TexasCHLforum.com

What you said re: congress not wanting to be the bad guy, is exactly the members of that body need to be replaced with statesman, rather than career politicians. poly = many. ticks = blood sucking vermin. As to filling vaccancies on the court, I agree with your concern there. Those justices sit for a long, long time. Unfortunately, there are still those on the bench that legislate from the bench, rather than uphold the charter of their position. The prospect of adding more judicial legislators is frightening to say the least. It is difficult to prioritize targets here, is the hope that were McCain to be the next POTUS he would nominate justices Congress would approve the 50m target, or the 300m target? Is building a body in Congress capable of returning the Constitution to the appropriate level of importance in government a 50m target, or a 300m target? I'm just not sure which is more important, or more likely to result in something positive for the country.

I actually think we agree far more than we disagree, though I place Clinton as a greater destructive force than the half-brained Obama. He simply lacks the experience to be as destructive as Clinton. Clinton has been destroying, in one capacity or another, the nation for over decade. At any rate, all three will cause significant damage to the core of this country. It can be rebuilt, at least I hope so, but it will be, without doubt, severely damaged by the next administration. What I do not understand, however, is the focus on a single individual. The President of the United States of America is a lofty office to be sure, one with great power, but not one with unlimited power. Congress however, is a body of hundreds of men and women, collectively holding an equally massive level of power - and at present date grossly abusing that power, while also failing to appropriately check that of the POTUS. We could elect the single greatest President of all time, but with a broken Congress, that President would still get nothing done.

I conceed that the next administration will in fact do great damage to a document we've both sworn to support and defend, but we are not without long term options. Our nation was not built in a day, and it won't be destroyed in one either. For anything to positively change, we need to fix our conventions first, and run Statesmen against the career politicians in Congress next. Should that take place during my lifetime, we might have a fighting chance.

neal6325 wrote:

macktruckturner wrote:

neal6325 wrote:McCain may not have been your first choice but he is BY A MILE a better choice if you cherish your right to bear arms.

My allegiance is to the entire Constitution, as I am sworn to support and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. McCain is no friend of the Constitution, harboring no regard for the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments (at a minimum), he's in the same boat as both Democrats with regard to the 2nd - he is no champion of that right either.

I do not disagree with you having served my 8 years during the first Gulf War I took the same oath. While I do agree with you in regards to McCain.....are you suggesting that either Clinton or Obama would do less damage? Keep in mind they will be appointing Judges to the Supreme Court and I would much rather have McCain doing that then either DEM. We are one Justice away from losing our 2nd ammendement rights and you can bet our 1st, 4th and 5th will take a hit as well. The DEMs are already trying to shut up talk radio with their version of Title IX replacing gender guidlines with content guidelines. They feel all stations need to provide balanced coverage of all points of view. Why do you think the Liberal stations do not make money......hmmm......I guess a free marketplace that the country was founded upon does not matter to them and to heck with free speech......

In the end there are only three candidates with a chance to lead this country right now, of the three I am voting AGAINST Obama and Clinton by casting one for McCain. Were there a better option I would be all over it.

Honestly, I can not claim to know who will do more, or less damage. McCain probably has no clue what he's going to support vs what he's going to not support from one minute to the next. At the very least, that is what his time in Congress has proven. Looking at his record, I have no reason whatsoever to believe he will appoint individuals to the SCOTUS with any more regard for the Constitution than he himself demonstrates. In the end though, destroyed is destroyed. More, or less is purely relative. If I blow out an engine block with a burst of .50 API/T, the vehicle is destroyed. Ditto if I waste it with some 25mm HE. Right now the Constitution is the target, and we get the good fortune to elect the use of a MOAB (Clinton), a GBU12 (Obama), or a good old fashioned AN/M14 TH3 (McCain) for its destruction.

neal6325 wrote:McCain may not have been your first choice but he is BY A MILE a better choice if you cherish your right to bear arms.

My allegiance is to the entire Constitution, as I am sworn to support and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. McCain is no friend of the Constitution, harboring no regard for the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments (at a minimum), he's in the same boat as both Democrats with regard to the 2nd - he is no champion of that right either.

While I have the utmost respect for Senator McCain's military service, I have very little respect for his role in Congress. As it stands right now, it flat does not matter who is elected to the position of POTUS, all three "major candidates" have proven records as domestic enemies to the Constitution of the United States of America. Change is the buzzword of the century, sadly we've seen very little change for the better, and are presently positioned for further steering in the wrong direction. Ultimately, the POTUS is of little consequence when one considers how very broken Congress happens to be.