Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 109
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?Page 5 of 44    (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)

Those are simple, yes or no questions. Shouldn't be too hard.


I could go back and find any number of questions I've asked that you've never answered. I'm not about to answer yes or no to a question when the person posing it doesn't have the premise right. I don't know why you'd even ask if I think a legislature has power to "vote away your rights," for starters. But that's too general for a simple answer anyway. The Constitution doesn't guarantee absolute rights. Laws can restrict freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, the right not to be a witness against yourself--you name it.

Of course Congress has no authority to make any law that violates anything in the Constitution--although it's not clear that only the Supreme Court can decide whether it does. And no state legislature has authority to make any law that violates either that state's constitution, or any federal treaty, or any federal law, or anything in the Constitution. Even so, distinguishing two or more groups of people and prescribing different treatments for them is exactly what a law ordinarily does.

It's not very civil to claim I purposely gave specious examples. I did no such thing, nor have I ever. I probably didn't understand your question. I can't respond to your sentence about competing claims, compelling interest, etc., because I don't understand what you mean.

You weren't clear about whose malfeasance you meant. Since I'd talked about Marbury, I thought you were referring to Madison's refusal to deliver the commissions.

I don't know what you mean by conservatives "monkey-wrenching" the ability of the government to provide services . . . ." So I can't make an intelligent response to that, either. It makes no sense to talk about a measure people voted for without specifying when, whether a majority has since changed the law, etc. Why not give some specifics, so I don't have to guess what you're saying?

Either a government is authorized by law to provide some service, or it isn't. If it is, how could anyone legally interfere with it, whatever they thought of the service? If I disagree with a law or policy, I vote for people I think are likely to change it. That's how this country works. And if others who agree with me succeed in changing laws and policies, it makes no difference that someone years before voted for representatives who made them. One group can make a law, and another group can later amend or repeal it.

Are you trying to say Congress has no authority to repeal the Clean Air Act, or abolish EPA or the Education Dept., just because some earlier Congress created those things? I hope not. As I noted, Congress created the entire federal court system except for the Supreme Court. That means Congress also has power to dissolve that whole system--not that it's about to. But the reasons for keeping the federal district and appeals courts are practical, not constitutional. Congress even has power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

My view of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do is not cynical in the least. My view of what it does do, all too often during the past 50 years or so, is realistic. It takes some very hard analysis to understand what's really at work in some decisions, because the majority usually hides its sleight-of-hand pretty well. But if you study enough cases, know the earlier cases in that field, and know how to analyze them, you can see how weak and unconvincing the reasoning is in some of them. (The holding in Roe, for example, is not supported by any true legal reasoning at all.) Some Justices, like Sotomayor, don't even deny their bias--they just use a euphemism like "empathy." And the whole reason Obama wants Kagan is that he knows she'll be a rubber stamp for his policies.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 110
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/21/2010 7:22:49 AM


Even so, distinguishing two or more groups of people and prescribing different treatments for them is exactly what a law ordinarily does.


As you yourself have often pointed out. Arbitrary laws are invalid, and when you argue that the majority has some power to impose them, you argue for the absurd.



It's not very civil to claim I purposely gave specious examples. I did no such thing, nor have I ever.


Hmmm ... You mean you didn't know those examples were specious? All right. Dude, they're specious.





I probably didn't understand your question. I can't respond to your sentence about competing claims, compelling interest, etc., because I don't understand what you mean.


Please. You're the expert. You know why courts correctly invalidate laws and I've learned a lot from you here. When a law is valid, it accomplishes a legitimate governmental purpose within the scope of governmental authority. If both conditions don't hold, a law is an undue infringement on individual freedom. That, my friend, is the conservatie position in a nutshell. Is it not?

What I have a hard time understanding about you and your fellow conservatives is the extent to which you will argue for laws that unduly restrict freedom in the name of freedom. How do you reconcile that in your own mind?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 111
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/21/2010 8:12:13 AM

when you argue that the majority has some power to impose them, you argue for the absurd.


