CC1, before I show you my question about John Roberts, I have something to say to you.
The fact that you did not realize I asked you a question tells me that you do not thoroughly read and comprehend posts before you answer with statements that are fashioned to condescend or try to make people feel guilty if your "lesser of the two evils" does not get voted to be president.
I am going to choose my words carefully since I consider you to be a brother in the Lord.
To change my screen name to Not Quite Ready may seem hilarious at best to you or amusing at the very least. To me it shows a lack of respect and is condescending for a sister in the Lord who has a few years on you. Is this how you treat your sisters in the Lord who may disagree with you on political matters in the church you attend? Or are people just afraid to give their point of view because they do not want to put up with such nonsense as this?
You have not refuted the facts that either PO or I have posted here. Instead you choose to condescend and call people who vote their conviction as “ridiculous and childish” because they recognize that voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil? Don’t you think that your little digs at people might just look “ridiculous and childish” in it’s own right?
Voting for the lesser of two evils is not a practical way for me to vote. I am tired of political lies, rhetoric, corporate pandering and grandstanding. I want to vote for something of leadership substance and I do not see leadership substance in either of the two.
You keep talking about judicial appointees coming from the next president’s nomination preference. Yet, I have shown to you that some rotten decisions have come out of conservative republican appointees.
Let me give you another example. Kelo vs New London, Connecticut.
This was the famous ruling dubbed the “eminent domain” ruling which gave governments the right to take private property and give it to other private entities whether they be corporations or private citizens. The gist of this ruling was that private property can be taken if it can be shown that it will go for public good such as revitalization, higher tax revenue etc.
The Supreme Court ruling was 5-4---3 Justices were Republican Appointed, 2 were Democrat appointed. The four Justices who dissented were Republican appointed.
Did the conservative republicans make a difference? In this case, the liberal democrat appointed Justices teemed up with the pubs to make the majority landmark case.
What is so terribly disturbing is that the redeveloper, after the ruling and $78 million dollars spent, could not get financing and the entire homesite is now a city dump.
So, your saying that liberal Justices nominated by Obama will destroy the country is not a viable reason to vote for Romney. They are a separate branch of the Government that interpret our Constitution.
I agree that Barak H. Obama is not concerned with our Constitutional law...but as it was reported, neither was G.W. Bush.
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin271.htm
Here is the page where I asked you the question. First post.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...=39717&page=23
Threaded Mode
