OT: Poll-Is Bush Selling Out To Special Interests

[alcohol_]

[quote]Originally posted by the stranger: [b] You guys better hope I don't decide to get back into the fray and ruin these mental masturbation exercises. :p [/b][/quote]A Freudian slip if I ever did see one. :eek: (Juice harp playing in the background)

[the stranger]

The 10th amendment is critical to representation.

[alcohol_]

And how do you all feel the 10th Admendment is germane to this thread?

[the stranger]

[quote]Originally posted by alcohol_: [QB]The idea that someone thinks I'm a socialist is evidence enough that that person doesn't know what socialism is. It's apparent that such a depth of ignorance is terminal and unlikely that any kind of further information that confounds their erroneous beliefs, would be reflexively rejected due to the self effacing horror of they don't really know what they are talking about nor understand the issues of the day. A horror that such an understanding would require some small amount of effort. [/quote]What are you trying to do, kill me with semantics?

[alcohol_]

Where do the meaning of words and semantics differentiate? They don't!

[the stranger]

[quote]Originally posted by alcohol_: [b] [quote]Originally posted by the stranger: [b] You guys better hope I don't decide to get back into the fray and ruin these mental masturbation exercises. :p [/b][/quote]A Freudian slip if I ever did see one. :eek: (Juice harp playing in the background)[/b][/quote]No shit? It's called humor. You need to get one. :p You guys are just trying to suck me back in! :eek:

[the stranger]

[b]Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/b] Hmmm...well I guess that would eliminate about 95% of the federal government, wouldn't it?

[alcohol_]

The 10th Amendment doesn't nullify federal programs, if it did, you could be sure there would be court rulings supporting such an assertion. The Freudian slip comment made me laugh when I wrote it. :thu:

[Saint Johnny B]

Ok, there are real differences between dems and repubs. Big policy differences. Apparently, many repubs or right-winger extremists here would simply trash most of the federal government. Interesting idea, but the Civil War is over and those who advocate the destruction of the US Gov't fall under the penalties of the overreaching Patriot Act. Trashing 95% of the federal government would bring untold misery upon the citizens as well as cripple the nation. As I alluded to, such destructive advocacy could be considered an act of treason and a federal crime. Care to retract those comments? Do all the supporters of Bush hate the federal government so much that they would destroy it? Alch, thanks for the comments and quotes by A. Huffington. That's right on point, Bush and Cheney want to sell out the nation's forests to special interests, and it's so disgusting that honest people want no part of it and feel compelled to resign in protest of Bush and Cheney's actions. --------------- Save the World Save America Jail Bush Now! You'll be glad you did

[Blue Strat]

[quote]Originally posted by Johnny B: [b]Apparently, many repubs or right-winger extremists here would simply trash most of the federal government. Interesting idea, but the Civil War is over and those who advocate the destruction of the US Gov't fall under the penalties of the overreaching Patriot Act. Trashing 95% of the federal government would bring untold misery upon the citizens as well as cripple the nation. [/b][/quote]So, you're saying that the Civil War made the 10th amendment obsolete? Yeah, I'd trash a major portion of the wasteful social programs if I had that power. I'd leave defence spending alone. I'd reduce the postage rate, and I'd give everyone a huge tax break. What's wrong with that? For what it's worth, I'd be quite happy if North Carolina decided to secede from the union a second time...

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by the stranger: [b]I can't even guess how many of these threads were raging along and once I dropped my two cents in, the threads died. Right? Wow? GZ? Super? Who's the man? :D You guys better hope I don't decide to get back into the fray and ruin these mental masturbation exercises. :p [/b][/quote]Shit, be my guest! It couldn't get much stupider than it is... I had some stuff to say, but I hit the delete key. You can't debate with people who don't listen. Nobody here listens. They just want to argue.

[Blue Strat]

[quote]Originally posted by Super 8: [b]You can't debate with people who don't listen. Nobody here listens. They just want to argue.[/b][/quote]No shit. These threads are pointless. J has a one track mind it seems; flame bush and inflame WOW.

[Saint Johnny B]

Actually, I would have been happy if people just voted without comment. And I'm curious to see if musicians and artists believe that Bush is selling out to special interests. It was a simple question that could have been answered with just a "yes" or a "no" click on the radio button.

