How Can They Hate America???

[Camp]

7. [Progressive] "judges, rather than rendering judgments according to what the law says, end up transforming and making law according to their own whims. As Robert Bork wrote in his book The Tempting of America, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”


Such application of the law promotes tyranny. It leads to exactly the kind of abuses of authority that America’s founders sought to prevent. The more the Constitution is cast aside, the less it protects Americans’ freedoms." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'



The Founders looked to Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Bible, for guidance. John Adams famously stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Progressive jurists, in fact, were described and predicted long ago:

'In those days Israel had no king;everyone did as they saw fit.' Judges 17:6

Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election, ruled corporations were people and allowed oligarchs and billionaires to flood the election system with cold hard cash in exchange for special treatment.
Just more distortion and misuse of definitions as usual. If the rulings on the topics I just listed are not tyranny nothing is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. [Progressive] "judges, rather than rendering judgments according to what the law says, end up transforming and making law according to their own whims. As Robert Bork wrote in his book The Tempting of America, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”


Such application of the law promotes tyranny. It leads to exactly the kind of abuses of authority that America’s founders sought to prevent. The more the Constitution is cast aside, the less it protects Americans’ freedoms." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'



The Founders looked to Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Bible, for guidance. John Adams famously stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Progressive jurists, in fact, were described and predicted long ago:

'In those days Israel had no king;everyone did as they saw fit.' Judges 17:6

Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election, ruled corporations were people and allowed oligarchs and billionaires to flood the election system with cold hard cash in exchange for special treatment.
Just more distortion and misuse of definitions as usual. If the rulings on the topics I just listed are not tyranny nothing is.

"Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election...."

That's a lie.

 

[Camp]

7. [Progressive] "judges, rather than rendering judgments according to what the law says, end up transforming and making law according to their own whims. As Robert Bork wrote in his book The Tempting of America, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”


Such application of the law promotes tyranny. It leads to exactly the kind of abuses of authority that America’s founders sought to prevent. The more the Constitution is cast aside, the less it protects Americans’ freedoms." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'



The Founders looked to Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Bible, for guidance. John Adams famously stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Progressive jurists, in fact, were described and predicted long ago:

'In those days Israel had no king;everyone did as they saw fit.' Judges 17:6

Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election, ruled corporations were people and allowed oligarchs and billionaires to flood the election system with cold hard cash in exchange for special treatment.
Just more distortion and misuse of definitions as usual. If the rulings on the topics I just listed are not tyranny nothing is.

"Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election...."

That's a lie.

No it isn't. They both voted to support the things I mentioned.

 

[BULLDOG]

7. [Progressive] "judges, rather than rendering judgments according to what the law says, end up transforming and making law according to their own whims. As Robert Bork wrote in his book The Tempting of America, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”


Such application of the law promotes tyranny. It leads to exactly the kind of abuses of authority that America’s founders sought to prevent. The more the Constitution is cast aside, the less it protects Americans’ freedoms." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'



The Founders looked to Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Bible, for guidance. John Adams famously stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Progressive jurists, in fact, were described and predicted long ago:

'In those days Israel had no king;everyone did as they saw fit.' Judges 17:6

All your cut and past threads wouldn't be so dumb if you didn't cut and past so much from disproved and twisted links.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Scalia was the keeper of the flame, the one who spoke for America, and pointed out the corruption of judges who imagine a role that they are not authorized to assume.




Scalia described a recent Supreme Court decision thus:

“...this Court’s threat to American democracy.” “This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power,” he wrote; “a claimFUNDAMENTALLY AT ODDS WITH OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.… A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyersdoes not deserve to be called a democracy.…


Today’s decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its amendments neglect to mention.”


That is an apt description of the feeble state of the rule of law in America! And now that Scalia is gone, judicial imperialism is sure to reach new heights." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'


The Founders never allowed for a Supreme Court that could imagine rights into effect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. [Progressive] "judges, rather than rendering judgments according to what the law says, end up transforming and making law according to their own whims. As Robert Bork wrote in his book The Tempting of America, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”


Such application of the law promotes tyranny. It leads to exactly the kind of abuses of authority that America’s founders sought to prevent. The more the Constitution is cast aside, the less it protects Americans’ freedoms." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'



The Founders looked to Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Bible, for guidance. John Adams famously stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Progressive jurists, in fact, were described and predicted long ago:

'In those days Israel had no king;everyone did as they saw fit.' Judges 17:6

Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election, ruled corporations were people and allowed oligarchs and billionaires to flood the election system with cold hard cash in exchange for special treatment.
Just more distortion and misuse of definitions as usual. If the rulings on the topics I just listed are not tyranny nothing is.

"Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election...."

That's a lie.

No it isn't. They both voted to support the things I mentioned.

There are sooooo many lies that Leftists tell....and so many that the truly stupid believe.

This is the time to shred another one: that somehow the Supreme Court 'stole' Gore's presidency.


Watch carefully:
“Gore won” is the equivalent of a political Stanford-Binet IQ Test. And this is a one-question test, so the stakes are high. The bad news, you failed. The good news? Your level of knowledge has attained its nadir, so you have no place to go, but up.

Here is the correct response, you may use it to prepare for your next exam:

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html


The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....

New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote


An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.

The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-11/a-2001-11-12-4-Newspaper.cfm?moddate=2001-11-12

 

[Camp]

7. [Progressive] "judges, rather than rendering judgments according to what the law says, end up transforming and making law according to their own whims. As Robert Bork wrote in his book The Tempting of America, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”


Such application of the law promotes tyranny. It leads to exactly the kind of abuses of authority that America’s founders sought to prevent. The more the Constitution is cast aside, the less it protects Americans’ freedoms." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'



The Founders looked to Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Bible, for guidance. John Adams famously stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Progressive jurists, in fact, were described and predicted long ago:

'In those days Israel had no king;everyone did as they saw fit.' Judges 17:6

Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election, ruled corporations were people and allowed oligarchs and billionaires to flood the election system with cold hard cash in exchange for special treatment.
Just more distortion and misuse of definitions as usual. If the rulings on the topics I just listed are not tyranny nothing is.

"Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election...."

That's a lie.

No it isn't. They both voted to support the things I mentioned.

There are sooooo many lies that Leftists tell....and so many that the truly stupid believe.

This is the time to shred another one: that somehow the Supreme Court 'stole' Gore's presidency.


Watch carefully:
“Gore won” is the equivalent of a political Stanford-Binet IQ Test. And this is a one-question test, so the stakes are high. The bad news, you failed. The good news? Your level of knowledge has attained its nadir, so you have no place to go, but up.

Here is the correct response, you may use it to prepare for your next exam:

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html


The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....

New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote


An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.

The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-11/a-2001-11-12-4-Newspaper.cfm?moddate=2001-11-12

You evade the point. The projected winner or loser of an actual vote count was not determined by the state authorities and rulings of the state court. That is why we only have guestimates and opinions by media sources. The right to have factual data used to determine the outcome as requested and demanded by the highest state court was denied, by among others on the court, Scalia, and Thomas at the SCOTUS level. That fact is just one that nullifies your claim that deviating from the original intent claim is a liberal justices modus operandi, but one shared by conservatives when it is convenient for them to do so.
Will bootlicking for Scalia become a regular routine for you now?

 

[Dale Smith]

STFU, bitch.......the ones taking this country down has used the left like a cheap whore.

Damn that Ronald Reagan...

And a post from yet one more fool who wishes.......yearns for......a Democrat who could boast of the same record of success in domestic and foreign policy as Ronaldus Maximus.

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

If I were as clueless as you are, I would seriously contemplate suicide....how can someone be so utterly stupid and oblivious as to what is going on? Reagan, Carter, Bush...whomever are just figureheads of USA.INC because like I have SAID, the federal "gubermint" is a massive corporate body. It has a gubermint you are allowed to see and one that is behind the scenes pulling the puppet strings and that has been going on since 1913 at least. Wake the fuck up, put down your little rainbow colored demcrat flag, dry your little eyes that were crying fake tears over the oppressed and put on your big boy pants.

Terrorism is BIG money to the banking oligarchs and elites. Fear is an easy sell. Tell the people that they are in peril unless they give up some of their liberties and agree to dig deeper into their meager pockets so the alleged mechanisms of "safety" can be put in place. Much like a homeowner that has a calling card from a home protection business after his home is ram-sacked by prowlers that were paid by the very business that claims it can keep you safe. Ever heard about the Hegelian Dialectic? If you were any kind of student of history you would know about this term. Al qaeda was created when the Carterpuppet was president and they are nothing but paid mercenaries that create havoc in any region that they are instructed. Don't you find it a tad od that they haven't bothered Israel at all? Try some critical thinking for once in your life.

