Posted on 02/16/2007 10:03:13 AM PST by DeerfieldObserver
The NY MSM want their favorite Male? and Female? to be the only choice for POTUS!
They can have a socialist with a D by ITS name or a democrat with an R by ITS name.
Win, win for MSM, loss, loss for America!
And that has what to do with what the Democrats want?
If you think the Democrats are more afraid of Duncan Hunter then Giuliani or McCain, you're hopeless.
LOL!!! And I thought you had exposed yourself as being stupid before. Calling Jeb a RINO is even worse then your normal rantings. He was the most consistently Conservative Governor in all 50 states, and he did so in a large swing state.
Don't you have some work to do for Alan Keys? I'm sure he'll appoint you Sec. of State if he ever wins.
"When the facts change, I change my mind".
Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are both constitutional morons. It's no wonder there's an affinity.
Jeb allowed his executive power to be co-opted by a tinpot local judge in the service of dehydrating a defenseless young woman to death, in direct contradiction of Article One, Section Two of the Florida Constitution, which he had sworn to uphold.
Mitt did the same when he used his executive offices to implement the unconstitutional Goodridge decision which brought about gay marriage.
Say hi to Roy for me.
I didn't mention Roy, you did.
That's a bit like someone going on a rant on how great Communism is, and then saying in response to someone bringing up Lennin "I didn't mention Lennin, you did."
You are taking the standard Moore/Keys view that courts only matter if they are 'right', and are free to be ignored if they are 'wrong'. Which is, of course, to say they don't matter at all. But neither Moore nor Keys is intellectually honest enough to admit, and neither are you.
I'm taking the position that chief executives have a duty to protect the Constitution, just as they swore to do when they raised their right hand and recited their oath.
Your position, not unlike the position of too many in our political world today, and not unlike Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, is that we no longer have a republican form of government. We are now ruled by judicial oligarchs.
Yes, I am aware of your opinion that Governors should destroy the separation of powers and take upon themselves the power of the Judiciary if you don't like what the Judiciary does.
In other words, I am well aware that you are basically a quasi-Monarchist.
Basic rights.--All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.
Which part of that don't you and Jeb understand?
You are making an assertion based on no evidence.
The evidence says otherwise. For example, the DNC has produced scads of anti-Romney Press Releases
Which candidate do your reckon the DNC trembles at in fear? Brownback? Hagel? Freeper fave Duncan Hunter has only merited two DNC press releases.
Likewise, the DNC's MSM minions have produced plenty of negatively toned stories against Romney, while neglecting to disdain other GOP candidates.
The part where it says that the court can be ignored if we don't like it.
OH WAIT, it doesn't say that.
What if the court issued an order to kill YOU?
Would the court be worthy of ignoring? Or do you think the chief executive should exert all of his power to back up the out-of-control judge instead doing so in defense of YOUR inalienable rights?
Agreed.
Projection is not reality.
Agreed.
Facts are absolute and do not change. Circumstances and context change in which the interpretation of facts may rightly vary.
That is true, but incomplete. The set of facts pertaining to a given case may change as new information becomes available, and in the face of such a change, an honest man will necessarily amend his view. That is what I understand Keynes to have meant by his words.
Integrity persists--or loses. Character matters.
Character strives to discern absolute truth and act accordingly.
I agree with this also, but it seems to me that you and I are talking about two different aspects of the way in which one should approach Truth. (Capitalization used to distinguish absolute Truth from perceived truth).
Oh, wait. You think your rights are superior to those of a disabled women. What was I thinking...
It is irrelevant. You are doing exactly what I said you are doing, and that is using end justifies the means, and undermining the legitimacy of your claim.
The fact that the court is not just does not remove it's authority under the current structure. It might mean we need new laws or new judges, but it wouldn't matter for me. I wouldn't challenge the authority of the courts to judge.
By your logic, if the police came to arrest me, and they were 'wrong' in arresting me because their interpretation of the statute under which they were arresting me was 'wrong', I'd be perfectly justified in killing them.
Your 'end justifies the means' logic is straight out of Hillary Clinton's logic.
Question: seeming as how you seem to reply to most of my posts with two posts instead of one, does Alan Keys pay you by the post?
Why not Jeb on a Romney ticket as VP?
The truth comes out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.