mnealtx 0 #26 June 28, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote"I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision and I agree with the dissent. What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States, and that is I will act to repeal ObamaCare." -Mitt Romney He's got my vote. First of all, he had your vote anyway. Second, it's all blather, because unless control of the Senate swings Republican, and the House stays Republican, the Democrats in the Senate will never allow it to be repealed. That goes doubly so if the Senate stays Dem and the House flips over to Dem. Or maybe he'll use the Obama Protocol and just get rid of it via Executive Order.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #27 June 28, 2012 >Your statement is incorrect. Fair enough, and glad you agree with their decision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 June 28, 2012 Quote>Your statement is incorrect. Fair enough, and glad you agree with their decision. That's incorrect, too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #29 June 28, 2012 >He's got my vote. This guy? “As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called ‘the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected’: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 June 28, 2012 Quote>He's got my vote. This guy? “As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called ‘the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected’: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning." You mean the guys that just told Congress "the Commerce Clause doesn't mean what you think it does"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #31 June 28, 2012 >You mean the guys that just told Congress . . . No. Mitt Willard Romney, the guy who supported Roberts before he condemned him. But if you disagree with him, fear not; he has plenty of time to flipflop back before the election. Perhaps the Court will rule against gay marriage and he will be back to singing their praises. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 June 28, 2012 Quote>You mean the guys that just told Congress . . . No. Mitt Willard Romney, the guy who supported Roberts before he condemned him. Must have missed that - got a link to him specifically condemning Roberts, or just disagreeing with the decision? QuoteBut if you disagree with him, fear not; he has plenty of time to flipflop back before the election. Perhaps the Court will rule against gay marriage and he will be back to singing their praises. Shallow thinking, believing that conservatives must agree with every decision the SC makes, just because you believe it's a conservative court.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #33 June 28, 2012 >hallow thinking, believing that conservatives must agree with every decision the SC >makes, just because you believe it's a conservative court. Nope. Because THEY believe it's a conservative court. Or at least did, in the most glowing terms possible, before they made a decision that the GOP disagreed with. And now the threats of violence begin. Matt Davis, onetime spokesman for the Michigan Republican Party: ============= If government can mandate that I pay for something I don’t want, then what is beyond its power? If the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified? God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired. . . . You can’t have people walking with lattes and signs and think the object of your opposition is going to take you seriously. Armed rebellion is the end point of that physical confrontation. ============= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 June 28, 2012 Quote>hallow thinking, believing that conservatives must agree with every decision the SC >makes, just because you believe it's a conservative court. Nope. Because THEY believe it's a conservative court. Or at least did, in the most glowing terms possible, before they made a decision that the GOP disagreed with. So, it's sorta like how MSNBC was calling Roberts "Judge Taney" just a couple days ago, before praising him as a hero today? QuoteAnd now the threats of violence begin. Matt Davis, onetime spokesman for the Michigan Republican Party: ============= If government can mandate that I pay for something I don’t want, then what is beyond its power? If the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday paves the way for unprecedented intrusion into personal decisions, then has the Republic all but ceased to exist? If so, then is armed rebellion today justified? God willing, this oppression will be lifted and America free again before the first shot is fired. . . . You can’t have people walking with lattes and signs and think the object of your opposition is going to take you seriously. Armed rebellion is the end point of that physical confrontation. ============= Can you point out that 'threat' for me? I can't seem to find where he's saying to go beat people up.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #35 June 28, 2012 >Can you point out that 'threat' for me? I can't seem to find where he's saying to go beat people up. You're right. They're just threatening to shoot people, not beat anyone up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 June 28, 2012 Quote>Can you point out that 'threat' for me? I can't seem to find where he's saying to go beat people up. You're right. They're just threatening to shoot people, not beat anyone up. Where does he say he's going to shoot someone, bill? SURELY it's not a dishonest characterization of what he actually said...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #37 June 29, 2012 >Where does he say he's going to shoot someone, bill? You're right again. When he says "armed rebellion" I am sure he just means people with two arms rebelling. When he says "first shot being fired" I am sure he is just talking about doing flaming shots, or maybe shooting at a target in a gun range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #38 June 29, 2012 Quote>Where does he say he's going to shoot someone, bill? You're right again. I know. Quote When he says "armed rebellion" I am sure he just means people with two arms rebelling. When he says "first shot being fired" I am sure he is just talking about doing flaming shots, or maybe shooting at a target in a gun range. Saying it may happen isn't the same as saying he'll do it nor it is telling other people to do it...but you already knew that before you made up the 'threatening to shoot people' bit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