 

[Dale Smith]

7. [Progressive] "judges, rather than rendering judgments according to what the law says, end up transforming and making law according to their own whims. As Robert Bork wrote in his book The Tempting of America, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”


Such application of the law promotes tyranny. It leads to exactly the kind of abuses of authority that America’s founders sought to prevent. The more the Constitution is cast aside, the less it protects Americans’ freedoms." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'



The Founders looked to Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Bible, for guidance. John Adams famously stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Progressive jurists, in fact, were described and predicted long ago:

'In those days Israel had no king;everyone did as they saw fit.' Judges 17:6

Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election, ruled corporations were people and allowed oligarchs and billionaires to flood the election system with cold hard cash in exchange for special treatment.
Just more distortion and misuse of definitions as usual. If the rulings on the topics I just listed are not tyranny nothing is.

"Yet somehow, Scalia and Thomas saw original intent in preventing the counting of votes in a Presidential election...."

That's a lie.

No it isn't. They both voted to support the things I mentioned.

There are sooooo many lies that Leftists tell....and so many that the truly stupid believe.

This is the time to shred another one: that somehow the Supreme Court 'stole' Gore's presidency.


Watch carefully:
“Gore won” is the equivalent of a political Stanford-Binet IQ Test. And this is a one-question test, so the stakes are high. The bad news, you failed. The good news? Your level of knowledge has attained its nadir, so you have no place to go, but up.

Here is the correct response, you may use it to prepare for your next exam:

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html


The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....

New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote


An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.

The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-11/a-2001-11-12-4-Newspaper.cfm?moddate=2001-11-12

The future of this country was going to play out regardless of which handpicked puppet won....it's all semantics used to keep the dumbed down masses distracted with the sleight of hand tactics.

 

[Camp]

Damn that Ronald Reagan...

And a post from yet one more fool who wishes.......yearns for......a Democrat who could boast of the same record of success in domestic and foreign policy as Ronaldus Maximus.

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

If I were as clueless as you are, I would seriously contemplate suicide....how can someone be so utterly stupid and oblivious as to what is going on? Reagan, Carter, Bush...whomever are just figureheads of USA.INC because like I have SAID, the federal "gubermint" is a massive corporate body. It has a gubermint you are allowed to see and one that is behind the scenes pulling the puppet strings and that has been going on since 1913 at least. Wake the fuck up, put down your little rainbow colored demcrat flag, dry your little eyes that were crying fake tears over the oppressed and put on your big boy pants.

Terrorism is BIG money to the banking oligarchs and elites. Fear is an easy sell. Tell the people that they are in peril unless they give up some of their liberties and agree to dig deeper into their meager pockets so the alleged mechanisms of "safety" can be put in place. Much like a homeowner that has a calling card from a home protection business after his home is ram-sacked by prowlers that were paid by the very business that claims it can keep you safe. Ever heard about the Hegelian Dialectic? If you were any kind of student of history you would know about this term. Al qaeda was created when the Carterpuppet was president and they are nothing but paid mercenaries that create havoc in any region that they are instructed. Don't you find it a tad od that they haven't bothered Israel at all? Try some critical thinking for once in your life.

Look asshole, the terrorist from Iranian-backed Hezbollah bombed the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and the Reagan responses were to pull the Marines out of Lebanon and begin selling 2,000 Tow Missiles and tons of other weaponry to Iran in a scheme called Iran/Contra. Once they got away with the bombing of the Embassy and barracks a continuous series of terrorist attacks took place which including snatching Americans and murdering them, kidnapping and tortures and bombings. It continued during the Reagan era until the grand finale of his 2nd term, the bombing of an American commercial airline over Lockerbie as a Christmas present to America.
Don't pretend to know history because of having read some conspiracy theory books.

 

[Dale Smith]

And a post from yet one more fool who wishes.......yearns for......a Democrat who could boast of the same record of success in domestic and foreign policy as Ronaldus Maximus.

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

If I were as clueless as you are, I would seriously contemplate suicide....how can someone be so utterly stupid and oblivious as to what is going on? Reagan, Carter, Bush...whomever are just figureheads of USA.INC because like I have SAID, the federal "gubermint" is a massive corporate body. It has a gubermint you are allowed to see and one that is behind the scenes pulling the puppet strings and that has been going on since 1913 at least. Wake the fuck up, put down your little rainbow colored demcrat flag, dry your little eyes that were crying fake tears over the oppressed and put on your big boy pants.

