Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2020, 05:41:01 AM
No son, you are not!!! We were born Conservative, most of us here anyway, which is why we have an inert grasp of its true meaning.
The difference being, you only recently entered politics, so your view of what the meaning of being a Conservative is skewed by the media.

We were Conservative when no one even used the term. Being a Conservative used to be a way of life, it's only been the last 40 years that it became a divisive term, and guess who made it divisive?
Leftists in both party's!

I've been voting for the more conservative candidates since 1988.   So I haven't only recently entered politics.

Quote from: Dayton3 on December 21, 2020, 01:13:20 PM
I've been voting for the more conservative candidates since 1988.   So I haven't only recently entered politics.

You'd think you would be smarter.......

Quote from: Dayton3 on December 21, 2020, 01:13:20 PM
I've been voting for the more conservative candidates since 1988.   So I haven't only recently entered politics.

Since 1988? So you completely missed JFK, LBJ (Nam), Nixon, Carter and the Reagan Revolution?
Yeah, you just entered politics.

Quote from: Solar on December 21, 2020, 02:15:31 PM
Since 1988? So you completely missed JFK, LBJ (Nam), Nixon, Carter and the Reagan Revolution?
Yeah, you just entered politics.

I was a year too young to vote in the 1984 election.    But I had a strong interest in politics going back to 1976.

Quote from: Dayton3 on December 22, 2020, 11:06:03 AM
I was a year too young to vote in the 1984 election.    But I had a strong interest in politics going back to 1976.

What were the political highlights of 1976?

Quote from: Solar on October 19, 2020, 02:15:45 PM
But sadly we're in a time when Marxists want to overturn precedent and destroy our rule of law.


Senate Republicans Offer Constitutional Amendment To Block Supreme Court Packing


https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/2020.10.17%20-%20Amendment%20-%20Court%20Packing%20-%20FV.pdf

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/2020.10.17%20-%20Legislation%20-%20Court%20Packing%20-%20FV.pdf

The first proposal would prevent the expansion or contraction of the Supreme Court by constitutional amendment, also known as the "Keep Nine" amendment. The second proposal would stop Democrats from unilaterally passing any court-packing legislation in the United States Senate.

Upon introducing these proposals, Sen. Cruz said:

"Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system. We must take action before election day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance. That's why I'm proud to introduce these two commonsense proposals, which will prevent either party from adding or contracting the number of justices on the bench for political advantage."

After Democrats last week during the confirmation hearing for Judge Amy Coney Barrett accused Senate Republicans of Court packing for simply fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on judicial nominees, Sen. Cruz added:

"Don't be fooled by Democrats' hyperbolic rhetoric. Packing the Court means one very specific thing: expanding the number of justices to achieve a political outcome. It is wrong. It is an abuse of power. Democrats are endeavoring to redefine the language to set the stage for a partisan assault on the Court. When it comes to our fundamental liberties – our religious liberty, our freedom of speech, our Second Amendment rights – we are often one vote away from losing them on the Supreme Court. For the sake of our liberties and the future of our country, we must preserve our independent judiciary. These proposals would do just that."

Sen. Tillis added:

"For the last few years, Democrats have made no secret of their desire to see a radical, socialist agenda imposed on the American people. Unable to implement their job-killing plans through the Democratic process, they've decided they'll simply impose it on the American people through the Supreme Court. Chuck Schumer and his allies are now saying they'll pack the Supreme Court if Senate Republicans fulfill their constitutional duty to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Their proposals are dangerous and would give them free reign to appoint radical judges who would legislate from the bench, threatening the religious liberty and Second Amendment rights of North Carolinians. We have had nine judges on the Supreme Court since 1869, and efforts to change that is not supported by the majority of the American people. I am proud to co-introduce these proposals to stop Chuck Schumer's radical liberal agenda and maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court."

Sen. McSally said:

"Threats by Democrats to expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court and add liberal activist judges is disturbing and dangerous. On top of that, some Democrats reluctance to even answer whether they would pack the Court proves a far more frightening reality. The left will first deceive the American people and then use any tool at their disposal to gain power and force their radical agenda on them. Our bills are critical to thwarting any efforts to fundamentally transform the Supreme Court, keeping the number of Justices at nine as it has been for over 150 years."

Sen. Wicker added:

"Proposals to 'pack' the Supreme Court and add seats to change its ideological balance should concern every American. There have been nine seats on the Supreme Court for more than 150 years, providing stability and trust in the rule of law. These two proposals would protect the independence of our federal judiciary and ensure our nation's highest court is not subject to political games."