I don't remember arguing for any law I thought was arbitrary. You don't need to tell me that an arbitrary law isn't law at all, no matter what majority passed it. I don't know what point you're trying to make.


Dude, they're specious.


Why don't you explain *why* you think they are?


When a law is valid, it accomplishes a legitimate governmental purpose within the scope of governmental authority. If both conditions don't hold, a law is an undue infringement on individual freedom.


That doesn't sound much like the incomprehensible sentence you wrote in your other post. You're still not stating the law very well. Any law, to be law, *at least* must be reasonably related to some legitimate government purpose. In some cases, depending on the rights the law infringes, or what group it disadvantages, the government has to have much better reasons than that for it. But even so, there's nothing to prevent a state law that discriminates against blacks, say, IF the state could show a good enough reason for it.


What I have a hard time understanding about you and your fellow conservatives is the extent to which you will argue for laws that unduly restrict freedom in the name of freedom. How do you reconcile that in your own mind?


Simple. The Framers never intended the Constitution to guarantee license--i.e. every individual doing pretty much anything he pleased. They often distinguished between liberty and license, and so do conservatives. The fact radical individualism has become almost an article of faith among the New Barbarians shows their ignorance and disregard of that Constitution. The 14th Amendment doesn't say states can't deprive people of liberty, period. It just says they can't do it without due process of law.

Once more--as long as it doesn't violate anything in the Constitution, the majority in any state has authority to make whatever laws it chooses, whether particular state residents like it, or not. Forcing everyone else to abandon their principles to indulge a few people is its own form of tyranny, because it takes the vote away from the majority. You may think laws regulating public morals serve no legitimate government purpose, but the courts have almost always upheld them.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 112
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/21/2010 4:43:39 PM

even has power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.


Good. There needs to be a check on the power of the Court. I presume then that the day after Marbury Congress could have reined in the Court but has chosen not to do so for what, almost 200 years now? Why is that? Maybe because it's a good idea for someone to have the final say on what it or is not Constitutional?

I get it that you're suspicious of the Court, and that's fine. Somebody needs to keep an eye on them, and when the Court does the right thing based on the wrong argument, it's almost as bad as when they do the wrong thing.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 113
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/21/2010 4:45:49 PM
The Framers never intended the Constitution to guarantee license--i.e. every individual doing pretty much anything he pleased.


So which activities did they _intend_ to restrict exactly? How about ... those that violate the rights of others? We can probably agree on that. What else? Anything?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 114
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/21/2010 7:40:16 PM

So which activities did they _intend_ to restrict exactly? How about ... those that violate the rights of others? We can probably agree on that. What else? Anything?


As usual, Paul is right on the money. Treason is one of only two crimes the Constitution discusses, the other being bribery. There were no other federal crimes--even today, the vast majority of criminal laws are state laws.

The Constitution only gave the U.S. certain limited, enumerated powers. States maintained the right to govern their residents the way the majority of them wanted--and the Tenth Amendment guaranteed that right. Before the Civil War, only their own constitutions (which didn't always include all the provisions of the U.S. Constitution) limited states' rights.

The post-Civil War amendments--the 13th, 14th (especially), and 15th--limited them further. The Court has used the 14th Am. in two other ways to limit much further yet what states can prohibit by law.

From about 1890 to 1970, it incorporated first one and then another provision of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment and applied them against the states. The First, Fourth, most of the Fifth, the Sixth, and most of the Eighth Amendments now limit state laws.

The Court has also used the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Am. to strike down state laws--since the late 1930's, almost entirely ones that concern social issues. The problem with these clauses (or so some hidebound traditionalists would have you believe) is that they're so vague they give the Court a lot of room to make law in this area.

But isn't that really a blessing? How can any American doubt that five high-minded federal judges don't know best about our customs and morals? Who could not look forward to having Justices Ginzburg, Sotomayor, and Breyer--with a little assist from Justice Kennedy--tell them just how to live? After all, don't they know best? This freedom stuff is oversold.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 115
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/22/2010 10:06:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJaeG0xT7dc


Leading Libertarians have lauded Rand Paul, noting that his stance is at the core of Libertarian philosophy. True liberty requires a society in which all people can live and thrive without coercion from controlling forces such as the federal government.

