Very True

[steelmover]

http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=870

The Supreme Court's decision today is George W. Bush's most important legacy. For all of his faults, George W. Bush appointed solid conservative justices to the bench. Alito and Roberts, his appointees, along with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, defeated Ginsburg and the radical leftist wing of the court.

For decades, liberals insisted that the Second Amendment, which protects our right to keep and bears arms, did not apply to the people. Today, Bush's court asserted that it did apply to the people, that they do have the right to keep and bear arms. Today, Bush's court asserted that the socialists in Washington D.C., and other leftist cities can't keep guns from people who want to defend themselves from thugs and terrorists. Today, Bush's court asserted that liberal statists like Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer who never fired a BB gun in their lives can take their plans for grabbing guns from the American people and return them to the Hague.

Imagine if Gore had won and appointed a corrupt trial lawyer to the court? Imagine if Kerry had won and appointed the head of the ACLU to the court? American freedom was one Supreme Court vote away from falling into the abyss. And it was George W. Bush who pulled it back from the edge.

Because of this ruling, George W. Bush may be remembered as the greatest American president. America was on the verge of boiling over with anger at one liberal decision after another. The fact is that George W. Bush may have prevented a revolution. No Supreme Court in our history has secured our freedoms the way this one has today. Not FDR's court, not Reagan's court, none. This gives power to the people in a way that no other president has been responsible for. Bush has many failings, but when it comes to the core issues of our civilization, he does the right thing.

And so as the election approaches, remember the choice. You have Obama, a leftist socialist who would give us another gun-grabbing Ginsburg on the court, or McCain, who would appoint a conservative like Bush did.

[pex]

Lesser-of-two-evils propaganda.

If a libertarian or constitutionalist were president, they'd appoint someone who was closest to the Constitution they could find. We don't want liberal or conservative judges.

Why would we accept the gungrabbing tendencies of either Obama or McCain (acting with amplified power from a horrible Congress) on the off chance they (successfully) appoint an accidental Warren?

Don't vote two-party. It's simple.

[Evolution]

Excellent post! Rep sent your way!

[-JD-]

Lesser-of-two-evils propaganda.

...

Don't vote two-party. It's simple.

That is why we need to carefully consider revising our electoral system to break the political duopoly that has come to have a stranglehold on our political process. The ability to express our true choice in our vote without "throwing it away" would allow the independents and third parties to play a truly significant role going forward.

A system like Ranked or Instant Runoff Voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) would go a long way towards opening up our government.

[ChamberedRound]

Because of this ruling, George W. Bush may be remembered as the greatest American president.

I don't think so. He will be given credit for nominating 2 Supreme Court Judges which ruled on the side of individual liberty in this case, that's for sure. However, when you consider the following:

- He used false pretenses to enter yet another conflict with Iraq, and to that end spent, borrowed, and printed billions and trillions of dollars we didn't have in the first place.
- He used tax dollars in an already strained economy to bail out industries which don't deserve it.
- He pushed legislation, insulting to its namesake "The Patriot Act", which began the erosion of our civil liberties when there was already a framework in place by which the administration and its agencies could get the information they requested.
- He pushed legislation to, using very vague language, suspend the right of habeas corpus when it's convenient to the administration, putting everyone's right to such protection in jeopardy.
- He is pushing ex post facto legislation which would give telecom companies civil immunity from violating the privacy of Americans, simply so the Executive Branch can employ said companies as personal spies without fear of retribution.
- The country is overall in worse shape than when he entered office.

He'll be remembered all right, but I doubt it will be as the "greatest American president". I can't stand Obama and most of the Democrats, but to label Bush in this way is IMHO insulting to the Office of the Presidency.

[pex]

That is why we need to carefully consider revising our electoral system to break the political duopoly that has come to have a stranglehold on our political process. The ability to express our true choice in our vote without "throwing it away" would allow the independents and third parties to play a truly significant role going forward.

A system like Ranked or Instant Runoff Voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) would go a long way towards opening up our government.

We have no 'inability' to express our 'true' choice. We're just unwilling to vote faithfully and that's why the status quo is allowed to exist.

