Vendtre

8 minutes ago, other one said:

I don't think he would take that chance... I may disagree with what Obama is and stands for, but he is pretty smart.  Makes him more dangerous

I agree he is very smart, and I think this pick shows it.

I still say that come this fall is the GOP is not sure they can win they will have a choice to make because there are lots of worse choices for the Supreme Court than this guy.    And keep in mind they could win the White House and loose the Senate, the GOP has a lot of seats to defend, more than twice as many as the DNC.

I think also from a GOP establishment point of view, they do not trust Trump to make a good choice. 

4 minutes ago, other one said:

You can't be super why he voted the way he did, and with Obama making gun control his main goal for the rest of the year, how can anyone trust he had anything but wanting to overturn the decision. Taking in all going on.

Maybe because Obama knows the chance of him getting a fair hearing are just a little more than zilch, so why waste a good anti-gun judge.  

41 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

However you spin it, the NRA is against his nomination. 

Of course they are, they have an extreme agenda and anyone that does not agree with it 100% they are against.  I assumed people would look at the facts themselves and not blindly follow the NRA.

On March 17, 2016 at 7:23 PM, algots said:

How can I say that I love God when I don't desire to be around His children, or those with whom He, also, dwells?

One of the most offensive things a professing believer can say is that they love Jesus, just not His followers (with whom the Spirit of Jesus indwells).

I have actual blood relatives I cannot stand to be around and very rarely see them because of this.  Being family does not mean you have to like everyone.

6 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

this isnt the only time this judge has ruled against guns, hes done so before and truly does have a history. The NRA has voiced their opposition to this nomination, and listed more cases then just this one, and I have seen nothing, to suggest the NRA is wrong. 

 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-supreme-court-nominee-has-anti-gun-record/

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/432716/moderates-are-not-so-moderate-merrick-garland

Here is where the NRA is wrong, from your Free Beacon link...

“Judge Garland voted to grant an en banc hearing to Heller after the three judge panel struck down the District of Columbia’s gun ban law,” Gottlieb said. “The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro-Second Amendment ruling. That was hostile to gun rights.”

This is just false, plain and simple.  From Wiki (emphasis mine)...  En banc is often used for unusually complex cases or cases considered to be of greater importance.^[2] Appellate courts in the United States sometimes grant rehearing en banc to reconsider a decision of a panel of the court (generally consisting of only three judges) in which the case concerns a matter of exceptional public importance or the panel's decision appears to conflict with a prior decision of the court

It should also be pointed out that one of the most conservative judges in the entire Circuit Court system, Judge Raymond Randolph, also agreed with the en banc request.  Every story I have read about this from a right wing source has used the same lie that granting an en banc means you disagree with the ruling.  

As for the temporary storage of gun registration information, yes, he did uphold a lower court ruling that since it was a temporary storage it did not violate the law.  And you who else agreed?  The Supreme Court did, so it would seem that Garland got it right. 

5 minutes ago, hmbld said:

1.  Ok, I'll admit I may have been heavily influenced by hearing something on the news that Garland was anti-gun rights.  Then I read several articles stating the same.  Now after reading what I could find stating facts about Garland, there really is little to form an opinion on his stance.  I'm even beginning to think Obama may have calculated in the fact that the establishment was going to block his nomination anyway, and this may contribute to more disintegration of the Republican party.  I am getting tired of news not reporting, but trying to influence everyones opinion.    I think I'll count this one as you made a great point and I was wrong.

2.  Fair enough.  I don't know if anyone actually fits entirely in one box!

I think it was a calculated can't lose move by Obama.  If he is confirmed it is a win, if he is not Obama can use it against the GOP.  Also the GOP has to factor in how sure they are they will win in November , this guy is way better than anyone Hillary would nominate. 

40 minutes ago, hmbld said:

1.  I don't think Obama is stupid, he has caused enough intention damage to be stupid.  His priority is gun control, and news from many sources label Garland as against gun rights.  Am I mistaken?  Possibly.

