Sorry Indianans

Quote

---

Originally posted by: melbedewy

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber
I wouldn’t worry too much PJ and INdianapaddler I don't think Mitch will be able to convince enough people that voting for a cuckold is a good thing, besides he is still waiting for his wife's permission to run.

A man goes to a shrink and says, "Doctor, my wife is unfaithful to me. Every evening, she goes to Larry's bar and picks up men. In fact, She sleeps with anybody who asks her! I'm going crazy. What do you think I should do?" "Relax," says the Doctor, "take a deep breath and calm down. Now, tell me, exactly where is Larry's bar?"

---

He married a woman, got divorced and then remarried the same woman. You think THAT will disqualify him???

In the White House we have an Anchor Baby whose momma had a "Went Black And Never Went Back" tattoo on her buttocks. Who as a child beat the SLAVES his muslim stepfather had in Indonesia. Who was an unqualified affirmative action baby from prep school to Harvard. Who was a regular at the "church" of a racist cult leader. Whose political career started at the home of a Communist terrorist. Who was a chronic cocaine sniffing felon. Whose Dairy Queen (Double Dip) economics are about to be exposed with the end of the QE 2 artificial stimulus next month.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber
Oh and malibber greatly appreciates Don Diego setting out the bait this weekend

---

DonDiego apologizes. (Actually DonDiego has started fewer "political threads" than a casual observer might think, . . . and very, very rarely on Friday; it is not his intent to violate Forum Rules. He really didn't think this topic was "political", . . . just a current event, worthy of note.)

He thought this is an important State Supreme Court decision overturning over 200 years of Constitutional Law and legal precedents. He opined intelligent adults would be able to discuss the issue. He hoped the discussion would be above partisan political bickering; he actually believed the issue did not lend itself to displays of partisanship.

His hopes have been dashed.

This thread, as many before it, has just become an excuse to repeat tired talking points formulated to demean members of one party or another. The sole silver-lining is that, so far as poor old DonDiego can determine, no one is defending the Court's decision. DonDiego is ever the optimist.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber
Oh and malibber greatly appreciates Don Diego setting out the bait this weekend

---

DonDiego apologizes. (Actually DonDiego has started fewer "political threads" than a casual observer might think, . . . and very, very rarely on Friday; it is not his intent to violate Forum Rules. He really didn't think this topic was "political", . . . just a current event, worthy of note.)

He thought this is an important State Supreme Court decision overturning over 200 years of Constitutional Law and legal precedents. He opined intelligent adults would be able to discuss the issue. He hoped the discussion would be above partisan political bickering; he actually believed the issue did not lend itself to displays of partisanship.

His hopes have been dashed.

This thread, as many before it, has just become an excuse to repeat tired talking points formulated to demean members of one party or another. The sole silver-lining is that, so far as poor old DonDiego can determine, no one is defending the Court's decision. DonDiego is ever the optimist.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber
malibber is quite proud to see a principled conservative understands that at least in the case of Indiana the end result of conservative governance are citizens living in a police state.

---

Quote

---

The reason given as justification for the decision that a homeowner may not block a police officer's entry into his home even if the entry is illegal, . . . i.e. that prohibiting such an action will reduce overall violence, . . . is in direct opposition to what the Founding Fathers stood for.

---

However, I disagree with Dong Diego on this matter:

Quote

---

In fact, he takes exception to malibber categorizing the Court decision as a result of "conservative governance".
A Conservative, . . . a true Constitutional Conservative, . . . would cite the Constitution in opposing the ruling, as snidely333 has done.
A Conservative would point out that the Decision "overturn[s] over 200 years of Constitutional Law and legal precedents", as DonDiego has done.

---

It was a Conservative judge that wrote the opinion. That judge was appointed by a conservative governor and conservative presidential aspirant. So far other than Internet chat boards malibber has found no well known true conservative that is willing to go on record criticizing this decision. All of which merely reinforces my long held belief that the modern conservative movement is nothing more than a sham. A movement that's real design is to send us further down the road towards corporate fascism.

Malibber would point Don Diego to some of the recent Supreme Court rulings by the conservative justices on the court. To narrow it down a bit lets specificity look at the ruling that corporations have the right to donate as much money to political groups as they like because doing otherwise would abridge their corporate right to free speech. Now malibber challenges Don Diego to find any mention anywhere in the Constitution saying a corporation has any rights whatsoever under the Constitution.

Don Diego could spend a life time looking for one but never find one because one does not exist. So given Don Diego has asserted a true constitutional conservative would point out such failings whenever they arise malibber must conclude there are no true constitutional conservatives in government, in the judiciary, talk radio or on talk tv as they all celebrated the ruling as a great victory for corporate free speech rather the usurpation of individual rights (that have a basis in the constitution) for those of corporate rights which have no basis in the constitution or in any of our founding documents. Alas, malibber fears Don Diego may be among the last of a dying breed.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber
malibber is quite proud to see a principled conservative understands that at least in the case of Indiana the end result of conservative governance are citizens living in a police state.

---

DonDiego thanks malibber for his sincere comment on this matter.

However, he does not understand what malibber believes he understands. In fact, he takes exception to malibber categorizing the Court decision as a result of "conservative governance".
A Conservative, . . . a true Constitutional Conservative, . . . would cite the Constitution in opposing the ruling, as snidely333 has done.
A Conservative would point out that the Decision "overturn[s] over 200 years of Constitutional Law and legal precedents", as DonDiego has done.

Conservative is not synonymous with Republican. Likewise, Liberal is not synonymous with Democrat. And many a politician of any stripe regret their appointments to the Courts.

The reason given as justification for the decision that a homeowner may not block a police officer's entry into his home even if the entry is illegal, . . . i.e. that prohibiting such an action will reduce overall violence, . . . is in direct opposition to what the Founding Fathers stood for.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber
I think Don Diego mistook my sincere appreciation as some sort of criticism it was not. Indeed malibber is quite proud to see a principled conservative understands that at least in the case of Indiana the end result of conservative governance are citizens living in a police state. If I would have posted a similar topic I would have immediately been flogged by some of the conservatives here, claiming I was simply trying to stir the pot. I also would have been met with a variety of personal assaults the ultimate goal of which are to simply to get me to shut up and quit talking about the honest truths I have discovered in being a resident of a police state. Your honesty in your current assessment of Indiana will hopefully open the eyes of some of your fellow conservatives and allow them to see the errors in their belief system.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Quote

---

Originally posted by: malibber
Oh and malibber greatly appreciates Don Diego setting out the bait this weekend

---

DonDiego apologizes. (Actually DonDiego has started fewer "political threads" than a casual observer might think, . . . and very, very rarely on Friday; it is not his intent to violate Forum Rules. He really didn't think this topic was "political", . . . just a current event, worthy of note.)

He thought this is an important State Supreme Court decision overturning over 200 years of Constitutional Law and legal precedents. He opined intelligent adults would be able to discuss the issue. He hoped the discussion would be above partisan political bickering; he actually believed the issue did not lend itself to displays of partisanship.

His hopes have been dashed.

This thread, as many before it, has just become an excuse to repeat tired talking points formulated to demean members of one party or another. The sole silver-lining is that, so far as poor old DonDiego can determine, no one is defending the Court's decision. DonDiego is ever the optimist.

---

---