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote] Apparently, many repubs or right-winger extremists here would simply trash most of the federal government. [/quote]Yes sir, and give all the power BACK to the States. You bet your ass Mr.Watermelon. :thu:

[alcohol_]

It's quite simple, there are people who don't acknowledge facts. They tend to be Republicans, Libertarians or Conservatives in their self definition. They tend to wrongly ascribe the labels of socialist or communist to people that disagree with them over particulars. The injection of the Tenth Amendment in this thread demonstrates that the Republican, Libertarian, conservative point of view is not so much a point a view but a demonstration of profound ignorance of the American government. The judiciary interprets and applies laws including the Constitution. The application of the Tenth Amendment is determined by US judicial institutions, not the wishes and pipe dreams of WOW, stranger, Super8, Rush Limbaugh to Hannity. For your edification, please read below: "Federal Regulations Affecting State Activities and Instrumentalities .--Since the mid-1970s, the Court has been closely divided over whether the Tenth Amendment or related constitutional doctrine constrains congressional authority to subject state activities and instrumentalities to generally applicable requirements enacted pursuant to the commerce power. 45 Under Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 46 the Court's most recent ruling directly on point, the Tenth Amendment imposes practically no judicially enforceable limit on generally applicable federal legislation, and states must look to the political process for redress. Garcia, however, like National League of Cities v. Usery, 47 the case it overruled, was a 5-4 decision, and there are recent indications that the Court may be ready to resurrect some form of Tenth Amendment constraint on Congress." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/02.html#3 So when the Courts reinterpret the Tenth Amendment, so it's congruent with Republican, Libertarian, and conservative positions, then the argument will become germane and not a moot digression. The initial point of this thread is that Republicans sell favors to their political donors, which makes them bigger spenders and less responsible managers of the economy than the Democrats; and therefore, Republicans act more for the narrow benefit of special interest groups than for the good of the American people.

[Johnny Bitch]

Yes, we are all idiots. Get over yourself. :idea:

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote]The application of the Tenth Amendment is determined by US judicial institutions [/quote]BINGO, so stack the court with pinkos and you can beat the system. Dont preach about who knows what, we can see the game plan you(liberals, socialist, commie) have a MILE away.

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by WOW: [b] [quote]The application of the Tenth Amendment is determined by US judicial institutions [/quote]BINGO, so stack the court with pinkos and you can beat the system. Dont preach about who knows what, we can see the game plan you(liberals, socialist, commie) have a MILE away.[/b][/quote]Dude, shut up. The post you're assaulting was a very succinct one, and you're having a case of mouth diarrhea in response. How 'bout Dubya stacking the court with neo-cons so the GOP can beat the system? He's been doing that with impunity these last three years. I'm very much in favor of balanced judiciary. I don't think it's a particularly good idea for the courts to lean heavily to the left or the right. Bad things tend to happen when the court system starts getting extreme. Back on point. Yeah, Dubya is the most disgusting example I've seen of influence peddling since Michael Dukakis. Therefore, I don't agree with the premise that it's just GOP'ers who do this. Frankly, there are extremely corrupt members on both sides of the aisle (Ted Kennedy comes immediately to mind as well) that need to be rooted out and destroyed like the infectious diseases they are. We just happen to have gotten one of the worst in the history of the GOP in the presidency this term. His dad wasn't this thoroughly corrupt, nor was their hero, Reagan. Dubya is on an unprecedented money grab here. Sad part is, we can probably expect it to get worse, not better, after he's booted out of office.

[alcohol_]

In order to change the current interpretation of the Tenth Amendment you need to stack the court with corporate puppets and right wing Nazi fascists. OK.

[Johnny Bitch]

Happy Turkey Day Griff. :wave:

[Griffinator]

Actually, it would be an interesting experiment - reinterpreting the 10th amendment in such a way as to disallow any federal regulation of state behavior... Let's see, that would axe the DEA, the EPA, the ATF, and quite a number of other such overseer type organizations. The net result? I suspect you'd see the extreme anti-regulatory states run amok for a while, but quickly fall back in line with acceptable standards of air and water quality regulations, worker rights, etc. Why? Because the state would quickly become devoid of constituents if they got too laissez-faire about their regulation of corporate polluters, etc. People would just leave. Who the hell wants to live in a state where you have no fundamental rights unless you are a corporation?