2.  I read your words, and you may feel like you don't fit in any box, but the truth is, we all do.  We believe what we believe and it shows in our words.  Luke 6:46  A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Am I mistaken?  Possibly.  You have the chance to prove me wrong with your words, and if you need to resort to insulting as you have in the past, it only works against you.  

1.  Did all the "many" sources use the same reason that he was anti-gun.

2.  True we all fit in a box, some of us just don't fit in the cookie cutter boxes most people try and use. With the exception of abortion my views on things tend to be a conglomeration of the views of both liberals and conservatives.  Setting aside abortion for which I am very conservative, none of my views are either liberal nor conservative on any other issues, they are a mix of both worlds.

and I hate being lumped into either camp, which is why I get so defensive when people do that to me.  

1 minute ago, hmbld said:

A figure of speech as an insult.  By all news accounts I have read, Garland is counted as anti-gun rights and Obama made it known his goal for this year is to make a change in gun rights.  To which you respond by calling it hysteria, so your words in this thread and others do lead me to think you are more inclined to support the DNC, which is not an insult.  

You make two mistakes here.

1.  All the news accounts are using the same reason for saying he is anti-gun rights.  One case that all he did was agree to a review by the full bench.  He has been a judge for decades and that is all that they have.  That should tell you something.  I also understand the workings of the higher levels of our judicial branch and I know that supporting review denotes neither support or opposition to the ruling.  

2. You assume because I do not support the GOP I must support the DNC.  Most of the left dislike Garland as much as you folks on the right.  My views on gun laws are pretty much right between the far right and the far left.   I am not a Republican not a Democrat, I am neither a liberal not a conservative.  I have beliefs that would fall under both labels, which is the problem with them.  Most people of my generation are that way, we do not fit into the boxes of our parents or grandparents. 

1 minute ago, hmbld said:

The phrase "with an ounce of logic or common sense" is, I would say, impossible to prove has any truth in it.  Can we measure either logic or common sense by weighing them in ounces?  One can confirm or deny something without being condescending.  Scripture backs this up, but Joe has already shown you this.  Vendtre, disagreeing is fine, but insulting and calling it truth?  

It is what is known as an "expression"

or a "figure of speech".  

http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/figuresterms.htm

I consider being accused of supporting the DNC an insul, but nobody has a problem with those sorts of things.  Seems a double standard is at play here 

4 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

There it is again.

If it is the truth, is is an insult?

53 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

I agree with the record he does seem to not be in favor of guns, this ruling aside. And regardless the fact Obama recommended him is enough for me to be against him alone. I can't trust a thing Obama says, if Obama says something or someone is good he's probably lying.

Would never ask anyone to trust Obama

Trump and Hillary are in a boat that is sinking...who survives?

America!  

2 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Another insult?  Didn't you get the message?  I recognize a liberal who comes to a conservative board to wreak havoc when I read him or her.  Why not just be upfront about it?

Not an insult at all, just an observation. Anyone that thinks I support the Democratic party either has not been paying attention or lacks common sense.

3 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

Are you really that unaware?  It's useful to put a label on what is really happening.  I'm surprised Obama was willing to alienate muslims by saying this publicly.

In what practical way is this useful?  What comes from this that changes anything?

Just now, MorningGlory said:

You can always hope your party gains control again.

I have no party, neither party embraces my views. 

17 minutes ago, other one said:

if she does, he/she will not be confirmed.....

Assuming the GOP holds the Senate, which is a large assumption. 

This is the sort of hysteria that is killing our country.  He agreed that a case of this magnitude deserved to be heard by the full bench instead of just a panel.  His decision had nothing to do with if he agreed with the outcome or not, that should be totally irrelevant.   And for this he is branded with the big Scarlet 2 for being against the 2nd amendment. The logic of such a thing is so incredibly wrong that it is inconceivable that an adult would even think it was valid.

