I respect your honest response and normally would completely agree with giving a new president a full year but the reality is, we may not have that long. He's not just spending, he's destroying our currency, putting our international credit rating at risk, and he's dead set on more spending. The question we all need to ask is, if he succeeds at destroying our currency what will this mean for us?
So if I understand this, all humans lie to get what they want and you're persecuting Bush for lying? And even more, you persecuting Bush but aren't questioning Obama on his lies.
I'm not arguing that Bush lied but I'm not justifying his lies and persecuting another for lying.
"Who said being a woman and a minority made her qualified?"
Have you been watching the news? Every single talking head is warning the republicans they had better tread softly with any critiques of Sotomayor or they'll risk losing the Latino vote in upcoming elections. Why should race or sex spray a judge with Teflon making them invincible from having their judgments, statements, and actions put into question?
This women is very well qualified from an experience standpoint. No one should argue that. What should be put under a microscope is just how much power to create law this woman thinks she has. In other words just how much of an activist judge she is. Judges interpret law, they do not make policy.
In the second link you'll notice her comments have been repeated many times which says a lot bout her and Obama's claim that it was a poor choice of words. For me personally I'm more concerned with her comment in link 1 than two.
With all of that said, we can only expect Obama to pick a left leaning judge as most presidents do. She will probably be confirmed but shouldn't be free of any criticism or review just because of her race or sex.
"I just hate to see people verbalize, or type, their opinions along party lines which leads me to my final question. Does the fact that Obama nominated (or whatever) her shape your opinion at all?"
For me, no it doesn't shape my opinion on a nominee. I start my own research on that person knowing two things will likely be true with Obama nominating them but will have to be fact checked, the nominee will lean left and will flirt with activism. It's no different than a republican being in office who opt for right leaning candidates. I fear those who feel they can make law when all they're given the power to do is interpret it.
You know, for 20 years I was in the Air Force and was not allowed to talk bad about our president. Now that I can say what I want, I'm not going to sit here and rake Obama over the coals considering the position he was in when he took office. However, I will say that we are forgetting that we are talking about politicians and they are human beings. Human beings are not perfect and will lie to get what they want. It is just that simple. One thing I find interesting is how Obama is blamed and then someone jumped back to Clinton as if 8 years of Bush didn't happen. I promise you with every ounce of street/common sense that I have that Bush was one of the biggest liars in the history of this country and probably the worst president we have had. It is beyond my comprehension how more things during his administration aren't talked about. First, it was shady how he ended up in the white house and totally amazing that he was re-elected. For me, it isn't about race or party lines - I don't feel the same way about Reagan or the first Bush - it is just about calling an idiot an idiot.
Did I miss something? Who said being a woman and a minority made her qualified? Do you have any quotes or links? I think most people appointed and/or elected have issues. It is unfortunately the nature of the beast. I just hate to see people verbalize, or type, their opinions along party lines which leads me to my final question. Does the fact that Obama nominated (or whatever) her shape your opinion at all?
Have you used them very much? They only put their OS on their hardware because they want to make sure things work right - they are concerned about the user experience. The same goes for the iPhone and multi-tasking; they really are concerned with the user experience to the point of too much control. I would think they would make as much money if they just sold their OS and let people put it on any PC, but then they would be like Microsoft. Even though people say Apple is a hardware company that really isn't the case. They use the same hardware that Dell, HP, etc. uses. I'm actually 50/50 on this one. Both have their advantages, but I would prefer to never own a Windows Mobile cell phone again.
An assault weapon is defined as a semi-auto with a pistol grip and other cosmetic features. Semi-autos without a pistol grip or other cosmetic features are somehow less deadly and not as evil....
So called assault rifles are NOT any different from your grandpa's deer rifle he used to feed your family, teach you gun safety, and go to the range with.
They start banning some guns, then they ban them all. I can tell you that only the honest will be hurt, criminals will always break the law and always have guns, just like in England where their violent crime jumped up like crazy after they banned guns.
I'm not arguing that Bush lied but I'm not justifying his lies and persecuting another for lying.
Have you been watching the news? Every single talking head is warning the republicans they had better tread softly with any critiques of Sotomayor or they'll risk losing the Latino vote in upcoming elections. Why should race or sex spray a judge with Teflon making them invincible from having their judgments, statements, and actions put into question?
This women is very well qualified from an experience standpoint. No one should argue that. What should be put under a microscope is just how much power to create law this woman thinks she has. In other words just how much of an activist judge she is. Judges interpret law, they do not make policy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/sotomayor.speeches/
In the second link you'll notice her comments have been repeated many times which says a lot bout her and Obama's claim that it was a poor choice of words. For me personally I'm more concerned with her comment in link 1 than two.
With all of that said, we can only expect Obama to pick a left leaning judge as most presidents do. She will probably be confirmed but shouldn't be free of any criticism or review just because of her race or sex.
"I just hate to see people verbalize, or type, their opinions along party lines which leads me to my final question. Does the fact that Obama nominated (or whatever) her shape your opinion at all?"
For me, no it doesn't shape my opinion on a nominee. I start my own research on that person knowing two things will likely be true with Obama nominating them but will have to be fact checked, the nominee will lean left and will flirt with activism. It's no different than a republican being in office who opt for right leaning candidates. I fear those who feel they can make law when all they're given the power to do is interpret it.
So called assault rifles are NOT any different from your grandpa's deer rifle he used to feed your family, teach you gun safety, and go to the range with.
They start banning some guns, then they ban them all. I can tell you that only the honest will be hurt, criminals will always break the law and always have guns, just like in England where their violent crime jumped up like crazy after they banned guns.