Jump to content


Photo

The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left


  • Please log in to reply
11223 replies to this topic

#41 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1615 PM

Exactly! He might try to pack the court like FDR or dare them to enforce their ruling like Andrew Jackson but I doubt he'd try and have them arrested. ;)

Again, let's keep this grounded. :rolleyes:
  • 0

#42 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1643 PM


Exactly! He might try to pack the court like FDR or dare them to enforce their ruling like Andrew Jackson but I doubt he'd try and have them arrested. ;)

Again, let's keep this grounded. :rolleyes:


Grounded eh? Is that how you describe someone who decries the idea that the Supreme court could decide that a law passed by a majority of congress as unconstitutional is an unprecedented move? After all, no laws passed by Congress in a large majority have EVER been handed down as unconstitutional have they? Not ever.
  • 0

#43 Soren Ras

Soren Ras

    Molehill Mountaineer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark
  • Interests:This Theater of the Absurd

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1643 PM

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said


*snort*
Let's see:  that is one count of failure of simple arithmetic:  219-212 is a strong majority on what planet?
Also, one count of failure of either law history or basic English.  Since the learned President used to be a fancy law professor [of constitutional law!], let us be charitable and posit that he just does not understand what "unprecedented" means, the alternative being that he does not know much about constitution law.

"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," Obama said, describing the law as "constitutional."


So confident that not a single legal argument need be put forward, it appears.

Abysmal.

--
Soren

Edited by Soren Ras, 03 April 2012 - 1647 PM.

  • 0

#44 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,188 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1654 PM

DOJ just got called by the 5th Circuit fo an opinion on judicial review. Go O!!!!!
  • 0

#45 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1700 PM



Exactly! He might try to pack the court like FDR or dare them to enforce their ruling like Andrew Jackson but I doubt he'd try and have them arrested. ;)

Again, let's keep this grounded. :rolleyes:


Grounded eh? Is that how you describe someone who decries the idea that the Supreme court could decide that a law passed by a majority of congress as unconstitutional is an unprecedented move? After all, no laws passed by Congress in a large majority have EVER been handed down as unconstitutional have they? Not ever.

You're right. His comments the other day totally give away his intentions at arresting the judges, or packing the court, or ignoring it, or all sorts of other crazy stuff! :rolleyes:

Loosen the tin foil, folks.
  • 0

#46 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1700 PM

Hey Skywalker, don't ever grab ahold of the neutral conductor in an electrical circut. It is the grounded conductor...but that doesn't mean that it's safe to handle...
  • 0

#47 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1705 PM

You're right. His comments the other day totally give away his intentions at arresting the judges, or packing the court, or ignoring it, or all sorts of other crazy stuff! :rolleyes:

Loosen the tin foil, folks.


Lets see we have...

The 5th Circuit ASKING the DOJ if they thought that the courts had a purview to even rule on extant law per their boss.
The president and his administration ignoring not one but two rulings about drilling in the Gulf and their stop orders issued by the MMS.
The president outright distorting the meaning and background of a supreme court case and telling them, to their faces no less that they ruled incorrectly.
The president, saying that they should not rule against him because a bunch of people were behind the law. Lets review again:


President Obama today said that he was "confident" that his signature Health care law would be upheld by the Supreme Court but warned that should the court rule the law unconstitutional, it would be an "unprecedented extraordinary event."

"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama told reporters today while speaking with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.



You hear that? That's the declaration that what makes a law constitutional is the weight of votes behind it and not it's legal structure or how it's impacted by other legal restrictions.

Want to pass a law confining a small minority to the gas chambers, it's constitutional because enough people want it. Any evil in the history of the US, say like the forced relocation of a people who won a court case (Worcester v. Georgia), was not allowed legally but still pushed through by authority figures because of the desires of the democratic body politic.

Do not mistake this for a declaration that "ObamaCare = gas chambers".

This is in fact an observation that just "because most of congress voted for it" != Constitutional.


Lets look at that statement again.
"Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress..."

The Communications Decency Act was passed by a strong majority of Congress. It was found to be VERY unconstitutional. Such is HARDLY unprecedented. The test for Constitutionality is NOT whether there was a 2/3rds or 3/4's vote by Congress for the passage of a bill.

The whole point of a Constitution on the limits of government, even a very democratic government is to preclude that "because enough people want it", it's Ok to herd people off against their will and in violation of their rights whether it is to inter them collectively or to drive them up the steps one by one to the guillotine.

Is that spelled out in clear enough terms for you?

Edited by rmgill, 03 April 2012 - 1707 PM.