We have become so divided along ideological lines that we even think the judicial system should be biased towards our views, instead of being blind to such things like it was intended to be.  The perfect judge/justice is one whom we do not know what their ideological perspective is, just what their legal sense is.  The Supreme Court fails to be relevant when it is no less a political tool than the other two branches. The Judicial branch was never meant to be divided between party lines.

Here is my prediction for you, next year when President Clinton nominates someone you will look back on Garland and wish they had given him his fair shot because he is as disliked by the left as he is by the right, which means he is perfect for the position.

I do not know where "Worthy News" gets its news, but that whole thing is just false except for one part...

Garland was one of four judges who voted to rehear the case of Parker v. District of Columbia with a full ten-judge panel

The rest is either just wrong...  which includes a vote to undo a landmark gun rights ruling.

or unsupported speculation...  indicates that he may believe the decision to strike down the city’s gun ban was mistaken.

1 minute ago, MorningGlory said:

Or, maybe, after fourteen debates with roughly the same questions, he's over it.  I doubt if Cruz and Kasich are crying about it either.

A debate with 3 people is a very different animal than one with 5 or 8.

Nothing is that simple. But I will check out the book that's for sure

2 hours ago, other one said:

well, he's smart enough to know not to cancel a speech to a prominent pro-Israel advocacy group.  As mean as Cruz has been, I guess Kasich didn't want to be the only other one there.

Personally I think Trump is afraid of a debate with so few people.   He would have to give real answers and could not get away with repeating "fraud, waste and abuse" 100 times.

6 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I look to the economic collapses of Germany and Japan, post WW2, for guidance.  Those countries were devastated; absolute meltdowns of their economies.  But they didn't go back to a hunter/gatherer society.  Their economies had to be rebuilt and gold and silver were definitely useful until that happened.  Again the use of 'viable' just isn't correct.  That word simply means able to survive, to live.  It's not about the viability of an economic system; we know that it will always resurrect eventually.  It's about the processes that are put in place and whether they are sufficient to grow an economy.  Gold and silver have been, and will be, the basis for that growth.

I am not talking about the collapse of a single country, but of the entire worldwide economic system.  Something that has never happened before, but something many people think is possible

4 minutes ago, hmbld said:

I'm trying to keep this simple and I can't figure out if I am just so disagreeable or what is going on?  I have no cows, I can leave most of my hay sit and rot, but then there are a lot of people who have more cattle than what their land can support, so they need my hay or their cattle will die.  If nobody has a currency, cattle herds all over the world will die, then people will have no hamburgers, etc.  Someone is going to be smart enough to come up with a way to continue, what will have true value that everyone will immediately accept?  I'm genuinely listening, not trying to argue.  Someone has a lot of cattle and really wants to buy my hay, what is better than gold, I have everything I need, but I want to sell my hay.  

Maybe instead of gold the guy with the heard of cattle gives you one or two.  Which would be more useful in a world with no viable economic system? 

If I am the one with the hay that is what I am asking for.  

3 minutes ago, hmbld said:

Ok, the world economy just collapsed.  I have 100,000 hay bales, and want to get them hauled out and sold before winter.  What currency do you hold that I will trust?  I need something I can carry and store, thanks.

Chances are most sit there and rot. But then again if you are willing to trade something of true value for the gold I would be happy to oblige.   You can feed your cows the gold, I will feed mine the hay

4 minutes ago, hmbld said:

People still perceive value even in a collapse.  If I have 100,000 hay bales and want to trade them before winter sets in, I need something of value I can carry and trade for anything I might need, and I can store gold over winter with no loss of value, unlike hay.  Basically same reasons as in history, I need a form of currency.  If there is a collapse, what currency will be trusted?  A new currency yet to be formed, or an age proven acceptable, widely recognized one?

A currency with some sort of intrinsic value, one that serves you a better use than making ear rings