Why I'll vote for McCain over Obama

[Henry]

Nevermind. I give up.

[DjTj]

Nevermind. I give up.

Oh come on, you can try a little harder than that...

However, at it's inception, blacks, and women, weren't "people" yet. They were "paved over", you might say.

But those that were "people" eventually voted to include all people in the United States as "people" by passing the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even though the Constitution was wrong, they didn't just ignore it; they fought a war, gave their lives, then followed the Democratic process to amend the Constitution to make it right.

The Founders left us with a clear way to amend the Constitution when necessary, and we have used the process many times; there's no reason we can't keep doing that today.

[mjah]

The Constitution provides for it's own evolution. It allows The People a way to change it in order to adapt to the changing world. That's why mjah said the Constitution 'paved the way' for positive change in our society.

Whew. I was worried that maybe I had somehow failed to express myself earlier. Now I see that the message was conveyed successfully.

Thanks, Henry.

I could pick any amendment and assume there was opposition to it. However, that opposition was overcome within the framework of the Constitution itself.

Again, the importance of the distinction between working within the Constitution and working outside of it cannot be overstated. I do agree with mjah in that it's very important that our next President understands and respects this difference. Frankly, I think whoever we elect will be vast improvement in this area over our current President.

It would be extremely difficult for the next president not to be a vast improvement. He'd have to go beyond merely ignoring or wounding the Constitution. He'd have to actively work to tear it apart.

Thankfully, none of the remaining candidates in the race seem to have so little sense.

I'd go one step further, though. The next president can't just stop the bleeding and then blindly assume that the patient will heal. The next president will have to be willing to actively work to restore the Oval Office's respect for the Constitution. There is damage to be repaired.

[Koolblue13]

The Founders left us with a clear way to amend the Constitution when necessary, and we have used the process many times; there's no reason we can't keep doing that today.

Jefferson also said it was flawed and the Government would out grow it and will need to be over thrown, but will grow to strong. Smart man.

[mjah]

Jefferson also said it was flawed and the Government would out grow it and will need to be over thrown, but will grow to strong. Smart man.

Link, please.

Because depending on how you read Jefferson, he also said a revolution every 20 years or so would be good for the country. So I'm interested in the context.

[Ax]

I guess my main point is, that all the people who act like this president is the first and only one ever to be accused of violating the Constitution, are simply too blinded by their hate for the man.

http://www.apatheticvoter.com/ViolationsConstitution.htm

One of the key provisions of the Constitution is that it is a “living” document. Our Founding Fathers recognized that they could not foresee the needs of the people 100 or 200 years in the future, so they developed the system of amendments to permit continual update of the document. However, a very important point must be emphasized in that two-thirds of the states must ratify any change. Obviously since the south represented about one-half of the states in the Union, Lincoln would not have been able to modify any provision of the Constitution dealing with states rights – he would not have obtained approval on this issue.

Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,

“Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.”

Pretty harsh words I would have to say. He also wrote:

“Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”

Many historians would agree with the following statement,

“If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”

There is no question the Lincoln freed the slaves, a terrible blot on the country, but “does the means justify the end?”

As un-American and contrary as this may sound, an argument can be made that if this democracy falls within the next 50 years because of excessive Federal government control and taxation, Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves by fighting the war may have been too high a price to pay for his usurpation of the Constitution.

[mjah]

Ax, with regard to the ideas expressed in that quoted passage:

1. The idea of blaming Lincoln for the Civil War might be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read.

2. Lincoln was president during the single greatest threat the US has ever faced. Greater than WWII and certainly greater than al Qaeda.

3. Lincoln certainly overstepped the words of the Constitution on the issue of states' rights, and on other issues too. But if it turns out that the USA collapses in the next 50 years as a direct result of Lincoln's efforts to hold the country together, then we were destined to fall no matter what. The country would not have survived as a slave-holding nation, which is the only other historical alternative that passage seems to consider.

Nobody is claiming that Bush is the only guy who has ever bent up the Constitution. People are claiming that Bush did it for really terrible, short-sighted, selfish and ruinous reasons not befitting of an elected "protector" of the Constitution.

You can at least make a case that by overstepping the bounds of Constitutional principle, Lincoln actually was following his oath to to "preserve, protect and defend" it by preventing the nation from splitting in two over an issue that could be resolved. You might not agree with that argument, but the adoration of Lincoln makes it obvious that it holds a lot of water.

Bush? No such argument. None at all. And that's the difference.

Lincoln also noted that his most transparent, egregious transgressions of the Constitution -- suspension of habeas corpus, for instance -- were temporary and were undertaken when it truly seemed that there were no other options of any kind.

