|
Déjà vu
Nov 28, 2014 23:14:53 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Nov 28, 2014 23:14:53 GMT -5
Rest assured, Redleg... this Country isn't going anywhere anytime soon... Physically? No. Societally, we are becoming Kenya, or Zimbabwe. The Puppet has created racial, sexual, ideological, and national divisions so deep we may never heal them. We are now nearly $20 trillion in debt, thanks to him and his Merry Marxists, with nothing to show for it but more debt, crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, and a failing power grid. All because The Puppet was too busy giving billions to his Marxist cronies. We may not recover from the damage The Puppet has managed to do to us. We're a hell of a long way from where you seem to think we're gonna wind up... and Obama is NOT the only reason we're where we are... he's only one in a whole long chain of politicians from the President all the way down to the local politicians...
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Nov 29, 2014 9:35:02 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Nov 29, 2014 9:35:02 GMT -5
Physically? No. Societally, we are becoming Kenya, or Zimbabwe. The Puppet has created racial, sexual, ideological, and national divisions so deep we may never heal them. We are now nearly $20 trillion in debt, thanks to him and his Merry Marxists, with nothing to show for it but more debt, crumbling infrastructure, failing schools, and a failing power grid. All because The Puppet was too busy giving billions to his Marxist cronies. We may not recover from the damage The Puppet has managed to do to us. We're a hell of a long way from where you seem to think we're gonna wind up... and Obama is NOT the only reason we're where we are... he's only one in a whole long chain of politicians from the President all the way down to the local politicians... Nearly all of which are Democrats, or Democrat Light Pubs. The Puppet is simply the symptom, and trademark, of generations of Leftist indoctrination and cultural rot.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Nov 29, 2014 13:48:16 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Nov 29, 2014 13:48:16 GMT -5
We're a hell of a long way from where you seem to think we're gonna wind up... and Obama is NOT the only reason we're where we are... he's only one in a whole long chain of politicians from the President all the way down to the local politicians... Nearly all of which are Democrats, or Democrat Light Pubs. The Puppet is simply the symptom, and trademark, of generations of Leftist indoctrination and cultural rot. There are times when I wish we really did have that many Democrats... but not really... like many others here have stated... I like a healthy mix between the two major Parties in the executive, legislative, and judicial system (which is supposed to be non-partisan)...
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Nov 29, 2014 16:57:15 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Nov 29, 2014 16:57:15 GMT -5
Nearly all of which are Democrats, or Democrat Light Pubs. The Puppet is simply the symptom, and trademark, of generations of Leftist indoctrination and cultural rot. There are times when I wish we really did have that many Democrats... but not really... like many others here have stated... I like a healthy mix between the two major Parties in the executive, legislative, and judicial system (which is supposed to be non-partisan)... The problem is, there are far too many alleged Pubs that are actually Dems that couldn't get elected as Dems. Boehner and MConnel are 2 examples.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Nov 29, 2014 18:44:46 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Nov 29, 2014 18:44:46 GMT -5
There are times when I wish we really did have that many Democrats... but not really... like many others here have stated... I like a healthy mix between the two major Parties in the executive, legislative, and judicial system (which is supposed to be non-partisan)... The problem is, there are far too many alleged Pubs that are actually Dems that couldn't get elected as Dems. Boehner and MConnel are 2 examples. Damn... that sure isn't the way it is around here... we have had numerous Democrats who changed to Republicans because so many ignorant voters "thought" they (the voter) were Republicans... of course a prominent Republican who donated $10G to their campaign funds didn't hurt either...
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Nov 29, 2014 19:52:17 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Nov 29, 2014 19:52:17 GMT -5
The problem is, there are far too many alleged Pubs that are actually Dems that couldn't get elected as Dems. Boehner and MConnel are 2 examples. Damn... that sure isn't the way it is around here... we have had numerous Democrats who changed to Republicans because so many ignorant voters "thought" they (the voter) were Republicans... of course a prominent Republican who donated $10G to their campaign funds didn't hurt either... That's exactly what I said. Dems run as Pubs because they can't get elected as Dems.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Nov 29, 2014 20:01:21 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Nov 29, 2014 20:01:21 GMT -5
The difference is the ignorant voters who think they (the voter) is Republican...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Nov 30, 2014 7:30:55 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 7:30:55 GMT -5
The difference is the ignorant voters who think they (the voter) is Republican... I liken the average republican voter to a turkey voting for Thanksgiving...