Terrorism is BIG money to the banking oligarchs and elites. Fear is an easy sell. Tell the people that they are in peril unless they give up some of their liberties and agree to dig deeper into their meager pockets so the alleged mechanisms of "safety" can be put in place. Much like a homeowner that has a calling card from a home protection business after his home is ram-sacked by prowlers that were paid by the very business that claims it can keep you safe. Ever heard about the Hegelian Dialectic? If you were any kind of student of history you would know about this term. Al qaeda was created when the Carterpuppet was president and they are nothing but paid mercenaries that create havoc in any region that they are instructed. Don't you find it a tad od that they haven't bothered Israel at all? Try some critical thinking for once in your life.

Look asshole, the terrorist from Iranian-backed Hezbollah bombed the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and the Reagan responses were to pull the Marines out of Lebanon and begin selling 2,000 Tow Missiles and tons of other weaponry to Iran in a scheme called Iran/Contra. Once they got away with the bombing of the Embassy and barracks a continuous series of terrorist attacks took place which including snatching Americans and murdering them, kidnapping and tortures and bombings. It continued during the Reagan era until the grand finale of his 2nd term, the bombing of an American commercial airline over Lockerbie as a Christmas present to America.

Listen, asshole, the democrats were against any type of retaliation and that is a fact. U.S Troops do not belong on foreign soil ANYWHERE in the world because all they are doing is looking after the welfare of the multi-national corporations while using our dime to do so. USA.INC has been poking it's nose where it doesn't belong overthrowing duly elected leaders that would not play ball with the international bankers for a 100 years, reference General Smedley Butler's book "War IS A Racket". If some country came over here and was trying to impose their will on us? I would gladly suicide bomb them and with great gusto. You don't know shit. You don't know anything about the real history of this country. You are a partisan shill that believes in the demcrat party as the only path to prosperity and that makes you a blithering idiot. You don't know what I do and you could'nt walk 100 yards in my shoes without falling underneath the weight...so STFU.

 

[Camp]

Yep, he sure like to blow the dough...

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

If I were as clueless as you are, I would seriously contemplate suicide....how can someone be so utterly stupid and oblivious as to what is going on? Reagan, Carter, Bush...whomever are just figureheads of USA.INC because like I have SAID, the federal "gubermint" is a massive corporate body. It has a gubermint you are allowed to see and one that is behind the scenes pulling the puppet strings and that has been going on since 1913 at least. Wake the fuck up, put down your little rainbow colored demcrat flag, dry your little eyes that were crying fake tears over the oppressed and put on your big boy pants.

Terrorism is BIG money to the banking oligarchs and elites. Fear is an easy sell. Tell the people that they are in peril unless they give up some of their liberties and agree to dig deeper into their meager pockets so the alleged mechanisms of "safety" can be put in place. Much like a homeowner that has a calling card from a home protection business after his home is ram-sacked by prowlers that were paid by the very business that claims it can keep you safe. Ever heard about the Hegelian Dialectic? If you were any kind of student of history you would know about this term. Al qaeda was created when the Carterpuppet was president and they are nothing but paid mercenaries that create havoc in any region that they are instructed. Don't you find it a tad od that they haven't bothered Israel at all? Try some critical thinking for once in your life.

Look asshole, the terrorist from Iranian-backed Hezbollah bombed the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and the Reagan responses were to pull the Marines out of Lebanon and begin selling 2,000 Tow Missiles and tons of other weaponry to Iran in a scheme called Iran/Contra. Once they got away with the bombing of the Embassy and barracks a continuous series of terrorist attacks took place which including snatching Americans and murdering them, kidnapping and tortures and bombings. It continued during the Reagan era until the grand finale of his 2nd term, the bombing of an American commercial airline over Lockerbie as a Christmas present to America.

Listen, asshole, the democrats were against any type of retaliation and that is a fact. U.S Troops do not belong on foreign soil ANYWHERE in the world because all they are doing is looking after the welfare of the multi-national corporations while using our dime to do so. USA.INC has been poking it's nose where it doesn't belong overthrowing duly elected leaders that would not play ball with the international bankers for a 100 years, reference General Smedley Butler's book "War IS A Racket". If some country came over here and was trying to impose their will on us? I would gladly suicide bomb them and with great gusto. You don't know shit. You don't know anything about the real history of this country. You are a partisan shill that believes in the demcrat party as the only path to prosperity and that makes you a blithering idiot. You don't know what I do and you could'nt walk 100 yards in my shoes without falling underneath the weight...so STFU.