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote] How 'bout Dubya stacking the court with neo-cons so the GOP can beat the system? [/quote]Yes, those Neanderthals judges Bush is sending up to the Congress, they actually follow the law, how dare they do that. :rolleyes: If you are Catholic, DONT bother being a judge.

[alcohol_]

Right. I hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving. peace :thu:

[Chuck Moore]

I'm always amused by the ability of courts to constantly "re-interpret" the constitution. Maybe it's just me but shouldn't the intent of the founders come into play at some point? Our courts have had a blast "re-interpreting" the constitution the last half century or so to find all sorts of rights that were never there and attempt to explain away how they didn't really mean things that are in plain sight. Personally I believe if you don't subscribe to original intent as your basis for legal rulings, then you have no business serving on the bench. Unfortunately your position on Roe v Wade is now the litmus test rather than your beleif in the constitution. But hey.... it's Thanksgiving, so lets just be thankfull that we HAVE a high court. So much of the world is still not so fortunate.

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote]Our courts have had a blast "re-interpreting" the constitution the last half century or so to find all sorts of rights [/quote]The courts are being used as a political tool, this is the reason that the dems keep rejecting all of the judges for the DC circuit. Whomever is the judge in DC gets to rule on the laws made by Congress. Its the most important spot under the High court. So when the Dems say they passed X number of judges, its true, but its the low level courts that they dont give a shit about. Bush is killin' the dems sending up these minority judges, the dems are eating so much shit now, I almost feel sorry for them, almost.

[Saint Johnny B]

Chuck, that's not really practicable. We can't go backwards to the time when you counted blacks as 3/4 of a person and women had no right to vote. Some of the Amendments were done after the founders were long dead and buried. The US Consitution must be seen as a vital, living document that keeps up with the times. Here's an example of how too literal a reading of the constitution would be a diaster. You will agree that Americans have the right to bear arms, yes? A nuke is weapon, would you want a drunken pervert like Mr. Low to have one in his back yard. I doubt it, because we don't want unstable personalities to have these things. You see, this is an example of the founders not having a crystal ball where they could read the future. There were no nuke weapons when this right was created and they could not have forseen this technolgical development. Thus, the court must act in a responsible manner and interpret the constitution so that crazy morons don't get to have nukes in their backyard. Sometimes to get a perceived "good result," the court must adopt a path of following a complex chain of reasoning with which you are free to disagree. You are also free to disagree and protest the result while agreeing with the reasoning they used to arrive there. Those are among your choices in a free democracy. I'm with those that like to see a balanced court, but as it stands now, it leans too far to the right IMHO. In addition, the right wing majority almost always takes the side of big business and corporations over the rights of real people. Alch, thanks for making so much logical sense, you have a good mind which I see you use to maximum effect. And Mr. Low, I would also want a democrat, or any "at, in, or an," president tried and convicted if, like Bush and Cheney, they were selling out the American people and ripping them off. Fair is fair, the law's the law, and crime is crime. I don't even think the scandal-ridden Harding Administration was as corrupt as Bush and Cheney. --------------- Save the World Save America Jail Bush Now! You'll be glad you did

[Johnny Bitch]

The bitch is back. :cry:

[Saint Johnny B]

Mr. Low, are you a homo? And a child molester pervert, 'cuz you sure talk like one, esp. now that you took your jammies off. Are you "close personal friends" of MJ and Big Dick too? Why did you don the funeral garb? Oh, yeah, that's right you guys all love playing dress-up. You turkey!

[Johnny Bitch]

Do you jack off with your left hand or your right? Lets take a poll. :bor:

[Chuck Moore]

Ammendments to the constitution become, by definition PART of the constitution. That, in fact IS the method by which the constitution was designed to be changed if a need was found to do so. Courts creating law out of thin air from the bench is absolutely counter to the constitution. If the constitution needs to keep up with the times, then an ammendment is needed. Ammending the constitution is difficult, rightfully so. It shouldn't be easy to alter our system of govt. It surely has become way too easy for Judges to hand down law based solely on what they "feel" is the way things "should" be rather than what is actually stated in the constitution.