Why the republicans must lose

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='rudi32' post='719869' date='Nov 1 2008, 02:16 AM']nat, everything you just posted is YOUR OPINION. None of it is a fact.

I would argue you are wrong on the judge issue. [b]There are far fewer conservative judges,[/b] and they tend to go with the costitution, where as the liberal judges deam it there duty to 'legislate' from the bench. I have seen it happen on county and state level.

As your concern about guns, yes it is wrong to register all the guns sold.

And shooting a .50 is fun, and if I had the $ I would buy one. I enjoy shooting, and the 50 cals are very fun guns. Just cause you dont enjoy it, doesnt give you the right to say I cant shoot. I am not asking for anything, except to keep the laws that are on the books in place. We don't need anymore 'regulation' as you put it.

Heres an idea, lets get the guns from criminals, and not lawful citizens.[/quote]
So, in their 20 of the last 28 years in office, the Repubs have been stacking the benches with liberal judges, eh? :hmm:

[rudi32]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='719881' date='Oct 31 2008, 12:13 PM']So, in their 20 of the last 28 years in office, the Repubs have been stacking the benches with liberal judges, eh? :hmm:[/quote]


not every president gets to appoint judges, so your statement doesnt mean a thing about the past 20 years

and yes, I work in the court system, far more defense attorneys become judges than do prosecutors. that is a fact

[CincyInDC]

[quote name='rudi32' post='719883' date='Oct 31 2008, 07:17 PM']not every president gets to appoint judges, so your statement doesnt mean a thing about the past 20 years

and yes, I work in the court system, far more defense attorneys become judges than do prosecutors. that is a fact[/quote]

Spend much time in federal court?

[rudi32]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='719886' date='Oct 31 2008, 12:20 PM']Spend much time in federal court?[/quote]


lol thank god no

cops in federal court = one of 2 things. either u are getting charged with violating civil rights or you are assisting the feds on a multi state case. I have assisted the feds when I was a k9 cop in a kentucky/ohio drug raid, but I didnt have to testify.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='rudi32' post='719883' date='Nov 1 2008, 03:17 AM'][b]not every president gets to appoint judges,[/b] so your statement doesnt mean a thing about the past 20 years

and yes, I work in the court system, far more defense attorneys become judges than do prosecutors. that is a fact[/quote]
Maybe you'll get lucky and the Dems won't put any wacky liberals on the bench

[rudi32]

[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='719889' date='Oct 31 2008, 12:26 PM']Maybe you'll get lucky and the Dems won't put any wacky liberals on the bench [/quote]


I am not against the dems, just want someone not as liberal as obama. I would like a more moderate guy

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='rudi32' post='719890' date='Nov 1 2008, 03:27 AM']I am not against the dems, just want someone not as liberal as obama. I would like a more moderate guy[/quote]
I hate them all.

And also want gun ownership protected.

[Go Tory Go!]

[quote name='rudi32' post='719869' date='Oct 31 2008, 11:16 AM']Heres an idea, lets get the guns from criminals, and not lawful citizens.[/quote]

As a law enforcement officer, I would expect you to bristle at a statement like that, because it is a gross simplification, like "I think we should clean up the streets." Can you imagine your boss saying "OK guys, this morning, lets get the guns from criminals. Then meet back here for lunch, and I'll let you nap in your cars all afternoon."

Another note is that your statement is actually a proposal for regulation - dictating which people are allowed to own guns - though you have stated your opposition to regulation.

Again, as a police guy, isn't more regulation a better thing for you? Assuming law-abiding citizens will have no problem registering their weapon, isn't this just another way for you to distinguish those who are criminals in a court of law? I would imagine this would be another tool at your disposal for getting convictions on people found with unregistered weapons, whether that be in traffic stops, at crime scenes...anywhere. Also, wouldn't we expect tighter controls to yield higher prices on illegal weapons, thereby inhibiting their proliferation among those attempting to buy them in illegal venues?


[quote name='KangarWhoDey' post='719891' date='Oct 31 2008, 12:31 PM']I hate them all.