You are just like your mentor PoliticalChic. You deflect and divert from responding to the actual topic and specific comments, questions or factual data. My comments were and are about President Reagan's failure to respond to terrorist attacks. A simple viewing of terrorist attacks during his era confirms beyond any doubt the accuracy of my comments. You have not addressed any of the facts that confirm those comments. Instead, like PC, you evade the topic by launching into a broad-based agenda driven lecture about unrelated subjects

 

[Dale Smith]

Did I say you were a fool?

Here....let me prove it.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries. George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

and...
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he did that while giving birth to an era of terrorism against America and Americans that continues to this very day. Hell of a legacy.

If I were as clueless as you are, I would seriously contemplate suicide....how can someone be so utterly stupid and oblivious as to what is going on? Reagan, Carter, Bush...whomever are just figureheads of USA.INC because like I have SAID, the federal "gubermint" is a massive corporate body. It has a gubermint you are allowed to see and one that is behind the scenes pulling the puppet strings and that has been going on since 1913 at least. Wake the fuck up, put down your little rainbow colored demcrat flag, dry your little eyes that were crying fake tears over the oppressed and put on your big boy pants.

Terrorism is BIG money to the banking oligarchs and elites. Fear is an easy sell. Tell the people that they are in peril unless they give up some of their liberties and agree to dig deeper into their meager pockets so the alleged mechanisms of "safety" can be put in place. Much like a homeowner that has a calling card from a home protection business after his home is ram-sacked by prowlers that were paid by the very business that claims it can keep you safe. Ever heard about the Hegelian Dialectic? If you were any kind of student of history you would know about this term. Al qaeda was created when the Carterpuppet was president and they are nothing but paid mercenaries that create havoc in any region that they are instructed. Don't you find it a tad od that they haven't bothered Israel at all? Try some critical thinking for once in your life.

Look asshole, the terrorist from Iranian-backed Hezbollah bombed the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, and the Reagan responses were to pull the Marines out of Lebanon and begin selling 2,000 Tow Missiles and tons of other weaponry to Iran in a scheme called Iran/Contra. Once they got away with the bombing of the Embassy and barracks a continuous series of terrorist attacks took place which including snatching Americans and murdering them, kidnapping and tortures and bombings. It continued during the Reagan era until the grand finale of his 2nd term, the bombing of an American commercial airline over Lockerbie as a Christmas present to America.

Listen, asshole, the democrats were against any type of retaliation and that is a fact. U.S Troops do not belong on foreign soil ANYWHERE in the world because all they are doing is looking after the welfare of the multi-national corporations while using our dime to do so. USA.INC has been poking it's nose where it doesn't belong overthrowing duly elected leaders that would not play ball with the international bankers for a 100 years, reference General Smedley Butler's book "War IS A Racket". If some country came over here and was trying to impose their will on us? I would gladly suicide bomb them and with great gusto. You don't know shit. You don't know anything about the real history of this country. You are a partisan shill that believes in the demcrat party as the only path to prosperity and that makes you a blithering idiot. You don't know what I do and you could'nt walk 100 yards in my shoes without falling underneath the weight...so STFU.

You are just like your mentor PoliticalChic. You deflect and divert from responding to the actual topic and specific comments, questions or factual data. My comments were and are about President Reagan's failure to respond to terrorist attacks. A simple viewing of terrorist attacks during his era confirms beyond any doubt the accuracy of my comments. You have not addressed any of the facts that confirm those comments. Instead, like PC, you evade the topic by launching into a broad-based agenda driven lecture about unrelated subjects

I don't give a flying fuck about Reagan, Bush, Carter or any other of the puppets that are simply the face of the franchise of this massive corporate "gubermint". I have nothing but disdain for all of them. I don't subscribe to either political party that is nothing but different sides of the same coin. Don't try and pigeon hole me and put me into a category, you piss-ant bastard. I KNOW more than you and that is a fucking fact. The war on terrorism is a fucking joke and it was from the git-go and if you haven't figured that out by now, there is nothing I can say that is going to wake your stupid ass up. Wail on Reagan to your heart's content. He was just as sorry as the ones that preceded him and the ones that followed him.It's only stupid sheeple like you that believe in this fraudulent system of corporate "gubermint" and worship at it's feet. Your kind make me sick to my stomach.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Here is the fundamental problem with Progressive doctrine:

When he nominated Sotomayer, "Obama said he wanted to install a judge who exercises “empathy” for certain groups. He specifically said he’d like to see someone with a “heart” for the poor, someone who would judge according to the special needs of the downtrodden.