Temporary. For lack of any other real options. When have Bush or Cheney ever made that claim? All they have to say on the matter is, "Well, the War on Terror may last for the rest of our lives. So we'll just have to ignore the inconvenient parts of the Constitution until, you know, whenever."

It's hard to believe that Lincoln and Bush even held the same office. Lincoln historians show plenty of evidence of Lincoln's inner turmoil over subverting Constitutional rule. Bush's historians will be left with quotes like, "It's just a godd***ed piece of paper."

[Ax]

Ax, with regard to the ideas expressed in that quoted passage:

1. The idea of blaming Lincoln for the Civil War might be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read.

Agreed. It's right up there with "Bush's War", huh?

2. Lincoln was president during the single greatest threat the US has ever faced. Greater than WWII and certainly greater than al Qaeda.

Opinion. And we know what they're like.

3. Lincoln certainly overstepped the words of the Constitution on the issue of states' rights, and on other issues too.

Glad we found some common ground.

People are claiming that Bush did it for really terrible, short-sighted, selfish and ruinous reasons not befitting of an elected "protector" of the Constitution.

And why? Simply because his name is Bush. :2cents:

You can at least make a case that by overstepping the bounds of Constitutional principle, Lincoln actually was following his oath to to "preserve, protect and defend" it by preventing the nation from splitting in two over an issue that could be resolved.

You could also make a case that Lincolns deviation from the Constitution is still costing us to this day.

Once Lincoln and his supporters had made the decision that states had surrendered their sovereignty, the Civil War caused a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the Federal government. A progressive income tax was imposed on the people to pay for the war, the start of the extortion of our paychecks that we live with today.

Bush? No such argument. None at all. And that's the difference.

Bush hasn't yet enjoyed the 20/20 hindsight of history that Abe has either. That's an even bigger difference.

Lincoln also noted that his most transparent, egregious transgressions of the Constitution -- suspension of habeas corpus, for instance -- were temporary and were undertaken when it truly seemed that there were no other options of any kind.

Temporary. For lack of any other real options. When have Bush or Cheney ever made that claim? All they have to say on the matter is, "Well, the War on Terror may last for the rest of our lives. So we'll just have to ignore the inconvenient parts of the Constitution until, you know, whenever."

Again, this isn't over yet. And if things turn out good in the end, you seem to be backing the ole "ends justify the means" theory too.

It's hard to believe that Lincoln and Bush even held the same office. Lincoln historians show plenty of evidence of Lincoln's inner turmoil over subverting Constitutional rule. Bush's historians will be left with quotes like, "It's just a godd***ed piece of paper."

We'll see in 50 years. Of course I realize if you're anti-Bush, it's better to get a head start on tomorrows elite liberal college curriculum now. :laugh:

[mjah]

Agreed. It's right up there with "Bush's War", huh?

Why would you take issue with the notion of "Bush's War?" The name is based in fact. Unless you want to call it "Cheney's War," to reflect that fact that Cheney was also pushing total BS "intelligence" which even the CIA itself was telling him not to believe because it was garbage. I guess "Cheney's War" would be fine, too.

By contrast, and more to the point: anybody who thinks Lincoln had any hand in starting the Civil War needs to pick up a history book. Of course, they'd probably need to learn how to read first.

Opinion. And we know what they're like.

If you think the nation has ever faced a threat greater than the one that immediately broke it in half and caused American brothers to kill American brothers, by the hundreds of thousands, all across their own homeland, I'd be eager to hear about it.

And why? Simply because his name is Bush.

Who cares what his name his? People are judging him by his actions, not by his last name. If it was just the last name that got people going, then people would have attacked his father the same way. They didn't.

No president is perfect. In my opinion, Bush the Elder did a pretty good job. Better than he got credit for. He certainly had Iraq figured out. Too bad his son didn't pay attention.

You could also make a case that Lincolns deviation from the Constitution is still costing us to this day.

Yep. It's a matter of cost vs. benefit. And if the best immediate case you can make for Bush's many idiocies is that they "might" get judged more fairly in the future, then God help you. Bush the Visionary Genius... LOL.

By the way -- if you want to learn a lesson from Lincoln's presidency, take note of the fact that some deviations from the Constitution NEVER get rectified. Particularly when those deviations involve increasing Federal power over states and citizens.

There's a lesson in there that you seem to understand and appreciate already. Unfortunately, Bush didn't -- and still doesn't. In fact, he's still walking the other way.

Bush hasn't yet enjoyed the 20/20 hindsight of history that Abe has either. That's an even bigger difference.