And also want gun ownership protected.[/quote]

For fuck's sake, you're stuck in the internet echo chamber. There will always be gun ownership in this and every country. Even in countries with thorough and effective gun control measures, people still hunt and shoot skeet (skeet! skeet!) as they please. Charlton Heston was a good actor, but in this regard, he out-Heroded Herod.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='719865' date='Oct 31 2008, 12:08 PM']what a coincidence, listening to random ill informed podunk cops is how i get my political information as well

thats probably because it is[/quote]

since you're the resident Obama expert what exactly is his stance on gun control, specifically semi auto hand guns?

[quote]fact #1 "conservative" judges at all levels are more inclined to deviate from precedent than "liberal" judges. aka, republicans are more likely to legislate from the bench than democrats
fact #2 there is no information out there that points to an increase in these deviations, merely a media more inclined to publicize these events when they happen. aka, bill oreilly spazing out when some judge in california allows 'the gay' to continue spreading[/quote]
"fact 1" you're full of shit. you have no proof - simple speculation. If I'm wrong in that assumption, please prove so.

Saw where a federal court in northern Ohio, strongly democratic area, ruled earlier this week or late last week that all a homeless person has to do is list their park bench as their residence... oh yeah - the judge that ruled - appointed by Clinton...

Now that won't promote voter fraud... don't need a license, don't need an actual place of residence, what keeps these folks from being driven all over town to vote multiple times for the promise of food, place to stay, etc. from either party?


For the record, I'm not opposed to regulation of some sort as there is no need for automatic / assault style weapons to be readily available... having said that - regulating / banning such items won't keep those that we worry most about from having them. I don't own guns, never have, probably never will - isn't something I'm attracted to. But, too, don't want the government telling who, what, when, where, to the extreme if you know what I mean.

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Go Tory Go!' post='719906' date='Nov 1 2008, 04:58 AM']For fuck's sake, you're stuck in the internet echo chamber. There will always be gun ownership in this and every country. Even in countries with thorough and effective gun control measures, people still hunt and shoot skeet (skeet! skeet!) as they please. Charlton Heston was a good actor, but in this regard, he out-Heroded Herod.[/quote]

I'm not stuck anywhere. I think my views on gun control are pretty damn reasonable.

I don't fear the government taking our guns "from our cold dead hands". I don't fear regulation. I simply want a reasonable balance between people's rights and responsibilities as regards to gun ownership.

I never claimed any fear that either candidate would threaten this.

[scrotos]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='719914' date='Oct 31 2008, 02:26 PM']since you're the resident Obama expert what exactly is his stance on gun control, specifically semi auto hand guns?[/quote]

I'll tackle this one... it looks like gun control is so far down on his list of priorities that I'm unable to find his campaign's position on it anywhere in the hundreds of policy statements on barackobama.com. He does have some blurb about "Sportsmen" but nothing I saw about gun control.

I'm not a big gun guy myself, but many of my friends are. Unfortunately, over in Green Township and Delhi (west side Cincinnati) I can't have an intelligent discussion about the candidates stances on the economy, Iraq, etc because my friends there all have pro-life and guns at the top of their personal priorities list and believe that Obama is a baby-killer and will take away their guns.

I think your guns are safe for now.... between the economy, Iraq, Al Queda, education, moving to a new energy economy, health care, etc I think gun control / 2nd Amendment is pretty far down on the list of things Obama (or a large majority of Americans) are thinking about right now and for at least the next four years.

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='719914' date='Oct 31 2008, 03:26 PM']"fact 1" you're full of shit. you have no proof - simple speculation. If I'm wrong in that assumption, please prove so.[/quote]
lol google
[url="http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=activist+judges+study&btnG=Google+Search"]http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&...G=Google+Search[/url]

lol yahoo
[url="http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_sbc&p=activist%20judges%20study"]http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_...0judges%20study[/url]


[quote]The conservative justices were far more willing than the liberals to strike down federal laws — clearly an activist stance, since they were substituting their own judgment for that of the people’s elected representatives in Congress.[/quote]

[quote]overturning the court’s own precedents (for which data were available only up to 2000), the conservatives were far more activist.[/quote]

[quote]We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.[/quote]



for fucks sake

[Homer_Rice]

Why the Republicans must lose:

Because they can't govern worth shit.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='scrotos' post='719924' date='Oct 31 2008, 03:34 PM'][b]I'm not a big gun guy myself, but many of my friends are. Unfortunately, over in Green Township and Delhi (west side Cincinnati) I can't have an intelligent discussion about the candidates stances on the economy, Iraq, etc because my friends there all have pro-life and guns at the top of their personal priorities list and believe that Obama is a baby-killer and will take away their guns.[/b][/quote]
Come on down to my carwash, WashPro Carwash on Glenway Avenue, and we can chat reasonably. But I know what you mean. The west-side redneck is a special breed of urban conservative...and I am not saying that all Westsiders are rednecks, mind you...but I deal with John Q Public every day and I see my fair share. The old folks crack me up. They think $8 is super expensive for a great carwash and the way they peel their rumpled one-dollar bills off their wad reminds me that they bank at Mattress Discounters....anyhoo...

You'll know I'm there because my itty-bitty Scion Xa will be parked out front with all the Bengals crap on the back of it.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='719948' date='Oct 31 2008, 05:55 PM']lol google
[url="http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=activist+judges+study&btnG=Google+Search"]http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&...G=Google+Search[/url]

lol yahoo
[url="http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_sbc&p=activist%20judges%20study"]http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_...0judges%20study[/url]










for fucks sake[/quote]
Oh, go put some pubes on a coke can, you lefty nutjob....

[steggyD]

The whole gun issue is off topic here, but Obama's VP nominee is known to be a gun hater. That's all I am going to say about that.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='719948' date='Oct 31 2008, 06:55 PM']lol google
[url="http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=activist+judges+study&btnG=Google+Search"]http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&...G=Google+Search[/url]

lol yahoo
[url="http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_sbc&p=activist%20judges%20study"]http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_...0judges%20study[/url]

for fucks sake[/quote]

jebus christ...

your primary support of your position is an OP-ED piece... that alone is bad enough, but to beat it all it is from the New York Times!!!

classic. give me a freakin break.

provide me factual evidence... not op-eds and preferably not of the NY Times ilk.

you're stuck so far up Obama's ass you can't even see around you. just go be a sheep and vote your party line and be happy.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='scrotos' post='719924' date='Oct 31 2008, 04:34 PM']I'll tackle this one... it looks like gun control is so far down on his list of priorities that I'm unable to find his campaign's position on it anywhere in the hundreds of policy statements on barackobama.com. He does have some blurb about "Sportsmen" but nothing I saw about gun control.

I'm not a big gun guy myself, but many of my friends are. Unfortunately, over in Green Township and Delhi (west side Cincinnati) I can't have an intelligent discussion about the candidates stances on the economy, Iraq, etc because my friends there all have pro-life and guns at the top of their personal priorities list and believe that Obama is a baby-killer and will take away their guns.

I think your guns are safe for now.... between the economy, Iraq, Al Queda, education, moving to a new energy economy, health care, etc I think gun control / 2nd Amendment is pretty far down on the list of things Obama (or a large majority of Americans) are thinking about right now and for at least the next four years.[/quote]

Thank you for the reply... good to know.

I will say... if your friends feel their highest issues are pro-life and / or whatever I won't fault anyone for voting along those convictions... whether I agree or not. Have your core value issues and grab the guy that working for your highest priority, etc. down matches the most... Whatever they are.

too many people are voting popularity and I don't feel sticking to their convictions... I like that he says he'll reduce taxes... but if he doesn't and raises I'm alright with that too.

If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything. Isn't that a verse of a song?

[sigshoota]

The only thing gun laws do is prevent, or at least, make it a pain in the ass for law abiding citizens to own them, the CRIMINALS don't give a fuck about the law anyway, so it doesn't apply to them. I am a gun owner, I have a couple pistols and if I had the cash wold have man more, I would also have an AR-15 (or two ) and a Barrett .50 BMG, not because I'm a killer or a sniper, simply because I would like to have them. And if one wanted to get technical, the 2nd ammendment was enacted so the citizens could protect themselves from the government, therefore, by that definition, if my budget would allow I should be able to own anything the government can use against me (or you) such as an Abrams tank or F-22 or anything in-between including fully automatic weapons (which are legal provided the owner has the correct TAX stamps)