Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
As to where I stand, I would side with taking as much as you can now and worry about concequences later. I personally don't trust that the other side wouldn't attempt the same thing, so if you show compromise now and there's a big change in 2006 and 2008, you could be S.O.L. and have 6 years of control and nothing to show for it. To me, it seems like a variation of the classic prisoners dilema, and the only logical thing to do is to screw the other guy.
|
"If you're not with us, you're against us."
That mentality right there is the single most significant flaw of the conservative mind.
Unfortunately, it is also infectious. As illogical as it is, I would gladly sacrifice conservatives, the other guy.
It is also why this statement:
Quote:
|
It's not about if their views are right or wrong, it's about how they adhere to the law. And that's why many conservatives have problems with current judges: they aren't making rulings on law but on what they think is right.
|
is meaningless. There is no such thing as an objective judge - yet the right wants to claim that the present judiciary is somehow overly subjective and the only remedy is to place judges who are "not overly subjective", and surpise suprise, those supposedly not-overly-objective appointments also happen to have political philosophies that align quite well with those complaining about this so-called failure of the judiciary to act as it should.
Either you're grabbing everything you can because you feel the ultimate desire to sacrifice the other guy, or you're trying to correct an actual problem. You're certainly not doing both. And it's very obvious you're not doing the latter - particularly when you spend two sentences describing a logical justification (if it were true) and 3 paragraphs describing the power-grab justification.