That may sound compassionate and wonderful. But when judges begin favoring one group over another in how they apply the law, that is not justice! It erodes the rule of law. There is a reason America’s founders established a justice system that honored the biblical instruction to “Judge not according to the appearance,” to “not respect persons in judgment” ....That kind of impartial justice—in which everyone is treated equally, regardless of rank, station, connections, race, wealth or poverty or anything else.."
Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'

That is justice.




10. "Should we extend our discussion to Justice….with mitigating factors of one’s childhood, race, or environment?

What weight to extenuation…his supposed goodness to animals or to his mother...? Where is consideration for the needs of the citizenry for protection?
No where: if a jury is influenced by emotion, dramatics, flattery, ‘compassion,’ then laws, which have been decided based on behaviors and not individuals are cast aside by reference to merit, or fairness, or compassion….all of which are inchoate, subjective and nonquantifiable.


a. It is not the government’s job to determine merit, rather to provide a set of laws that one may expect to be applied without intervention. Laws, under our Constitution, apply not to classes of people, but to classes of actions.

If “fairness” is associated with group-identity,with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice.Law, to be just, but be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants."
David Mamet

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. At an earlier time, pamphleteer Thomas Paine wrote glowingly about America: "inAmerica, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countriesthe law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine.

Then came the Progressive era.....with a very different view, one in which judges claim to know best, no matter the law or the consensus of the people.


"In his bookThe Tempting of America, Robert Bork described that clash “There may be legitimate differences about the nomination, but, in the larger war for control of the law, there are only two sides. Either the Constitution and statutes are law, which means that their principles are known and control judges, or they are malleable texts that judges may rewrite to see that particular groups or political causes win."



Like Antonin Scalia, Bork was a strict constitutionalist. In 1982, the Senate confirmed Bork as an appellate judge. The American Bar Association gave him its highest rating: “exceptionally well qualified.”

Yet, within 45 minutes of his nomination to the Supreme Court, [reprobate] Senator Ted Kennedy denounced him on nationalTV. Joe Biden, who chaired the Senate confirmation hearings for Bork, was highly critical of Bork’s nomination.


Samuel Alito is another constitutionalist who almost received the Bork treatment. When President George Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court in 2005, the American Bar Association rated him “well qualified.”

But then Sen. Barack Obama denounced the nomination, ..." Scalia's Death and the 'Living Constitution'



This is what Americans have become:

'The only threat could come if more Scalias and Thomases were to be appointed.'
A Government View of Islam vs Muslims

 

[MikeK]

Those on the Left are not Americans, so they don't care.

The results of decades of their nonsense, crimes and subterfuge is the rise of nationalism, which makes even me a bit nervous. A bit of it is fine, but it can turn bad very fast.

Regardless, it is better than what our Democrat neo-Communistas offer.

How does one know if one is "on the left." What does that mean?

Please explain, with specifics.

 

[jillian]

1. America was formed a 'the shining city on the hill.' It represented hope and opportunity for those not born into freedom and/or wealth.

a. “I now belong to the greatest and most moral country that ever existed on the earth. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights [practiced in] this graceful country allowed me to practice any religion or no religion and gave me human rights I could only [have] dreamed of under Islam. I am lucky and more than lucky, I am saved. I was never discriminated against even after 9/11.” From “Escaping Submission,” by Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish

b. "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04iht-edcohen.2.20587034.html



2. Yet....we are ruled by elites who hate the America of the Founders, the America of their birth...and have been able to co-opt huge constituencies to support them.

In a recent thread, blaming an administration of apologists for refusing to indict the heinous behavior carried out in the name of Islam...more acceptable in 7th century Saudi Arabia,....I wrote this:

'Democrats/Liberals have sold us out for their own benefit.'

This was the surprising response of one of the administration's supporters:

'That may be, just as it may be for all those who want to put their idea of Christianity above civil laws, but that isn't a threat in a plural society, strongly guarded by a written constitution and a Supreme Court that believes in upholding the prohibitions therein in an absolute manner.