Such core principles the are at the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.


George Washington said “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”


Should racial discrimination be overcome by reason or by force?

This notion is at the heart of Rand Paul’s stance on civil rights. Those who equate this notion with racist beliefs are either intellectually incapable of grasping it or are purposefully seeking to defame those who embrace it.

Instead of running to the federal government for protection from and a quick fix to everything that is socially reprehensible, it is time for all of the afore mentioned detractors – from Maddow, through all her minions at MSNBC and their zombie choir – to look at the bigger picture, to wake up, grow up, break out of their pre programmed political paradigm.

Without such an awakening, discrimination and divisions will always exist and will always be taken advantage of by those who seek to control our society.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 116
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/22/2010 10:24:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPMoYXP3YOw&feature=related

The Spanish-American War has been over for more than 100 years, and now so is the tax imposed in 1898 to help fund it.

As of Tuesday, all phone companies selling long-distance phone service are legally required to eliminate the 3 percent federal excise tax on long-distance service, which had been established in 1898 as a luxury tax on wealthy Americans who owned telephones.

Verizon Communications said Tuesday that it has stopped collecting the 3 percent federal excise tax on monthly consumer telephone bills for long-distance and bundled services.

After a long legal battle and strong urging from Congress, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury decided in May to discontinue the federal 3 percent excise tax on long-distance telephone service effective Aug. 1.

It also decided not to apply the tax to wireless, voice over Internet Protocol service, prepaid telephone cards and other bundled services. The IRS also said it would allow taxpayers to claim a refund in 2007 for taxes collected on those services retroactive to February 2003.

The last portion of the tax, pertaining only to local telephone service, remains in effect. But Verizon and other telecom companies are urging Congress to repeal the tax in total this year.

"We have been working for years on behalf of our customers to eliminate this outdated and regressive tax," Bob Ingalls, president of Verizon's Retail Markets Group, said in a statement. "This is a good first step in alleviating consumers' telephone tax burden."
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 117
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/22/2010 4:38:01 PM
^^^^^^There's no justification for collecting a tax and not returning any service for it. I wonder if someone's refused to pay some of these old taxes as a way to challenge them as unconstitutional.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 118
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/23/2010 1:41:47 AM

Hmmm, treason.....where have I heard that before? Funny stuff.....


Yes, that Bill Maher--what a funny guy. I'm not surprised that you and he would both think treason is a joke, even though this country has more than its share of traitors. There are a lot of people in this country who wish it as much harm as possible, and who never tire of cheerleading for, or even actively helping its enemies. Oh, I forgot--you don't even know it has any enemies. All those tens of thousands of U.S. servicemen must just be taking target practice. And Maher likes the Muslim scum who want to destroy us--remember how he praised the courage of the jihadists who hijacked those planes on 9/11?
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 119
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/23/2010 1:51:06 AM

I hope I did not offend anyone, I am just an inquiring mind here making generalized points of view from only what my eyes have seen.


Offend? On the contrary. Yours is a most enlightened view...far superior than that which pervades this place...unfortunately.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 120
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/23/2010 10:16:10 AM
Real discourse is not pretty and if you get offended then grow a spine. This is another layer of the Political Correctness that lets people jump from issue to issue with out answering the question at hand. "We need civil discourse" what a joke, the whole nation is losing its spine.

I think this guy says it best

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_dDtnr8SlE
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 121
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/23/2010 10:43:44 AM
^^^^^That's pretty much what the German Marxists who first cooked up the notion of political correctness hoped it would do. The same is true of the racist notions of "diversity" and "multiculturalism." The people who pushed for these notions are intolerant brownshirts who bitterly hate America, and they hope to bring it down by indoctrinating its people in them. You can see hordes of their minions regurgitating this anti-American garbage just about anyplace these days. Fitting that they elected a President whose contempt for America and its Constitution, and whose sympathy for its enemies, are as deep as their own. He's just slick enough to know how to hide it.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 122
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/23/2010 10:54:26 AM

throwing around pop terms is just an indirect way of insulting someone.