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 1, 2014 10:56:48 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 1, 2014 10:56:48 GMT -5
The difference is the ignorant voters who think they (the voter) is Republican... I liken the average republican voter to a turkey voting for Thanksgiving... Really? It's not Republicans that are burning down Ferguson. It wasn't Republicans that decided to assist in the murder of thousands of Mexican citizens, and not bother to tell anyone about it. It wasn't Republicans that decided to simply confiscate, illegally, 1/6th of the economy, and then destroy it. So, how, exactly, was it Pubs that are the turkeys?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 1, 2014 14:52:55 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 14:52:55 GMT -5
I liken the average republican voter to a turkey voting for Thanksgiving... Really? It's not Republicans that are burning down Ferguson. It wasn't Republicans that decided to assist in the murder of thousands of Mexican citizens, and not bother to tell anyone about it. It wasn't Republicans that decided to simply confiscate, illegally, 1/6th of the economy, and then destroy it. So, how, exactly, was it Pubs that are the turkeys? Park your soapbox somewhere else. I still see republicans as turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 1, 2014 17:26:09 GMT -5
Post by stevez51 on Dec 1, 2014 17:26:09 GMT -5
Really? It's not Republicans that are burning down Ferguson. It wasn't Republicans that decided to assist in the murder of thousands of Mexican citizens, and not bother to tell anyone about it. It wasn't Republicans that decided to simply confiscate, illegally, 1/6th of the economy, and then destroy it. So, how, exactly, was it Pubs that are the turkeys? Park your soapbox somewhere else. I still see republicans as turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. Why would turkeys vote for Thanksgiving .. They would be cooked ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Déjà vu
Dec 1, 2014 18:09:00 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 18:09:00 GMT -5
Park your soapbox somewhere else. I still see republicans as turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. Why would turkeys vote for Thanksgiving .. They would be cooked .... By George, I think he's got it!
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 1, 2014 23:55:32 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 1, 2014 23:55:32 GMT -5
Really? It's not Republicans that are burning down Ferguson. It wasn't Republicans that decided to assist in the murder of thousands of Mexican citizens, and not bother to tell anyone about it. It wasn't Republicans that decided to simply confiscate, illegally, 1/6th of the economy, and then destroy it. So, how, exactly, was it Pubs that are the turkeys? Park your soapbox somewhere else. I still see republicans as turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. Of course you do. Given the state of Britain, I don't wonder why.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 7:52:31 GMT -5
Park your soapbox somewhere else. I still see republicans as turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. Of course you do. Given the state of Britain, I don't wonder why. Utter gobbledegook! Ever thought that sometimes it might be better to just not post some irrelevent silly shyte just for the sake of it, and not make an arse of yourself?
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Dec 2, 2014 7:57:35 GMT -5
Why would turkeys vote for Thanksgiving .. They would be cooked .... By George, I think he's got it! And all this time I thought the Brits were masters of sarcasm. Was that because the English never had access to a smiley? Their gain and our loss?
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 2, 2014 10:11:44 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 2, 2014 10:11:44 GMT -5
Of course you do. Given the state of Britain, I don't wonder why. Utter gobbledegook! Ever thought that sometimes it might be better to just not post some irrelevent silly shyte just for the sake of it, and not make an arse of yourself? Perhaps you should take your own advice. We are not "the colonies" any more, and we do get news about Britain, even over here.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 2, 2014 16:23:35 GMT -5
Post by vosa on Dec 2, 2014 16:23:35 GMT -5
I already do. Which is why I asked you the question I did. When, exactly, did the courts become the arbiters of what's Constitutional? February 24, 1803 Marbury vs. Madison"On this day in 1803, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decides the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and confirms the legal principle of judicial review--the ability of the Supreme Court to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional--in the new nation."1st thing one learns in a Con Law class. I'm surprised our southern lawyer friend didn't provide you with an answer before I did.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 3, 2014 21:14:27 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 3, 2014 21:14:27 GMT -5
I already do. Which is why I asked you the question I did. When, exactly, did the courts become the arbiters of what's Constitutional? February 24, 1803 Marbury vs. Madison"On this day in 1803, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decides the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and confirms the legal principle of judicial review--the ability of the Supreme Court to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional--in the new nation."1st thing one learns in a Con Law class. I'm surprised our southern lawyer friend didn't provide you with an answer before I did. Sorry, but that's the opposite of what I was asking. The SOTUS is supposed to look at a law, and decide if it violates the Constitution. They are not there to decide whether the Constitution violates some law. And yet, that's exactly what they have become. Kelo is a perfect example. SOTUS simply rewrote the Constitution to bring it in line with a law the local legislature wanted.
