one vote, but one voter can and very often is smarter than the other.

Is that what you do to anyone who doesn't agree with you? Threaten to fuck them in the ass? You're the scary i love you rapist-type Christians make up stories about.

When they tell me to stuff it, yes, I respond in kind.

 

[Moonbeam]

You mean, aside from being the first president to publicly come out in favor of gay marriage, and ending DADT?

Uh huh.

Remember that your thesis was that there is no difference between the parties. The idea that McCain would have done these things is beyond preposterous. So now you're ignoring that and pretending that Romney is going to be good for LGBT?

Here's what Mitt Romney said less than six months ago:



Are you seriously going to say that this is no different from what Obama has done?!

I like you and your posts in general. But you seem unwilling to concede points even when the obvious is staring you in the face.

I admire your ability to reason as far as it goes, but you seem to be unwilling concede points even when they are staring you in the face, that zsdersw has a political view that is religious and can't be reached by reason. He believes that 'a pox on both houses' is a superior moral position and that he is morally superior for believing it. He has a conservative truthiness brain but doesn't like conservatives either. As long as a person's ego is connected to his moral belief his intellectual power will go into deflection and denial.

You are talking to addicts who are addicted to belief. You are telling an addict not to use drugs, a hopeless task and especially so because you are addicted to reason.

The insane are proud of their insanity and oblivious to their immorality. Take away that pride and the addict will fall in the gutter when he may have a chance. Reason only reaches the addict that has bottomed out.

zsdersw has taken a lifetime of contempt for gays and hammered out a spear of contempt for parties on which to transfer that contempt. It's what we all do in one way or another.

 

[zsdersw]

That's funny since I was never a male to begin with.

Was? So you are a male now?