Right wing-nuts who would be president

[Van]

Oh well. We all have our crosses to bear.

[mvscal]

Yes, you did.

no, here's what gingrich said

While abolishing judgeships and lower federal courts is a blunt tool and one whose use is warranted only in the most extreme of circumstances ... it is one of many possibilities to check and balance the judiciary,” he wrote. “Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited” to check wayward judges.

okay now show me where he mentioned congress anywhere in that statement....

You're only posting a small portion of the piece. The powers referenced in that excerpt are legislative powers.

sure it does, but congress had better have pretty compelling reasons for bringing a federal judge up on impeachment charges and I don't think not caring for a ruling fits that particular criteria...

I think issuing arbitrary and/or poorly supported decisions is a "pretty compelling reason" for issuing a subpoena. If the answers are not satisfactory, then impeachment is certainly an appropriate remedy.

Selectively edited excerpts designed to create a loony caricature of somebody's position on an issue do pander to "unthinking, uneducated masses." You know....people like you.

You might disagree with his take, but he has proposed nothing that is dangerous, unconstitutional or unprecedented. In fact, I think it would be very healthy for justices to be occassionally dragged before Congressional committees to answer for their decisions and shitcanned if they fail to justify their rulings.

They are part of the system. They aren't above it or unaccountable to it.

[Felix]

Felxi

I kind of like that....anywhooo

You're only posting a small portion of the piece. The powers referenced in that excerpt are legislative powers.

why the fuck would a guy running for president even bring up impeachment of judges when in fact the president really doesn't legally have any say in the matter? he's pandering plain and simple...

unless of course, you're asserting that he would be prone to suggest to congress which judges should be brought before the congress? that's seriously overstepping presidential authority

I think issuing arbitrary and/or poorly supported decisions is a "pretty compelling reason" for issuing a subpoena. If the answers are not satisfactory, then impeachment is certainly an appropriate remedy.

totally agree

You might disagree with his take, but he has proposed nothing that is dangerous, unconstitutional or unprecedented. In fact, I think it would be very healthy for justices to be occassionally dragged before Congressional committees to answer for their decisions and shitcanned if they fail to justify their rulings.

he's got no business proposing any such thing...it's not his business, it's the business of the Congress....

[mvscal]

he's got no business proposing any such thing...it's not his business, it's the business of the Congress....

You think he doesn't know that? He was only Speaker of the House. Asking Congress to look into a shitheel judge isn't an overstep of presidential authority. Presidents ask Congress for things all the time. What do you think a budget proposal is? Congress would certainly be free to tell 'President' Gingrich to blow it out his ass if he asked Congress to subpoena a judge for a controversial decision and the House disagreed.

[Diego in Seattle]

The ol' place seems kinda empty when you go on hiatus.

I'd say the same about you, but it would be a lie.

When has a lie ever stopped you?

[Felix]

You think he doesn't know that? He was only Speaker of the House. Asking Congress to look into a shitheel judge isn't an overstep of presidential authority. Presidents ask Congress for things all the time. What do you think a budget proposal is? Congress would certainly be free to tell 'President' Gingrich to blow it out his ass if he asked Congress to subpoena a judge for a controversial decision and the House disagreed.

a president is certainly entitled to bring up anything he wants to congress, and I really don't have a problem with that....my problem with it is that he brought it up to a bunch of people who's votes he's trying to secure....most of which wouldn't have the vaguest idea of how to spell checks and balance, more less understand their meaning as it relates to the powers of each branch of government.....

in other words....pandering

[Van]

You don't say? Pandering? A politician?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Newt's right...we should have the justices arrested for declaring that corporations are people.

At the risk of sounding like Newt, arresting Supreme Court justices is a bit of a "blunt instrument." Rather, I think a Constitutional Amendment could solve that problem much more effectively.

Certainly, to anyone truly on the side of the people, that makes a lot more sense than a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the 14th Amendment, as Ron Paul wants.

[Goober McTuber]

I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one.

[Moving Sale]

Presidents ask Congress for things all the time.

He is advocating using US marshals to drag people in front of Congress.
Please cite the POTUS's legal authority to do so you racist piece of shit.

[smackaholic]

would you prefer the boyscouts do it?

it's their fukking job.

i am sure that the prefered method would be to just send them an invite. he is talking about what happens when said judge tells the prez to GFH.

[mvscal]

Presidents ask Congress for things all the time.

He is advocating using US marshals to drag people in front of Congress.
Please cite the POTUS's legal authority to do so you racist piece of shit.

