The PA isn't our biggest enemy tho.
It couldn't be BHO, could it?Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.
- Quote
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Color me very disappointed. Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
TomAiello 25
QuoteWe brought that up when the boy king was doing his little Mexican hat dance declaring that he was the decider but no one listened.
Who exactly is "we" that brought it up, and "no one" who listened?
Didn't like it then. Don't like it now. The driver changes, but the bus just keeps plowing ahead down the road to oblivion.
wmw999 2,123
I'd bet money on that.Quotep.s. I can't help but wonder whether Obama is continually stunned about how much he agrees with Bush's handling of things now that he's more fully briefed?
There's so much information available now that we tend to mistrust others based on the information we have, because in part we don't have access to all the information they do. There's so much, we assume it's enough.
And we don't trust others to make decisions for us.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Lucky... 0
Quotep.s. I can't help but wonder whether Obama is continually stunned about how much he agrees with Bush's handling of things now that he's more fully briefed?
Your incidious hate for Obama is clear, I get it tho, that was me last year.
QuotePlenty of things may be viewed as necessary.
I'm not a PA expert, doubt many here are, so I won't pretend to throw out particulars, but there needs to be a federal protection of the nation via some regulation. Isn't teh TSA a product of the PA?
QuoteNote that the Constitution is there to prevent the government from doing necessary things.
When I was in school, we would write papers about the Constitution: Issue, reasoning, Assessment, conclusion in reagrd to SCOTUS cases, but when you talk to professors they kinda roill their eyes about the US Const. I think it's common knwoledge that it's a great ole document, but it really can't be applied to today's issues. They have to recognoze it, but just barely. Cops don't care about it, judges don't always underestand it or understand it tehir own way, so to the Constitution I say: what a neat old piece of paper.
QuoteFor example, it may be necessary to just go into that house and take away the pot plants - you just cannot wait for a warrant.
Actually the US Const was retooled about 5 years ago in regard to the 4th. Before, absent fleeing felon or exigency, the doorway was the threshold, which is why cops have you step outside. Now they can remove the person to get the warrant if they see a pot plant inside.
QuoteIt may be necessary to prevent anti-national health care speech in order to get it passed.
But enough of Congressman Willson.
QuoteOr ban anti-war speech because it is seditious.
Enough about Cindy Shehan.
QuoteThat's why the Constitution is there - to prevent the government from doing things that it may feel is necessary.
Like slavery? It was written by slave owners, then revised to exclude slavery under the 13th, later enforced by teh 14th. The US Const is a real neat old piece of Americana, but operationally a joke.
EDITED TO ADD: Obama voted against the Iraq War from the time he entered Congress.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteIt may be necessary to prevent anti-national health care speech in order to get it passed.
But enough of Congressman Willson.
But enough of the White House "Health care tip line".
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteIt may be necessary to prevent anti-national health care speech in order to get it passed.
But enough of Congressman Willson.
But enough of the White House "Health care tip line".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803321.html
Preventing misinformation is the same as violating HUGE cardinal rule and calling the president a liar in joint session? And then calling a double standard when you get a reprimand as tho it's a witchunt?
If it makes ya feel better, the tip line is shut down so misinformation about death sqauds can keep pumping it out....but Wilson's crying foul will keep going.
mnealtx 0
QuotePreventing misinformation is the same as violating HUGE cardinal rule and calling the president a liar in joint session?
Maybe you can show us where that "Cardinal rule" is written down.
QuoteAnd then calling a double standard when you get a reprimand as tho it's a witchunt?
Maybe you can show us all the reprimands that the Dems got when they booed Bush during a speech in Congress.
I went ahead and snipped out the useless rhetoric in the rest of your reply - hope you don't mind.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
TomAiello 25
Quote... the US Const. I think it's common knwoledge that it's a great ole document, but it really can't be applied to today's issues.
Wow. Just wow. In the face of that, I got nuthin'.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote... the US Const. I think it's common knwoledge that it's a great ole document, but it really can't be applied to today's issues.
Wow. Just wow. In the face of that, I got nuthin'.
Explains quite a lot, doesn't it?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote... the US Const. I think it's common knwoledge that it's a great ole document, but it really can't be applied to today's issues.
Wow. Just wow. In the face of that, I got nuthin'.
Thx for stoppinjg by then. Appelate judges, SCOTUS justices, etc decide what they want to do and use, twist, maneuver the US Const in a way to justify their decision. Explain cases like DC v Heller where they, for the first time said that a person has personl gun pwnership rights. WHat took em so long to come to that, or is the US Const fluid? Get what I'm saying?