  • 0

#48 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1705 PM

Hey Skywalker, don't ever grab ahold of the neutral conductor in an electrical circut. It is the grounded conductor...but that doesn't mean that it's safe to handle...

It's not that hard to know how to spell my handle. It's right there next to all of my posts.
  • 0

#49 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1709 PM


Hey Skywalker, don't ever grab ahold of the neutral conductor in an electrical circut. It is the grounded conductor...but that doesn't mean that it's safe to handle...

It's not that hard to know how to spell my handle. It's right there next to all of my posts.


What, you're getting all bent out of shape about a little mutability of text? Why the change of heart?



Posted Image

Edited by rmgill, 03 April 2012 - 1711 PM.

  • 0

#50 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1713 PM

What, you're getting all bent out of shape about a little mutability of text? Why the change of heart?

You think you're so clever, yet you can't even spell my handle right. :lol:

And I still think, as is always the case in this overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ, that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.
  • 0

#51 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,574 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1721 PM


What, you're getting all bent out of shape about a little mutability of text? Why the change of heart?

You think you're so clever, yet you can't even spell my handle right. :lol:

And I still think, as is always the case in this overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ, that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.


Posted Image

Do tell us more oh enlightened one.
  • 0

#52 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1724 PM


What, you're getting all bent out of shape about a little mutability of text? Why the change of heart?

You think you're so clever, yet you can't even spell my handle right. :lol:


I think we should have a vote on what your name should be, since text is so mutable, living constitution stuff ya know. If public use can mean private use and congress's limit on exercise of power means that congress has no limit on what it can do or order us to do, we should be able to vote your name to be spelt

GroundStoppre because that's about the same as Skywalkre right? Text and meaning can change and be mutable, so why not names?

And I still think, as is always the case in this overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ, that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.


We hope so actually. Having a president patently ignore a supreme court decision would be a major challenge for the republic. What, might I ask, would your response be if the president were to ignore such an order and have DHHS continue to execute Obamacare?
  • 0

#53 thekirk

thekirk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,440 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1811 PM



What, you're getting all bent out of shape about a little mutability of text? Why the change of heart?

You think you're so clever, yet you can't even spell my handle right. :lol:


I think we should have a vote on what your name should be, since text is so mutable, living constitution stuff ya know. If public use can mean private use and congress's limit on exercise of power means that congress has no limit on what it can do or order us to do, we should be able to vote your name to be spelt

GroundStoppre because that's about the same as Skywalkre right? Text and meaning can change and be mutable, so why not names?

And I still think, as is always the case in this overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ, that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.


We hope so actually. Having a president patently ignore a supreme court decision would be a major challenge for the republic. What, might I ask, would your response be if the president were to ignore such an order and have DHHS continue to execute Obamacare?


Hell, he's ignored everything else, why should he start paying attention now?

If you start enumerating the number of things that have served as restraints on executive power that this administration has either bypassed or ignored, without general public outrage or condemnation, we'd be here all day. Congress has surrendered so much authority to the Executive that it's not even funny--Why shouldn't the Judiciary?

I mean it--Where in that rotting mass of legislation commonly called Obamacare is there even the authority for Sebelius to grant these waivers she's been handing out like popcorn to the administration's favored entities? Congress hasn't whimpered a word of protest, either--They already gave away their power and authority to write the laws when they told the Executive to go ahead and do the real work through the bureaucrats and the regulations written by the agencies. Has Congress said one word about all the "Czars" established by this administration, totally bypassing Congress's obligation and right to review the appointees of the Executive branch?

Let's face it: Our representational form of government is in the process of dying out due to apathy and the way that Congress has been abdicating its responsibilities and duties under the Constitution. It didn't start with this administration, but it sure as hell applied some JATO rockets and hit the "accelerate" button.

Meanwhile, Congress continues to worry about trivia and their own paychecks. If they don't get off their asses soon, and start doing the things required of them by the Constitution, the Republic is dead in short order, probably a generation or two. People used to call Nixon's term the "Imperial Presidency". Don't look now, but Obama's gotten away with bloody murder, compared to him.

Edited by thekirk, 03 April 2012 - 1812 PM.