'The only threat could come if more Scalias and Thomases were to be appointed.'
A Government View of Islam vs Muslims

WHAT?????


Wow.....how did the late, great Jurist Antonin Scalia get dragged into a discussion of an alien religion?

Here's how: Scalia and Thomas stand for the Founders.....they serve as proxy for America.


The only way to be opposed to Scalia and Thomas is to be opposed to the America envisioned by the Founders, an America where government's power is defined and restricted.....a view seen as the greatness of America by the rest of the free world.
It is what communists and all iterations of Leftists hate.


And what better proof of the title above.... How Can They Hate America???

there was no such thing as "originalism" until rhenquist, and then scalia.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. America was formed a 'the shining city on the hill.' It represented hope and opportunity for those not born into freedom and/or wealth.

a. “I now belong to the greatest and most moral country that ever existed on the earth. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights [practiced in] this graceful country allowed me to practice any religion or no religion and gave me human rights I could only [have] dreamed of under Islam. I am lucky and more than lucky, I am saved. I was never discriminated against even after 9/11.” From “Escaping Submission,” by Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish

b. "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.

You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/opinion/04iht-edcohen.2.20587034.html



2. Yet....we are ruled by elites who hate the America of the Founders, the America of their birth...and have been able to co-opt huge constituencies to support them.

In a recent thread, blaming an administration of apologists for refusing to indict the heinous behavior carried out in the name of Islam...more acceptable in 7th century Saudi Arabia,....I wrote this:

'Democrats/Liberals have sold us out for their own benefit.'

This was the surprising response of one of the administration's supporters:

'That may be, just as it may be for all those who want to put their idea of Christianity above civil laws, but that isn't a threat in a plural society, strongly guarded by a written constitution and a Supreme Court that believes in upholding the prohibitions therein in an absolute manner.

'The only threat could come if more Scalias and Thomases were to be appointed.'
A Government View of Islam vs Muslims

WHAT?????


Wow.....how did the late, great Jurist Antonin Scalia get dragged into a discussion of an alien religion?

Here's how: Scalia and Thomas stand for the Founders.....they serve as proxy for America.


The only way to be opposed to Scalia and Thomas is to be opposed to the America envisioned by the Founders, an America where government's power is defined and restricted.....a view seen as the greatness of America by the rest of the free world.
It is what communists and all iterations of Leftists hate.


And what better proof of the title above.... How Can They Hate America???

there was no such thing as "originalism" until rhenquist, and then scalia.

Either you miss the point, or you're attempting to avoid the point.




During the Progressive era the value of the Constitution has receded, and the decisions of judges, known as 'case law', has replaced same.

" Is it not ironic that those who favor policy-making by the Supreme Court claim that lower court judges should slavishly follow supreme court case law that has been totally made up." 'Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,’ Steven G. Calabresi



I'd be more than happy to engage you on the justness of originalism vs the Progressive 'living Constitution.'

Whenever you feel able.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Those on the Left are not Americans, so they don't care.

The results of decades of their nonsense, crimes and subterfuge is the rise of nationalism, which makes even me a bit nervous. A bit of it is fine, but it can turn bad very fast.

Regardless, it is better than what our Democrat neo-Communistas offer.

How does one know if one is "on the left." What does that mean?

Please explain, with specifics.

If I may, Mikey, I'd like to take a shot at that one.

1. 'American values' can be boiled down to individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

2. Every Leftist iteration......Liberalism, Progressivism, socialism, Nazism, communism and Fascism hold the collectivist view, command and control economics, and unlimited government.

a. A straight line can be drawn from FDR's regime to each of the six above.

b. "The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

The dichotomy that is today’s political reality is based on this retreat, as the American left simply flipped from the brown-shirt utopians to the red-flag utopians, parroting Stalin’s rhetoric: anything objectionable is fascist."
Goldberg



And based on this....are you copacetic with being a Leftist?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Those on the Left are not Americans, so they don't care.

The results of decades of their nonsense, crimes and subterfuge is the rise of nationalism, which makes even me a bit nervous. A bit of it is fine, but it can turn bad very fast.

Regardless, it is better than what our Democrat neo-Communistas offer.

How does one know if one is "on the left." What does that mean?

Please explain, with specifics.

Been away?

Any adherent of any variety of Marxist-based philosophy is generally accepted as being to the Left politically.