Sen. Loeffler said:

"The shameful attacks on Judge Barrett are especially hypocritical given the Left's calls to pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster in a desperate attempt to impose their radical agenda on the American people. These proposals will prevent Democrats from fundamentally altering the Court and adding new seats only to fill them with activist judges who will legislate from the bench and threaten the right to life, the Second Amendment and all the individual liberties that we as Americans hold dear. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in preventing attempts to undermine the integrity of our democracy and Americans' freedoms."

Sen. Hyde-Smith added:

"Having nine justices on the United States Supreme Court has worked for more than 150 years. Today, the long-standing checks and balances that are the foundation of our democracy would be thrown into crisis if threats to pack the court are successful. Packing the court is all about politics and power, not principle. The legislation we introduce today would keep our democracy intact and isolate the judiciary from the political whims of our colleagues across the aisle."

BACKGROUND:

Before President Trump had even nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Senate Democrats had already pledged their opposition to her confirmation.

Top Democrats, including Joe Biden, have falsely called Senate Republican's efforts to confirm Judge Barrett "court packing" because Republicans have been confirming principled constitutionalists to the federal bench. But as Sen. Cruz has said, "Court packing does not mean nominating a justice to fill a vacancy. [...] It is expanding the number of justices. And, you know, Joe Biden in 1983 said Court packing was 'a bone-headed idea,' and now that bone headed idea I think is their agenda number one if they win on Election Day."

What constitution?

Quote from: Rockfish on January 01, 2021, 08:48:33 AM
What constitution?

Gee, what a brilliant retort...

Quote from: Owebo on December 22, 2020, 11:07:58 AM
What were the political highlights of 1976?

It was the Bicentennial year.    Carter was running against Ford.   Reagan was trying to take the nomination from  Ford and almost succeeded.   Carter won very narrowly.  Unfortunately.   

Though it is worth remembering that Carter ran far more conservatively than he turned out to be while in office.  But this was a pattern with Carter as in Georgia governors race he had run as a tried and true southern Democratic racist and then turned around completely as soon as he was sworn in.

Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 04:16:57 AM
Gee, what a brilliant retort...

LOL what constitution?  Are you referring to the one that does NOT protect religious freedom?

So what constitution

Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 06:30:34 AM
LOL what constitution?  Are you referring to the one that does NOT protect religious freedom?

So what constitution

That would be the Bill of Rights, and who do you expect to protect it, Govt?

Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 06:33:48 AM
That would be the Bill of Rights, and who do you expect to protect it, Govt?

Grow up, religious freedom is not being protected by the constitution, nor is freedom of arms unrestricted so

What constitution

You believe in a wet dream, the truth has hit you and you are clueless

Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 06:37:17 AM
Grow up, religious freedom is not being protected by the constitution, nor is freedom of arms unrestricted so

What constitution

You believe in a wet dream, the truth has hit you and you are clueless

Again genius, those are in the Bill of Rights, a restriction against govt. God gave us these Rights, not the fuckin govt!

Quote from: Rockfish on January 02, 2021, 06:37:17 AM
Grow up, religious freedom is not being protected by the constitution, nor is freedom of arms unrestricted so

What constitution

You believe in a wet dream, the truth has hit you and you are clueless

It seems some people have shit for brains or perhaps our education system has failed so miserably they're simply illeriterate and can't read and have any meaureable degree of comprehension. The way I read it both religious freedom and the right to bear arms are both absolutely guarrenteed. Said persons are also apparently clueless as to American history as well otherwise they'd have cincluded that the use of "arms" by the framers was meant to be all inclusive as the framers clearly had Lexington and Concord fresh in their minds as the Bill of Rights was penned.

Quote from: dickfoster on January 02, 2021, 09:26:08 AM
It seems some people have shit for brains or perhaps our education system has failed so miserably they're simply illeriterate and can't read and have any meaureable degree of comprehension. The way I read it both religious freedom and the right to bear arms are both absolutely guarrenteed. Said persons are also apparently clueless as to American history as well otherwise they'd have cincluded that the use of "arms" by the framers was meant to be all inclusive as the framers clearly had Lexington and Concord fresh in their minds as the Bill of Rights was penned.

He's not very bright, he thinks our Rights come from Govt.

Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2021, 06:46:18 AM
Again genius, those are in the Bill of Rights, a restriction against govt. God gave us these Rights, not the fuckin govt!

Actually genius the bill of rights is the first ten amendments to the constitution.

Duh, simpleton alert