|
|
|
Post by rentedmule on Dec 5, 2014 5:58:03 GMT -5
February 24, 1803 Marbury vs. Madison"On this day in 1803, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decides the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and confirms the legal principle of judicial review--the ability of the Supreme Court to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional--in the new nation."1st thing one learns in a Con Law class. I'm surprised our southern lawyer friend didn't provide you with an answer before I did. Sorry, but that's the opposite of what I was asking. The SOTUS is supposed to look at a law, and decide if it violates the Constitution. They are not there to decide whether the Constitution violates some law. And yet, that's exactly what they have become. Kelo is a perfect example. SOTUS simply rewrote the Constitution to bring it in line with a law the local legislature wanted. The tail wagging the dog?
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 5, 2014 13:34:09 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 5, 2014 13:34:09 GMT -5
Sorry, but that's the opposite of what I was asking. The SOTUS is supposed to look at a law, and decide if it violates the Constitution. They are not there to decide whether the Constitution violates some law. And yet, that's exactly what they have become. Kelo is a perfect example. SOTUS simply rewrote the Constitution to bring it in line with a law the local legislature wanted. The tail wagging the dog? Exactly. The Left sees the SCOTUS as the vehicle to impose whatever illegal, dictatorial fiats they decide to impose, regardless of whether we want them, or whether they are even workable. Like Puppettax.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 6, 2014 13:29:05 GMT -5
Post by vosa on Dec 6, 2014 13:29:05 GMT -5
Sorry, but that's the opposite of what I was asking. The SOTUS is supposed to look at a law, and decide if it violates the Constitution. They are not there to decide whether the Constitution violates some law. And yet, that's exactly what they have become. Kelo is a perfect example. SOTUS simply rewrote the Constitution to bring it in line with a law the local legislature wanted. They also decide whether an action by an entity, i.e., government, business, organization or person, does or does not violate the Constitution. In Kelo vs New London the court ruled that the City of New London did not violate the Constitution by invoking eminent domain - an action - to seize the property of Susette Kelo. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, i.e., The City of New London did not violate the Constitution. Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I know of no case where the issue at hand was whether or not the Constitution violated a law.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 6, 2014 13:36:36 GMT -5
Post by aboutwell on Dec 6, 2014 13:36:36 GMT -5
The tail wagging the dog? Exactly. The Left sees the SCOTUS as the vehicle to impose whatever illegal, dictatorial fiats they decide to impose, regardless of whether we want them, or whether they are even workable. Like Puppettax. And the Right sees it the same way... It's politics, Redleg...
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 6, 2014 18:25:46 GMT -5
Post by redleg on Dec 6, 2014 18:25:46 GMT -5
Sorry, but that's the opposite of what I was asking. The SOTUS is supposed to look at a law, and decide if it violates the Constitution. They are not there to decide whether the Constitution violates some law. And yet, that's exactly what they have become. Kelo is a perfect example. SOTUS simply rewrote the Constitution to bring it in line with a law the local legislature wanted. They also decide whether an action by an entity, i.e., government, business, organization or person, does or does not violate the Constitution. In Kelo vs New London the court ruled that the City of New London did not violate the Constitution by invoking eminent domain - an action - to seize the property of Susette Kelo. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, i.e., The City of New London did not violate the Constitution. Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I know of no case where the issue at hand was whether or not the Constitution violated a law. The Kelo decision was rendered in a situation where the city was confiscating one person's property to give it to another person. In this case, a private commercial entity. The "public use" was the city getting higher taxes from the commercial entity than they were from the current owner. Under that definition, everyone's property is subject to confiscation simply to give it to a developer. That stretches the definition of "public use" beyond all recognition.
|
|
|
Déjà vu
Dec 6, 2014 23:59:55 GMT -5
Post by harryreid on Dec 6, 2014 23:59:55 GMT -5
Park your soapbox somewhere else. I still see republicans as turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. Of course you do. Given the state of Britain, I don't wonder why. Why would anyone give a hoot over that silly little island? What am I missing here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 9:01:16 GMT -5
Of course you do. Given the state of Britain, I don't wonder why. Why would anyone give a hoot over that silly little island? What am I missing here? Ask Dilbert, or one of his many alias' , That "silly little island" always got up his hooter too.
|
|