That's pretty much what the German Marxists who first cooked up the notion of political correctness hoped it would do. The same is true of the racist notions of "diversity" and "multiculturalism." The people who pushed for these notions are intolerant brownshirts who bitterly hate America, and they hope to bring it down by indoctrinating its people in them. You can see hordes of their minions regurgitating this anti-American garbage just about anyplace these days. Fitting that they elected a President whose contempt for America and its Constitution, and whose sympathy for its enemies, are as deep as their own. He's just slick enough to know how to hide it.


Now that I am aware of your writing style I have reached the conclusion you simply enjoy shit-talking behind the safety of your monitor. Instead of providing an informative rebuttal to the topic you write these long winded essays filled with anger and bitterness usually attacking others. The fact you enjoy indirectly insulting others simply shows how spineless you are.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 123
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/23/2010 11:32:22 AM
^^^^^I couldn't if I wanted to, because I don't watch Mr. Beck. And by trying to dismiss what I said, rather than trying to disprove it, you make my point for me.

The history of the Frankfurt School and of the Marxists who came from it to U.S. universities supports my comments about "political correctness." Thanks to America-haters like the late Howard Zinn and Mr. Obama's communists pals William Ayres and Michael Klonsky, the curriculum in many of our public schools is designed to convince students that America--and western civilization generally--are barely worth defending.

A corollary to this notion is that that white males--who were almost exclusively responsible for creating both western civilization and America--are the world's villains. What better way to destroy us, than to induce us to destroy ourselves? You clearly resent the country you live in, so it angers you to see anyone speak up for it. But facts are no less true because they conflict with your prejudices.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 124
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/23/2010 1:01:47 PM
It's a lot easier to make a society dependent after you've made them stupid and angry. The secular left has done everything it could to disparage the greatness of this country, the last, best hope of mankind.

Read the press daily and you'll see the fruits of weakness, Obamao's policies. NK feels secure in sinking a SK ship and bragging about it, Iran states outwardly it will end Israel's existence in a week long battle, Russia sends nuclear material to Syria and Turkey...it goes on and on.

And the genius's on the left think our biggest problem is not respecting people who's first act is one of disrespect, entering illegally. I would feel great shame if i went to another country and misused the citizenry, but it bothers not our lefties, they love to see our country poor and broken.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 125
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/24/2010 9:19:27 AM
He hates America as it is. He may love America when it is more like Europe, Kenya, Indonesia or some dream he had over there at Occidental and Harvard (got a copy of any of his transcripts or work papers btw?).

Reagan loved America as she is. Most of the left hated Reagan for loving America as she is.

This is not a complicated notion, accept Obama hates America as she is and let's move on to trahing this clown.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 126
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/24/2010 10:22:51 AM
Yes he gave amnesty to 2 million undocumented immigrants. He failed to secure borders as a precondition thus resulting in 12 million potential new citizens and no secured borders. This time you guys will own the mistake.

I commend UN conventions against torture. Please find me anyone for torture out of context. He created 22 million jobs and got America out of a deep malaise. He ended a 50 year cold war with an enemy bent on our destruction without firing a shot. He took a government that was considered "ungovernable' and recast the mission.

We're going to need a guy like that by the time this clueless pretender in the oval office finishes this cluster **** he's created.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 127
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/24/2010 11:04:45 AM
Skooch how old were you in 1988? don't take my word for it, ask guys around who were grown ups long before you were miseducated. I was old enough to watch the clock hour by hour in the Cuban missle crisis, the Kennedy assasination, LBJ announcing in the darket hours of Viet Nam he was stepping down. Trust me until Reagan no one, I mean no one, thought it possible for the Soviets to throw in the towel.

The year the Soviet's backed down the CIA was reporting the vibrant economic and military the Soviets were thought to be. Reagan knew better, most true freedom loving capitalists knew better...socialism, central planning, liberalism, call it what you will...doesn't work. never has, never will.