Who the fuck do you think serves the subpoenas in the first place, you stupid asshole?

[titlover]

Presidents ask Congress for things all the time.

He is advocating using US marshals to drag people in front of Congress.
Please cite the POTUS's legal authority to do so you racist piece of shit.

if he asks congress to subpoena a judge, then how else do you think Congress will enforce the subpoena if the judge refuses to comply?

you're kinda stupid, aren't you?

[Dinsdale]

I'm just curious... could someone point to the SCOTUS ruling that declared "corporations are people" and came up with this "corporate personhood" the Occutards keep babbling about?

The SCOTUS ruled on this... in 1819.

The Occutards are so clueless, but so keyed in on catchphrases, they sound pretty foolish when they show their complete ignorance of what a "corporation" is.

A corporation is an association formed by... ready for it?

People.

In fact, they overwhelming majority of corporations are C and S corps, which are usually 1 person (with another board member along for the ride).

The problem is, we no longer have a capitalist society -- we have a corporatist society.

And how did that happen?

Politicians.

How were politicians able to do that?

Grab a mirror, fools.


Honestly, how many of you check out a candidates benefactors before you vote?

None of you? Yeah, that's what I thought.

When the status quo continues, you vote independents and chuck out the incumbents, right?


Nahhhhhh... just bitch about the Supreme Court not recinding the rights of your fellow Americans (free association, anyone?).


That whole adage about "you get the government you deserve" comes to mind.


Ron Paul wants to do everything in his power to end all of the bullshit... and he's met with "yeah, but his foreign policy of national defense instead of national offense scares me."


Fucking unbelievable.

[BSmack]

There's cheating and then there's what Newt did. She could have been the worst wife ever, but serving her with divorce papers when she was undergoing chemo was an all time dick move.

That story is total horseshit.

If there is something that can be done in a more petty or vindictive manner, you can bet Newt will have figured our how to do it.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics ... first-lady

[Dinsdale]

On this topic...

The Establishment is suddenly shaking in their boots.

The Ron Paul hit pieces are flowing like wine this week.

The special-interest-beholden republicrats can't have it -- their blank checks to do whatever they please may be threatened.

If the entrenched money-stealers are this scared,dude must be doing something right.

They're even trying to sell the idea that if we don't maintain our 1000 military bases across the planet, bombs will rain down at any second, and the Iranian Navy will be parked in the Potomac next week.

That, and Dr. Paul didn't proofread/edit a newsletter bearing his nae 20 years ago.

Yup, that's what they've come up with so far.

Let the Revolution begin.

[Mikey]

Soylent Green is corporations.

[Mace]

Ron Paul is gaining serious ground in Iowa right now, and the more negative ads that his the airwaves, the more he gains. He's even leading in some of the polls here and, with only a week until the caucuses, he's going to have some momentum with at least a top 3 finish going into New Hampshire....where he'll get soundly beaten by Romney. After that, who knows? Paul has run a smart campaign in Iowa and is swaying a lot of the independents with his "less government" theme. His foreign policy stance raises lots of questions for me, but I think I can buy in to most of it.

[War Wagon]

His foreign policy stance raises lots of questions for me, but I think I can buy in to most of it.

Really?

Abolish the Federal Reserve system and return to the gold standard?

Repeal the Civil Rights act of 1964?

Not that it matters, dude is 77 and not a viable candidate in any meaningful way. The most he'll be able to do is tweak a few planks in Romney's platform.

[Mace]

The Fed and the Civil Rights Act are foreign policy?

I haven't heard him mention repealing the Civil Rights Act, Wags, but I'd be interested in knowing why he wants to do that.
And, despite what you think, he is a viable candidate....and he's proving it. Not saying that he'll win the nomination, only that he's a candidate that people are listening to and that he's gaining ground....if not the leader in the polls with a week to go. Romney or Gingrich would be more of the same in DC, and Paul is at least offering a clear choice for the people.

[Dinsdale]

Abolish the Federal Reserve system and return to the gold standard?

Heaven forbid that currency is based on something tangible, and the value of the money in your pocket isn't dictated by the whims of the Men In The Marble Palace.

Darn, they couldn't even fire up the printing press to adress budget problems... whatever would we do?

I haven't heard him mention repealing the Civil Rights Act, Wags, but I'd be interested in knowing why he wants to do that.

On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

And I can't think of two worse same-old, same-old cadidates than Newt and Obama. Newt represents the worst of the worst of theold neocon ways. That dying breed needs to become a dead-breed... as do the union bought old-school Dems.