You apparently haven't come around to this reality yet, but Bush won't be "enjoying" any hindsight of history. The 20/20 hindsight of history stands a FAR greater chance of casting him in an even worse light than he's in today, hard as that might be to imagine.

But I'm sure Andrew Johnson's and Jimmy Carter's cadre of die-hard supporters said the same thing you're saying about Bush now, hoping against hope that their guy would be seen more favorably as time wore on. It's true that some unpopular presidents are eventually seen more favorably with the passage of time. But most unpopular presidents aren't. They suck at the time and they suck in hindsight, particularly when it's clear that their administrations were riddled with barely concealed contempt and greed. You're hanging your hat on a precarious hook by playing such a big hand against such big odds.

Again, this isn't over yet. And if things turn out good in the end, you seem to be backing the ole "ends justify the means" theory too.

What do you mean by "good?" Can you be clear about that? If our economy is in the toilet due to disastrous financial "management" and our Constitutional freedoms are compromised in perpetuity and our president fails to uphold his oath of office and we end up burning most of our good-faith bridges with allies and China holds a record amount of our exponentially-increasing debt, what will make that all better?

What is your equivalently "good" outcome, on par with Lincoln reuniting a divided Union?

We'll see in 50 years. Of course I realize if you're anti-Bush, it's better to get a head start on tomorrows elite liberal college curriculum now.

You really do seem to have a black-and-white, us-vs-them mentality about politics. By contrast, I actually had high hopes for Bush before his actions revealed him to be the worst president of my lifetime. You can pretend that people just don't like him because of his name or political affiliation, but the fact of the matter is, only 28% of the country approve of the job he has done. I guess that means 72% of the nation are evil, America-hating liberal elites.

To put it another way: when you delve into idiocy like the "elite liberal college" stuff, you reveal just how little you know about the political "other half" lives.

But you make a great point. Certainly it's better to withhold judgment for half a century about the biggest foreign policy disaster of this generation.

So did you remain silent about Clinton getting his play in the Oval Office? Clinton not catching bin Laden? In fifty years, it might turn out that he was a visionary genius who knew that getting BJs instead of chasing down terrorists was the right thing to do. Who are we to judge now?

Sometimes, a guy is just a moron and you call it like it is. Clinton? Not a great guy. Bush? huge, huge moron and a national embarrassment.

It's hard to believe that in a thread that shows a tendency to revolve around the Constitution, you'd find ANY Bush supporters arguing that he might be judged well by time. :doh:

Perhaps the greatest yardstick of Bush's complete ineptitude: He has made despicable people like Hillary Clinton look like reasonable candidates in the eyes of tens of millions of voters. It just doesn't get any worse than that.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So, Brazil has oil now...

I guess the question is, "when do we invade?"

[DjTj]

We'll see in 50 years. Of course I realize if you're anti-Bush, it's better to get a head start on tomorrows elite liberal college curriculum now.

Unfortunately, if it really takes 50 years, Bush won't get the credit. Heck, if it takes 15 years, we'll all be talking about how John McCain solved the crisis in Iraq.

Lincoln resolved to keep the Union together, and he pulled it off by winning the Civil War in four years. He gets all the credit.

Bush resolved to find the WMD's/topple Saddam/bring democracy to Iraq, and five years later, we're still waiting for him to finish the job ... he will have to pass it off to the next President, so he's not going to get any of the credit. You have to finish the job that you started, and history will not be kind to Bush because he was unable to do so.

[mjah]

So, Brazil has oil now...

I guess the question is, "when do we invade?"

What are you doing this weekend?

[Ax]

Why would you take issue with the notion of "Bush's War?" The name is based in fact. Unless you want to call it "Cheney's War," to reflect that fact that Cheney was also pushing total BS "intelligence" which even the CIA itself was telling him not to believe because it was garbage. I guess "Cheney's War" would be fine, too.

It's always hilarious to hear how Bush, a "moron" duped all the smart people into a war with "BS intelligence." Seems like there were plenty of morons to share the blame. But by all means, let's just call it Bush's War.

By contrast, and more to the point: anybody who thinks Lincoln had any hand in starting the Civil War needs to pick up a history book. Of course, they'd probably need to learn how to read first.

Agreed. I only posted the guy's statement as one example of a President, not named George Bush, being accused by his haters, of treachery and evil in abuse of the Constitution.

If you think the nation has ever faced a threat greater than the one that immediately broke it in half and caused American brothers to kill American brothers, by the hundreds of thousands, all across their own homeland, I'd be eager to hear about it.

Modern day liberalism?

Who cares what his name his? People are judging him by his actions, not by his last name.

