What’s unconstitutional about fascism?
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Now, isn't Obama a Constituitional scholar?
That just means he understands it, not that he agrees with any of it. It is good to see people starting to fight back though. The elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore is that virtually everything the federal government is doing is all a constitutional house of cards. The minute there is one effective challange, it all comes tumbling down.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore is that virtually everything the federal government is doing is all a constitutional house of cards. The minute there is one effective challange, it all comes tumbling down.
That is when we will understand just how far it has gone and if anybody really cares.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Now, if by surveillance, you mean listening/tracking devices in my home or my vehicle , than yeah, thats a problem.
This is what I mean. I never assumed that my conversations over a phone where private. What I've been concerned about is the idea that parties can be allowed to get away with such things. If it is or is not happening I don't know. I just don't want it to happen.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you blaming that on republicans? How do you figure?
I am not blaming them. I think it is outside of them or the democrats. But, I am calling them out for not caring until now when is seems politically motivated per the "opposition" agenda being pushed by the party shills. It's really hard for me to put into words just how upset I am over the state of this country.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
It's really hard for me to put into words just how upset I am over the state of this country.
Me too. And, in all honesty, I blame it all on the republicans. Every knife in my back has a republican's finger prints on it. But it is because they try to accomodate the left and not fight back. I dispise the democrats and everything the believe in, but I cannot bring myself to be angry at them. They are doing pretty much exactly what they said they were going to do. I just hope some republicans are taking notes on how to treat the people who put them into power.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Monday, May 4, 2009 5:42 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore is that virtually everything the federal government is doing is all a constitutional house of cards. The minute there is one effective challange, it all comes tumbling down.
That is when we will understand just how far it has gone and if anybody really cares.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
Chris Austin wrote:
That is when we will understand just how far it has gone and if anybody really cares.
That is why I am happy we have Obama. Collectivism's great success has been based upon gradualism - slowly turning up the heat under the pot so that the frog inside does not know it is being boiled alive. But they cannot afford to lose the opportunity they now have to completely collectivize our entire society from top to bottom in as short a time as possible. The flame has now been turned up full blast, and if the Jeffersonian frog does not come jumping out of the Marxist pot soon, it will only be because it was already dead. I think there is still a spark of life left in it. It will finally stir.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Chris Austin wrote:
It's really hard for me to put into words just how upset I am over the state of this country.
Me too. And, in all honesty, I blame it all on the republicans. Every knife in my back has a republican's finger prints on it. But it is because they try to accomodate the left and not fight back. I dispise the democrats and everything the believe in, but I cannot bring myself to be angry at them. They are doing pretty much exactly what they said they were going to do. I just hope some republicans are taking notes on how to treat the people who put them into power.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Monday, May 4, 2009 5:42 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
Me too.
True but meaningless story. I used to travel a lot. For about 6 years I spent 80% of the time overseas and it wore me down and my passport out. I really missed home and, as flawed as it is/was my country. Every time I arrived back in the states I welled up happy to be back, happy to be a part of our country's approach to things. And, as nebulous as it sounds, being home in our country just felt right for me. Last year, just before St. Patrick's Day I did about two weeks overseas in N. Europe and S.E. Asia. When I got home on St. Patties Day, that feeling of "rightness" was gone. I don't know how to express it but, to me it seemed the mood of the country had changed. That night I went out to celebrate getting home and the holiday with my best friend who just happens to be an Irish expat. During our drinking and laughing he asked me how it was to be home after the long trip. In all openness I explained to him how I noticed that something had changed and that I didn't like it. I tried to explain how to me it seemed the country was unhealthy and I honestly began the tear up. He told me not to worry and that it was no different than being angry with my father and that time and effort would fix things. I really hope he is right.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --Ralph Charell
-
Oakman wrote:
I've said before that the two things a good government must do are: protect its citizens from intimidation by the use of, or the threat of the use of, force (including threats from itself) and enforce contract law as an absolute. Long before this case, or this president, the U.S. Government has proved to have real trouble accomplishing either of these goals.
the other, if not the single most important duty is the protection of individual rights. but to the point of the lawsuit: the Obama administration has already designated the UAW to own 55%. that preempts the bankruptcy court proceedings and if I read the language correctly is unconstituitional.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote: the other, if not the single most important duty is the protection of individual rights I think that the right not to have force used against me (unless I start using force against others) and the right to believe that any and all contracts will be carried out are all the civil rights I need. All of the Bill of Rights, for instance say is that in specific cases, the government will not use its force against me.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Now, isn't Obama a Constituitional scholar?