  • 0

#54 Mr King

Mr King

    Fat Body

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,574 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muppetville

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1856 PM

Democrats "Jew Cash Money Team"

The Democratic Party’s newly appointed Jewish outreach liaison is pictured on Facebook in a series of provocative photos with her friends holding dollar bills and referring to themselves as “Jewbags” and the “Jew cash money team.”
Dani Gilbert, who has been a staffer in the office of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), was recently appointed as the Democratic National Committee’s Jewish outreach liaison, according to her Twitter feed.
Photos publicly available on her Facebook page depict her engaged in the kind of youthful displays that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made increasingly common and problematic for young Washington staffers.
In one photo, Gilbert is seen kissing paper currency of undetermined denomination. The caption at the bottom of the photo reads “JEWBAGS.” A comment left on the posting refers to Gilbert and a coterie of female companions as the “Jew cash money team.” Other photos depict Gilbert as a bit of a party girl, including one featuring an assortment of condoms.


http://freebeacon.co...ash-money-team/
  • 0

#55 Guest_Jason L_*

Guest_Jason L_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 April 2012 - 1914 PM

Ryan, seriously? I've seen you get bent out of shape here when someone spelled your name "Rian". :rolleyes:
  • 0

#56 Rocky Davis

Rocky Davis

    Old Broken Down Retired Tanker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington, Texas, USA
  • Interests:Squirrel-hunting
    Cooking
    Billiards

Posted 05 April 2012 - 0621 AM

A number of years ago, I was involved in a TN discussion with French member Durandal. For some reason, I spelled his name Durandel (not intentionally meaning to make an error) and I did this several times. So, in response, he started addressing me as Rockel. The point was made and I was more careful about it from then on.

If Skywalkre wants to spell his moniker that way, so be it and nobody should call him on it. I'll not be a part of this thread or similar political, hothead threads. But, arguing over the spelling of a member's chosen name is beyond ridiculous.
  • 0

#57 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 05 April 2012 - 0654 AM

And I still think, as is always the case in this overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ, that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.

Like the unlikely scenario of marching an entire class of people off to concentration camps? Done at the behest of the "greatest" president of the 20th C. no less. Oh damn, that isn't to be spoken about in mixed company.

BTW, good prejorative there. Any broad painting of racism you would like to include on your palette?
  • 0

#58 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 05 April 2012 - 0752 AM

A number of years ago, I was involved in a TN discussion with French member Durandal. For some reason, I spelled his name Durandel (not intentionally meaning to make an error) and I did this several times. So, in response, he started addressing me as Rockel. The point was made and I was more careful about it from then on.

If Skywalkre wants to spell his moniker that way, so be it and nobody should call him on it. I'll not be a part of this thread or similar political, hothead threads. But, arguing over the spelling of a member's chosen name is beyond ridiculous.


The point I was making was not about the spelling of a name, but of the interpretation of text and how it's meaning should be respected and not changed just because it's convenient politically. What is at issue is how the interpretation of the Constitution and it's limits on government and how those clearly stated limits in black and white are wildly distorted so as to mean nothing at all (Art I Sec 8) or precisely the opposite of what it clearly says (takings clause). If law, especially Constitutional law is mutable and constantly drifting in meaning and direction, why not names?

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,”
said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”


  • 0

#59 Rocky Davis

Rocky Davis

    Old Broken Down Retired Tanker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington, Texas, USA
  • Interests:Squirrel-hunting
    Cooking
    Billiards

Posted 05 April 2012 - 0816 AM

If law, especially Constitutional law is mutable and constantly drifting in meaning and direction, why not names?


Ryan - that has been going on since both you and I have been alive with lots of things . . . with law, with interpretation of law, with the American English Language dialect, with music, with art, with architecture, with medicine, with science etc. I just found out (and very recently, I might add) that banging the drum about the constant changing of the things we are familiar with doesn't change those things back to the familiar. Banging that drum only gives everybody a headache.
  • 0

#60 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,967 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369°/-84.2675°
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 05 April 2012 - 0947 AM


If law, especially Constitutional law is mutable and constantly drifting in meaning and direction, why not names?


Ryan - that has been going on since both you and I have been alive with lots of things . . . with law, with interpretation of law, with the American English Language dialect, with music, with art, with architecture, with medicine, with science etc. I just found out (and very recently, I might add) that banging the drum about the constant changing of the things we are familiar with doesn't change those things back to the familiar. Banging that drum only gives everybody a headache.


Were noone to bang that drum and talking about it, we'd not have had the Heller decision in DC, because the standing view would be that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says, but rather what DC politicians WANT it to mean, ie nothing.

Law isn't meant to change meaning because of language drift. Law is meant to be changed because you change the law within the scope of the mechanisms laid out for it. Simply calling a spade a fork doesn't make it a spade any more than it make it a spoon. More so, language drift doesn't mean that people means something else entirely. We have this problem because too many people don't talk about it or bang the drums as it were.

I will also point out that this is exactly what this thread is about. Insane rationalizations of the left, to whit, a limited government is in effect an unlimited government because law makers have chosen to patently ignore the legal limitations on the power that they may exercise.

Edited by rmgill, 05 April 2012 - 0949 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users