The last people to accept the Soviet's had given it up were on the American left, omg they had tears in their eyes lol. Stupid liberals, incurably stupid, fantasy thinking libtards.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 128
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/27/2010 5:20:53 AM
Skooch you are missing not on only what i wrote but the actual events on the ground hour by hour. The CIA, our news media and most experts felt to the end the Soviet Union was economically viable. Reagan and many of us knew it was a hollow system living on lies. How? We understand what happens when the left runs things, kinda like today, they poison all they touch.

So when Reagan told them he was playing unlimited stakes poker they bluffed along for a few years, then agreed they were cooked. However you spun that reality (it made no sense either time I read it), the fact is the left were in tears over reagan's tactics, they fought him tooth and nail, insulting him like they do all repubs.

Did Begalia understand the french revolution or had he worn a tutu to Les Miserable at each and every opportunity? I've been a begalia watcher since perhaps 1990, i suspect the latter. he's never right, well maybe he's right about Obama dodging leadership on this gulf spill.

Focus grasshopper, like a laser beam apply your mind to the key points, this ain't the huffpo, we got folks with functioning brains here.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 129
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/28/2010 12:52:39 PM
LOL even Obama has learned by now meetings with thugs gives the thugs something they want and you end up looking like an idiot. This idea people will give up ancient hatreds if some long-legged mack daddies just sweet-talks them only works on children and idiots.

Too bad the Skoocher ain't figured that one out.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 130
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/28/2010 3:35:22 PM

It's a lot easier to make a society dependent after you've made them stupid and angry.


Exactly my complaint against your boy George and his Neocon agenda. It also helps if you can make them broke. So far, right on schedule.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 131
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/28/2010 3:41:16 PM
Ace do you believe Bush made greece, Spain, Portugal, for that matter the entire UK broke? of course not, spending more than we produce (borrowing) has made us broke.

I expected even libtards would in time catch on to the truth, I did not expect the truth to be so obvious, so quickly, but it's astonishing even to me the rapidity of the bust.

Ace I'm begging ya, don't be the last hippie in your commune to get the news.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 132
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/28/2010 3:53:56 PM

Ace I'm begging ya, don't be the last hippie in your commune to get the news.


Which news is that? The one that says that an unregulated financial market won't ever melt down and take governments down with it?

Government budgeting should be countercyclical. When they follow the economy, they hit the rocks just when the private sector needs a boost. How can that happen in a representative democracy? You've got to have good public schools that teach children how to be solid citizens who think things through.

Ah, 1964, perhaps the last year in which the schools attempted to develop children to perform at peak intelligence so that we could win the space race. After the kids got too smart to be controlled, our leadership decided we'd better dumb the schools back down. And now we're in a situation where those kids don't know the difference between Marx and the Constitution.

I'll grant you the left has its nonsense, but so does the right, and between the two sets of competing ideologues, all good sense has been thrown out the window.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 133
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/28/2010 4:49:54 PM
Actually the 50's were the time of the space race, the smart kids learned to sprechen zie Deutche. The 60's were beginning to devolve into spiritual, not religious mumbo jumbo that most of us could turn on and off based upon circumstances. Never did I imagine that would be the single tune an entire country of miseducated nincompoops could sing.

Again I'll ask you to think through "too big to fail". It simply means a government supported a business behavior that any Republican knew was "too bone-headed to survive'. Your financial institutions were spurred on by community agitators (think obumbler shaking down a Chicago bank to give loans to losers) not to 'redline", where redline cessation means 'give loans to deadbeats. Of course the rest of the society also imagined they could obtain no doc loans that worked for everyone. European banks bought this junk because the US government stood behind this crap.

Meanwhile we not only grew government employees, we allowed them to form unions to facilitate the purchase of politicians. The head of the fire dept. in SF makes $850,000, a superintendent of schools in a small Iowa county with 32 students makes $250,000, air traffic controllers in Spain make $800,000 and on and on it goes.

Bush neither supported nor caused these things, his sin was not calling knuckleheads and enablers, knuckleheads and enablers, a job now fallen into my capable hands.
Show ALL Forums  > California  >