It's true that we have a history of duopoly that has caused specific federal and state law to be passed just for IT, which is incredibly disgusting for what is suppose to be a 'free association'. It is also painful that this duopoly controls education therefore hampers the tools and speed at which we can effect change on those who are already 'cognizant'.

There are plenty of people running for the presidency that are not a Republican or a Democrat. The simple fact is that people are assholes and need to start standing up for things uncompromisingly.

[-JD-]

We have no 'inability' to express our 'true' choice. We're just unwilling to vote faithfully and that's why the status quo is allowed to exist.
...
The simple fact is that people are assholes and need to start standing up for things uncompromisingly.

Yes we do have the ability to vote 'true' and 'faithfully' for a candidate that best represents our views, and maybe, by doing so, enable the victory of one that represents the antithesis of those views. It is foul - I hate rigged games.

And if everyone voted truly (AH or not) we probably still would end up with one of the the two major party candidates in most races now. For many voters, their true vote would be for the major party candidate. Like it or not those parties exist as they are because they are generally representative of a significant portion of the population.


I do respect your abhorrence of compromise. It is honorable.

Unfortunately, I have yet to find any candidate that I feel is all that I would want. Every one is some sort of compromise. Should I not vote because I don't believe the choices are perfect? Uncompromising, yes. My duty as a citizen and to myself, no.

[pex]

Unfortunately, I have yet to find any candidate that I feel is all that I would want. Every one is some sort of compromise. Should I not vote because I don't believe the choices are perfect? Uncompromising, yes. My duty as a citizen and to myself, no.

Well, in anticipation of voting and finding no suitable candidate, and if everyone did so according to conscience, I think it might be clear to two-party that they are not greatly appreciated. (On the other hand, they will just spin it into voter apathy because of random reason X.)

The most suitable candidate that offers all you want is yourself. So run. Try to arse someone else to run. Two-party isn't the only choice and as a RKBA supporter, my guess is that anyone but two-party would be closer to suitable.

Voting for someone else isn't 'enabling' another candidate to win. It's disabling them from having the numbers that others see as the force that requires THEY vote two-party, for fear of the same thing all these other anti-fringe voters attempt to claim. They're willing to vote for someone who they more closely align with, but they won't do it until that other person has support, which requires those votes, which means it would be impossible for that third party to get votes because everyone is waiting for them to get votes, to vote.

With luck, we'll vote ourselves quickly into the need for revolution. Maybe we won't have to worry as much about fencesitting. Otherwise, Fat America has a number of decades of careful management to be annoyed and oppressed by before the nanny state becomes a socialist machine. I suppose that is just as well, because we'll be too numb to realize the pain.

[-JD-]

The most suitable candidate that offers all you want is yourself. ...

I am not that much of a fool! I'll admit to the occasional daydream but I freely admit that I in this reality I am not qualified in temperament nor experience. It is far more than just ideals that I am concerned with; effectiveness is just as important.

... They're willing to vote for someone who they more closely align with, but they won't do it until that other person has support, which requires those votes, which means it would be impossible for that third party to get votes because everyone is waiting for them to get votes, to vote.

So let's change the voting system and break the deadlock!

With luck, we'll vote ourselves quickly into the need for revolution. ... Otherwise, Fat America has a number of decades of careful management to be annoyed and oppressed by before the nanny state becomes a socialist machine. ...

It is a good point. Independent folks voting their conscience under the current rules just might result in a political situation that will push (some of) the population to the breaking point, but I fear that that machine may be 'kindly', but brutally powerful by that point.

Jefferson opined that an occasional "pruning" might be necessary to a healthy state. Quite possibly so. I suppose that the unchecked population growth, and/or the unchecked growth of governments will leave us drowning in many poisons.

Maybe we should just divide the country along the Mississippi. Libertarian types on the left, socialist/authoritarian types on the right. Two governments, 1/2 on the left, 1-1/2 on the right operating with a limited confederation. Hell, I'd love to live in some areas of a free CA. Messy in the details, but it would be interesting to see what the results would be if everyone was forced to make a considered decision.


BTW. Thanks for the spirited discussion. I hope someday we might have the opportunity to meet FTF. -JD-

[Elmar]

Might want to check how those justices voted in Kelo v New London and Raich v Gonzales to see if they are really liberty-loving.