You took that a little too literally. I meant him, George Bush in particular. Not just "Bush", as it were.

No president is perfect.

Obviously.

And if the best immediate case you can make for Bush's many idiocies is that they "might" get judged more fairly in the future, then God help you.

I made no case. I suggested that history is more fairly judged after enough time has passed to accurately access the entirety of a situation. I'm not arrogant enough to say I know what they will say then. But I'm willing to bet that they will have far more information available to them then, than we do now.

The 20/20 hindsight of history stands a FAR greater chance of casting him in an even worse light than he's in today, hard as that might be to imagine.

So, you must know all the future lotto numbers as well, right?

It's true that some unpopular presidents are eventually seen more favorably with the passage of time. But most unpopular presidents aren't. They suck at the time and they suck in hindsight, particularly when it's clear that their administrations were riddled with barely concealed contempt and greed.

Well, you read it in the paper, so it must be true.

What do you mean by "good?" Can you be clear about that?

Meant if the war eventually leads to change in the Middle East, and it is viewed by qualified historians to have been the catalyst, then it will soften the criticism of some of the mistakes made along the way.

If our economy is in the toilet due to disastrous financial "management"

If so, Congress takes more blame.

and our Constitutional freedoms are compromised in perpetuity

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

and our president fails to uphold his oath of office

Impeach him or STFU.

and we end up burning most of our good-faith bridges with allies

A myth.

and China holds a record amount of our exponentially-increasing debt,

That is bad. Maybe we should have just kept feeding them missile secrets.

what will make that all better?

Making the tax cuts permanent!

You can pretend that people just don't like him because of his name or political affiliation, but the fact of the matter is, only 28% of the country approve of the job he has done.

Hey, he's kicking the **** out of Congress!

To put it another way: when you delve into idiocy like the "elite liberal college" stuff, you reveal just how little you know about the political "other half" lives.

Now your Boston's kicking in. If you don't know that the Universities in this country lean so far left that they're laying down, then you must be a product of them.

But you make a great point. Certainly it's better to withhold judgment for half a century

See, even more common ground.

So did you remain silent about Clinton getting his play in the Oval Office? Clinton not catching bin Laden? In fifty years, it might turn out that he was a visionary genius who knew that getting BJs instead of chasing down terrorists was the right thing to do. Who are we to judge now?

Well, my views of Clinton are based on more than what you've read in the funny papers, or the internet.

Sometimes, a guy is just a moron and you call it like it is. Clinton? Not a great guy. Bush? huge, huge moron and a national embarrassment.

Unless you know either man, or at least someone close enough to them to have a clue, you simply don't know WTF you're talking about. Concerning either one.

Perhaps the greatest yardstick of Bush's complete ineptitude: He has made despicable people like Hillary Clinton look like reasonable candidates in the eyes of tens of millions of voters.

Could be. I'm still shocked that damn near half the voters in this country were ignorant enough to vote for Gore.

Who knew?

[BigMike619]

nuff said..:laugh:

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

nuff said..:laugh:

That un-patriotic ****! may he burn in hell with his TastyKakes and Cheesecurls!!!

[BigMike619]

That un-patriotic ****! may he burn in hell with his TastyKakes and Cheesecurls!!!

you sir get it now!! :thumbsup:

[LApunkrocker72]

My vote is going to Obama.

If McCain wins then we're in trouble because he will continue that war based on lies. He will mostly continue the failed Bush policies.

Plus our country needs a real change and Obama, I think, gives us the best chance for that. I think Obama has the potential to be a great president.

[BigMike619]

My vote is going to Obama.

If McCain wins then we're in trouble because he will continue that war based on lies. He will mostly continue the failed Bush policies.

Plus our country needs a real change and Obama, I think, gives us the best chance for that. I think Obama has the potential to be a great president.

did you not see the picture?

:doh:

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

you sir get it now!! :thumbsup:

:bow: I heard the cheesecurls he was eating are made in China

[LApunkrocker72]

did you not see the picture?

:doh:

Yes, I did see the picture. And I still think Obama is much better than McCain.

[BigMike619]

Yes, I did see the picture. It's not a big deal.

this man thinks its a big deal. he is going to eat your liver with a nice kyante.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Yes, I did see the picture. It's not a big deal.

open your eyes!!! the man is a muslim who hates America! damnit!

[Mister Happy]

Plus our country needs a real change and Obama, I think, gives us the best chance for that.

What specifically do you think he will change?

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

What specifically do you think he will change?

he will change my definition of hope

[BigMike619]

he will change my definition of hope

if you hope for a president named BARRY!!