[Dinsdale]

More right-wingnutisms:

The economic establishment in this country has come to the conclusion that it is not a matter of "if" the United States must intervene in the bailout of the euro, but simply a question of "when" and "how". Newspaper articles and editorials are full of assertions that the breakup of the euro would result in a worldwide depression, and that economic assistance to Europe is the only way to stave off this calamity. These assertions are yet again more scare-mongering, just as we witnessed during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis. After just a decade of the euro, people have forgotten that Europe functioned for centuries without a common currency.


The real cause of economic depression is loose monetary policy: the creation of money and credit out of thin air and the monetization of government debt by a central bank. This inflationary monetary policy is the cause of every boom and bust, yet it is precisely what political and economic elites both in Europe and the United States are prescribing as a resolution for the present crisis. The drastic next step being discussed is a multi-trillion dollar bailout of Europe by the European Central Bank, aided by the IMF and the Federal Reserve.

The euro was built on an unstable foundation. Its creators attempted to establish a dollar-like currency for Europe, while forgetting that it took nearly two centuries for the dollar to devolve from a defined unit of silver to a completely unbacked fiat currency note. The euro had no such history and from the outset was a purely fiat system, thus it is not surprising to followers of Austrian economics that it barely survived a decade and is now completely collapsing. Europe's economic depression is the result of the euro's very structure, a fiat money system that allowed member governments to spend themselves into oblivion and expect that someone else would pick up the tab.

A bailout of European banks by the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve will exacerbate the crisis rather than alleviate it. What is needed is for bad debts to be liquidated. Banks that invested in sovereign debt need to take their losses rather than socializing those losses and prolonging the process of adjusting their balance sheets to reflect reality. If this was done, the correction would be painful, but quick, like tearing off a large band-aid, but this is necessary to get back on solid economic footing. Until the correction takes place there can be no recovery. Bailing out profligate European governments will only ensure that no correction will take place.

A multi-trillion dollar European aid package cannot be undertaken by Europe alone, and will require IMF and Federal Reserve involvement. The Federal Reserve already has pumped trillions of dollars into the US economy with nothing to show for it. Just considering Fed involvement in Europe is ludicrous. The US economy is in horrible shape precisely because of too much government debt and too much money creation and the European economy is destined to flounder for the same reasons. We have an unsustainable amount of debt here at home; it is hardly fair to US taxpayers to take on Europe's debt as well. That will only ensure an accelerated erosion of the dollar and a lower standard of living for all Americans.

[Dinsdale]

Another good article:

http://lewrockwell.com/rep2/why-ron-paul-can-win.html

[mvscal]

Abolish the Federal Reserve system and return to the gold standard?

Heaven forbid that currency is based on something tangible,

What's so tangible about gold? It's a good conductor but essentially worthless in any practical sense. The only thing that makes it valuable is that we all agree that it has value. Fundamentally, it is no different than fiat currency.

[Dinsdale]

What's so tangible about gold?

You said that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



OK, sorry.

[Moving Sale]

Who the fuck do you think serves the subpoenas in the first place, you stupid asshole?

It is usually done by committee staff and when that is not convenient then by U.S. Marshals, so what? There is a huge difference between service of the subpoena and enforcement of its terms. He said he would enforce the subpoena by sending the Marshals* that is not how it works. The Congress must first find the person in contempt and then the courts would decide if the contempt should be enforced and then the Court would issue the order to send the US Marshals. He has the branches all screwed up in his fat stupid head.
Nice red herring though.

* SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a Congressional hearing… how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?
GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.

[Moving Sale]

That, and Dr. Paul didn't proofread/edit a newsletter bearing his nae (sic)20 years ago.

If I were to sign off on a motion or brief or writ or whatever that had huge problems in it and try the old "I didn't read it" line I would be laughed out of court and, at the very least, sanctioned. Your boy needs to take responsibility for his actions.

[Derron]

I would be laughed out of court

That happens every time you walk in the court room you mother fucking midget.

[Dinsdale]

Your boy needs to take responsibility for his actions.

Like admitting his mistake over and over and over, and putting the kibosh to the newsletter when he found out?

[Moving Sale]

No I mean more like he should start telling the truth.

[Moving Sale]

What's so tangible about gold? It's a good conductor but essentially worthless in any practical sense. The only thing that makes it valuable is that we all agree that it has value. Fundamentally, it is no different than fiat currency.

Nice white flag tard.