That just means he understands it, not that he agrees with any of it. It is good to see people starting to fight back though. The elephant in the room that everyone is trying to ignore is that virtually everything the federal government is doing is all a constitutional house of cards. The minute there is one effective challange, it all comes tumbling down.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: The minute there is one effective challange, it all comes tumbling down. I don't understand - you are hoping the Supreme Court intervenes against what the President and Congress are planning on doing?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The minute there is one effective challange, it all comes tumbling down. I don't understand - you are hoping the Supreme Court intervenes against what the President and Congress are planning on doing?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
you are hoping the Supreme Court intervenes against what the President and Congress are planning on doing?
Yes, I am. They may have little choice in the matter.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
you are hoping the Supreme Court intervenes against what the President and Congress are planning on doing?
Yes, I am. They may have little choice in the matter.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Yes, I am. You have made my day. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Anytime. Although, you still seem to have problems comprehending 'equal powers'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I'm not a Constitutional Scholar - I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor - but if I understand the law correctly, especially in federal court, all contracts entered into by the professed bankrupt, with only a few exceptions when the other party is the government, are null and void, and the judge in charge of the proceedings has great, or total leeway over how any assets or liabilities are handled. It sucks, but I think that's the way it'll happen. I've said before that the two things a good government must do are: protect its citizens from intimidation by the use of, or the threat of the use of, force (including threats from itself) and enforce contract law as an absolute. Long before this case, or this president, the U.S. Government has proved to have real trouble accomplishing either of these goals.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor
According to Wikipedia, he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. I reckon that pretty much makes him a "Constitutional Professor", at least for that period of time, and in bimbo-speak. I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just offering that small clarification.
-
Anytime. Although, you still seem to have problems comprehending 'equal powers'.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: Although, you still seem to have problems comprehending 'equal powers'. Do tell, Why don't you elucidate? I would love to learn why it's okay for the previous Prez to ignore the courts at will, and not this one - or perhaps that's not covered under "equal powers."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor
According to Wikipedia, he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. I reckon that pretty much makes him a "Constitutional Professor", at least for that period of time, and in bimbo-speak. I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just offering that small clarification.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Although, you still seem to have problems comprehending 'equal powers'. Do tell, Why don't you elucidate? I would love to learn why it's okay for the previous Prez to ignore the courts at will, and not this one - or perhaps that's not covered under "equal powers."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I would love to learn why it's okay for the previous Prez to ignore the courts at will, and not this one - or perhaps that's not covered under "equal powers."
Because the courts have always given the executive branch wide latitude in how they defend the nation, and because, as anyone with half a brain shoudl know, the role of commander in chief cannot be reduced to purely legal reasoning and restraint. Saving people's lives is more important than obeying every possible interpretation of every possible law. The details of what was done and why can be worked out later by the congress and the courts. The system was designed purposefully to work that way. However, the states and individuals can bring cases which the courts can simply not ignore without acknowledging that they no longer serve the US constitution in even the most superficial way. That has nothing to do with the executive branch.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)? :laugh:
- F
-
Oakman wrote:
I heard one bimbo on MSNBC promote Obama to Constitutional Professor
According to Wikipedia, he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. I reckon that pretty much makes him a "Constitutional Professor", at least for that period of time, and in bimbo-speak. I'm not disagreeing with your other points, just offering that small clarification.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
he did spend twelve years at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law.
12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: 12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work... You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: 12 years! Wow! I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work... You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
You know, if you are going to play David to Obama's Goliath, it behooves you to make sure you have stones in your sling. I was wrong, the bimbo was right. End of story.
You didn't know he was a law professor? It was in all the news. The question is, what did he actually accomplish. Alas, as with everything else in Obama's previous life - not much.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'll bet someone of his incredible intellect must have published a great amount of ground breaking legal work...
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Having no groundbreaking revelatory insights worthy of publication does not preclude his possessing a deeper understanding of U.S. Constitutional issues than you could ever hope to have. As far as intellect goes, I'll take his books, lectures, and body of work—including his tenure as editor of the Harvard Law Review—against your extensive Soapbox ranting any day of the week.
Fine with me if you think a mediocre academic career qualifies one for the presidency.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)? :laugh:
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It's not enough that he went to law school, or taught law, he needs to have published original groundbreaking work to be considered knowledgeable. Riiight. So are you trying to convey an underlying message that nobody should take you seriously, having never published anything of significance (much less "original groundbreaking work") in, well, anything, ostensibly never having taught anything at a university level, and never having had a formal education in most of the subjects you deign to talk about (history, politics, law, etc)?
You're justifying Obama's qualifications to be president by comparing him to me? that is actually pretty damned scary.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.