Lucky... 0
QuoteMaybe you can show us where that "Cardinal rule" is written down.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/wilson-reprimanded-but-still-smiling/?feat=home_headlines
Why I would be glad to.
In an unprecedented but toothless reprimand, the House on Tuesday voted to condemn Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, for exclaiming, "You lie," during President Obama's address to Congress in a vote that highlighted how fractured debates have become on Capitol Hill
So this is the first time the House has done this, meaning it crossed a line. And if that's not good enough, here's this:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blhousecode.htm
Rule #1 kinda brings it home...
1. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.
...unless calling the person holding the highest office a liar is your idea of credible.
QuoteMaybe you can show us all the reprimands that the Dems got when they booed Bush during a speech in Congress.
Which ones were they? Could there have been Repubs booing too? I mean Republican Jeffords showed what he felt of Bush and the party, so could it have been Republicans, you just assumed it was all Dems. Get the video/audio and make yiur case.
QuoteI went ahead and snipped out the useless rhetoric in the rest of your reply - hope you don't mind.
No, no, it's ok, I'm used to you cherry-picking and not citing any sources.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuote... the US Const. I think it's common knwoledge that it's a great ole document, but it really can't be applied to today's issues.
Wow. Just wow. In the face of that, I got nuthin'.
Explains quite a lot, doesn't it?
Are you saying the US Const isn't fluid and constantly having decisions rewritten to opposing / dissenting ones? It flip-flops based on who installs justices, so it's just a standard by which justices maneuver around.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuote... the US Const. I think it's common knwoledge that it's a great ole document, but it really can't be applied to today's issues.
Wow. Just wow. In the face of that, I got nuthin'.
Explains quite a lot, doesn't it?
WOW!!!!
Just fucking WOW
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteExplain cases like DC v Heller where they, for the first time said that a person has personl gun pwnership rights. WHat took em so long to come to that, or is the US Const fluid? Get what I'm saying
Ok I'll explain it. Heller OVERTURNED a law which was in conflict with the original intent of the 2nd ammendment, gun ownership being an INDIVIDUAL right. No need to defend truth until it's challenged.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteExplain cases like DC v Heller where they, for the first time said that a person has personl gun pwnership rights. WHat took em so long to come to that, or is the US Const fluid? Get what I'm saying
Ok I'll explain it. Heller OVERTURNED a law which was in conflict with the original intent of the 2nd ammendment, gun ownership being an INDIVIDUAL right. No need to defend truth until it's challenged.
I don't need it explained. I posted it as 1 of many examples to illustrate that the US Const, or any state const is fluid and prone to slight change or upheaval at any time. Often a case's dissent becomes the new decision, so what is the written constitution? The living constitution is the desired interpretation at that given moment.
QuoteNo need to defend truth until it's challenged.
Truth is subjective opinion. When justices find your version of the truth, they've finally got it right, when justices or judges find a different way that do you, they're activist judges. These decisions are called opinions for a reason; we all have em, and they all stink, they just usually have a different stink to them.
To think you have the intent of the constitution down pat insults legal professionals, lifetime judges, justices, etc. It's fine to have your own opinion, it's arrogance to think you have it all figured out when the greatest minds in America are thinking these things thru.
Fortunately Heller made the law go my way, but it was a 5-4 decision with liberals coming up to take conservative-filled seats, don't kill yourself if it goes the other way. Remember, 5-4 with a SCOTUS that was 7-2 R appointed, Heller is not even near being long-running stare decisis. Now it's 6-3, if Obama does all 8 I could see the SCOTUS being 5-4 Dem-appointed.
turtlespeed 212
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote... the US Const. I think it's common knwoledge that it's a great ole document, but it really can't be applied to today's issues.
Wow. Just wow. In the face of that, I got nuthin'.
Explains quite a lot, doesn't it?
Are you saying the US Const isn't fluid and constantly having decisions rewritten to opposing / dissenting ones? It flip-flops based on who installs justices, so it's just a standard by which justices maneuver around.
Holy Guano Piles Batman!
No - I believe that they are just speechless, as you have confirmed what (they/we) believe - that the left's true opinion and mind set is that the constitution (does not/should not) be a valid document anymore. Further: That the whole bill of rights thing is an outdated premise.
Thanks for the confirmation.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun