Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The absolutists are causing the GOP great harm.
Maybe back away from the radio for a few months.
.
You do know that the whey the Founders set up the executive branch, even if you had property, you couldn't vote for the president or vice president, those damn Marxist..It really pains me when I can dump my toilet waste on my neighbors property...
What a typical post by a third grader...I mean, by a Liberal.
Isn't it time for you to recognize that this type of thread is way over your head?
You are a dunce. It doesn't matter if he said it or not. His comment is just a rumored remark and has no legal standing. That is what I said and I am right. Did the Guffy-Vinson Act get adjusted to fit the court's comments and critiques or not? Yes, it did. When the FDR administration heard from the court they made adjustments to the bill.If the words of Justice McReynolds were not written in his opinion they have no meaning and in reality. legally have no weight and do not exist. If he didn't have the courage to write those words down, they are meaningless.re: #29
In some ways.
This requires a fuller explanation.
It was the Constitution that prevented the tyranny....the government becoming a monopoly.
1. Justice James McReynolds, for instance, announcing from the bench in 1935 his dissent from Court decisions upholding President Franklin Roosevelt’s orders taking the federal government off the gold standard, famously uttered extemporaneously a line not found in his written opinion: “The Constitution, as we have known it, is gone.” Remarks of Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General of the United States, at Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in Memory of Mr. Justice McReynolds, 334 U.S. v, x (Mar. 31, 1948).
2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Guffey-Vinson coal bill was rewritten and approved by the SCOTUS. Laws have always passed in Congress only to be knocked down by court rulings. That is why we have courts. It still goes on to this very day. It is how our government works.
He said it.
He was correct.
You're still a lying, anti-America low-life.
You mean regs like; If you have animals you must fence them in or you can legally lose them if they run free on another persons property? Or Benton county Ark. where the GOP is strongly entrenched and the regs there make you use a dog leash to walk your dogs, even in the rural areas??
You do know that people that own property also desire most of the property regs?
And when you refuse to sell, throw you in jail and take your land, as is happening all over rural.America as we speak.Everything is 'theft' to the RWnuts. It's hilarious.
When the government can take the land you own or the house you live in at any time what do you call it?
I call it democracy. The People, right or wrong, gave the government that power.
We'll see of you feel that way when the government tells you it's taking your home and paying you pennies on the dollar for it leaving you with a huge mortgage balance to pay off
That's because they themselves own nothing, have worked for nothing, and they view this appropriation of private property and the closure of public lands as them getting something for nothing. They actually believe that if the government owns it, they will be able to use it.And when you refuse to sell, throw you in jail and take your land, as is happening all over rural.America as we speak.Everything is 'theft' to the RWnuts. It's hilarious.
When the government can take the land you own or the house you live in at any time what do you call it?
I call it democracy. The People, right or wrong, gave the government that power.
We'll see of you feel that way when the government tells you it's taking your home and paying you pennies on the dollar for it leaving you with a huge mortgage balance to pay off
The ‘Eco-Fascists’ have managed the sequestration of productive land unmatched since the age of kings. Over 30% of the American land base lies under no-use or limited-use restrictions….almost 700 million acres.
The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior are targeting the confiscation of another 213 million acres, bringing the count to nearly half of the continent!
http://r-calfusa.com/Trade/property_rights/100900BLMLeakedMemo.pdf
And the dunces are applauding this!!
You had to edit my post to fit your agenda. This is a good example of how you distort facts. It is a fact that your quote of my statement is a true fact. However, you have used an editing similar to a cut and paste to distort the quote and take it out of context.You are a dunce. It doesn't matter if he said it or not. His comment is just a rumored remark and has no legal standing. That is what I said and I am right. Did the Guffy-Vinson Act get adjusted to fit the court's comments and critiques or not? Yes, it did. When the FDR administration heard from the court they made adjustments to the bill.If the words of Justice McReynolds were not written in his opinion they have no meaning and in reality. legally have no weight and do not exist. If he didn't have the courage to write those words down, they are meaningless.re: #29
In some ways.
This requires a fuller explanation.
It was the Constitution that prevented the tyranny....the government becoming a monopoly.
1. Justice James McReynolds, for instance, announcing from the bench in 1935 his dissent from Court decisions upholding President Franklin Roosevelt’s orders taking the federal government off the gold standard, famously uttered extemporaneously a line not found in his written opinion: “The Constitution, as we have known it, is gone.” Remarks of Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General of the United States, at Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in Memory of Mr. Justice McReynolds, 334 U.S. v, x (Mar. 31, 1948).
2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Guffey-Vinson coal bill was rewritten and approved by the SCOTUS. Laws have always passed in Congress only to be knocked down by court rulings. That is why we have courts. It still goes on to this very day. It is how our government works.
He said it.
He was correct.
You're still a lying, anti-America low-life.
" It doesn't matter if he said it or not."
Only to a lying low-life America hater.
Raise your paw.
The absolutists are causing the GOP great harm.
Maybe back away from the radio for a few months.
.
Gee....a fence-sitter who is deathly afraid of taking a real position on serious issues, with a vapid post in a thread to which he voluntarily subscribed....
...how unusual that he wasn't able to take position.
Some things never change.
You had to edit my post to fit your agenda. This is a good example of how you distort facts. It is a fact that your quote of my statement is a true fact. However, you have used an editing similar to a cut and paste to distort the quote and take it out of context.You are a dunce. It doesn't matter if he said it or not. His comment is just a rumored remark and has no legal standing. That is what I said and I am right. Did the Guffy-Vinson Act get adjusted to fit the court's comments and critiques or not? Yes, it did. When the FDR administration heard from the court they made adjustments to the bill.If the words of Justice McReynolds were not written in his opinion they have no meaning and in reality. legally have no weight and do not exist. If he didn't have the courage to write those words down, they are meaningless.This requires a fuller explanation.
It was the Constitution that prevented the tyranny....the government becoming a monopoly.
1. Justice James McReynolds, for instance, announcing from the bench in 1935 his dissent from Court decisions upholding President Franklin Roosevelt’s orders taking the federal government off the gold standard, famously uttered extemporaneously a line not found in his written opinion: “The Constitution, as we have known it, is gone.” Remarks of Philip B. Perlman, Solicitor General of the United States, at Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in Memory of Mr. Justice McReynolds, 334 U.S. v, x (Mar. 31, 1948).
2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation.
This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The Guffey-Vinson coal bill was rewritten and approved by the SCOTUS. Laws have always passed in Congress only to be knocked down by court rulings. That is why we have courts. It still goes on to this very day. It is how our government works.
He said it.
He was correct.
You're still a lying, anti-America low-life.
" It doesn't matter if he said it or not."
Only to a lying low-life America hater.
Raise your paw.
9. What is the cost of ‘saving’ the Spotted Owl, and what’s the reason?
Have organism’s become extinct? And the result?
“From the environmentalists' perspective, the benefits of preserving the northern spotted owl and its habitat far outweigh any of the costs….society ought to preserve this species and the unique ecosystem it represents because of their aesthetic value."
Ethics and the Environment: The Spotted Owl - Resources - Environmental Ethics - More - Focus Areas - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics - Santa Clara University
a. The Spotted Owl campaign, as is so very many other environmental campaigns, a deceit. It is a way of advancing the real agenda, confiscating property, making land off-limit, and eliminating any human presence. No matter the cost. No matter the result.
“Look, I don’t doubt that the regulatory processed that we put in place to produce the environmental goods that we want have taken a toll on the economy generally and the rural economy in particular. Telling the story that rural communities are being harmed may tug at the heartstrings of rural people, but no one else will care.
You see, what the sage grouse is about is, they want to stop drilling in beautiful Wyoming. That’s the hidden agenda….Take the spotted owl case….One of the people instrumental in shutting down the forests told me that ‘if the spotted owl hadn’t existed, we would have had to invent it.’ The goal was to stop logging….It is totally questionable whether owls were endangered by logging. Was it good for the overall health of the forest? Probably not. Was it good for the spotted owl? It probably didn’t make a difference.
Did it hurt the overall economies of the West? Yes.”
Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.129.
The Bundy grazing rights were revoked and the use of their own land restricted allegedly to protect a tortoise that actually does better on grazed land. During their harassment, property destruction and theft of Bundy property (which included deliberately fencing cattle away from water, and not telling anybody which led to the death of the cows...which the feds then buried..again, not telling anybody), the feds rolled over innumerable tortoise dens.9. What is the cost of ‘saving’ the Spotted Owl, and what’s the reason?
Have organism’s become extinct? And the result?
“From the environmentalists' perspective, the benefits of preserving the northern spotted owl and its habitat far outweigh any of the costs….society ought to preserve this species and the unique ecosystem it represents because of their aesthetic value."
Ethics and the Environment: The Spotted Owl - Resources - Environmental Ethics - More - Focus Areas - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics - Santa Clara University
a. The Spotted Owl campaign, as is so very many other environmental campaigns, a deceit. It is a way of advancing the real agenda, confiscating property, making land off-limit, and eliminating any human presence. No matter the cost. No matter the result.
“Look, I don’t doubt that the regulatory processed that we put in place to produce the environmental goods that we want have taken a toll on the economy generally and the rural economy in particular. Telling the story that rural communities are being harmed may tug at the heartstrings of rural people, but no one else will care.
You see, what the sage grouse is about is, they want to stop drilling in beautiful Wyoming. That’s the hidden agenda….Take the spotted owl case….One of the people instrumental in shutting down the forests told me that ‘if the spotted owl hadn’t existed, we would have had to invent it.’ The goal was to stop logging….It is totally questionable whether owls were endangered by logging. Was it good for the overall health of the forest? Probably not. Was it good for the spotted owl? It probably didn’t make a difference.
Did it hurt the overall economies of the West? Yes.”
Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.129.
The Bundy grazing rights were revoked and the use of their own land restricted allegedly to protect a tortoise that actually does better on grazed land. During their harassment, property destruction and theft of Bundy property (which included deliberately fencing cattle away from water, and not telling anybody which led to the death of the cows...which the feds then buried..again, not telling anybody), the feds rolled over innumerable tortoise dens.9. What is the cost of ‘saving’ the Spotted Owl, and what’s the reason?
Have organism’s become extinct? And the result?
“From the environmentalists' perspective, the benefits of preserving the northern spotted owl and its habitat far outweigh any of the costs….society ought to preserve this species and the unique ecosystem it represents because of their aesthetic value."
Ethics and the Environment: The Spotted Owl - Resources - Environmental Ethics - More - Focus Areas - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics - Santa Clara University
a. The Spotted Owl campaign, as is so very many other environmental campaigns, a deceit. It is a way of advancing the real agenda, confiscating property, making land off-limit, and eliminating any human presence. No matter the cost. No matter the result.
“Look, I don’t doubt that the regulatory processed that we put in place to produce the environmental goods that we want have taken a toll on the economy generally and the rural economy in particular. Telling the story that rural communities are being harmed may tug at the heartstrings of rural people, but no one else will care.
You see, what the sage grouse is about is, they want to stop drilling in beautiful Wyoming. That’s the hidden agenda….Take the spotted owl case….One of the people instrumental in shutting down the forests told me that ‘if the spotted owl hadn’t existed, we would have had to invent it.’ The goal was to stop logging….It is totally questionable whether owls were endangered by logging. Was it good for the overall health of the forest? Probably not. Was it good for the spotted owl? It probably didn’t make a difference.
Did it hurt the overall economies of the West? Yes.”
Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.129.
Now that all the Bundys are in jail and it's just a matter of time before they confiscate all the property, they're closing the tortoise sanctuary and killing the tortoises they were protecting.
Government plans to euthanize hundreds of threatened desert tortoises it was supposed to protect
She yearns for the days of Love Canal..Remember when Congressman Joe Barton apologized to BP over the Gulf oil spill?
That is the PC position on the environment.
Look how desperate you have become. You are arguing about whether the utterance of a judge 80 years ago, but not officially recognized is relevant or not. And to do so you have to edit and take out of context a posters comment. How pathetic will you get in trying to defend this dopey concept of yours?
You had to edit my post to fit your agenda. This is a good example of how you distort facts. It is a fact that your quote of my statement is a true fact. However, you have used an editing similar to a cut and paste to distort the quote and take it out of context.You are a dunce. It doesn't matter if he said it or not. His comment is just a rumored remark and has no legal standing. That is what I said and I am right. Did the Guffy-Vinson Act get adjusted to fit the court's comments and critiques or not? Yes, it did. When the FDR administration heard from the court they made adjustments to the bill.If the words of Justice McReynolds were not written in his opinion they have no meaning and in reality. legally have no weight and do not exist. If he didn't have the courage to write those words down, they are meaningless.
The Guffey-Vinson coal bill was rewritten and approved by the SCOTUS. Laws have always passed in Congress only to be knocked down by court rulings. That is why we have courts. It still goes on to this very day. It is how our government works.
He said it.
He was correct.
You're still a lying, anti-America low-life.
" It doesn't matter if he said it or not."
Only to a lying low-life America hater.
Raise your paw.
Did you post " It doesn't matter if he said it or not."??
Did you raise your paw????
Do it now.
She yearns for the days of Love Canal..Remember when Congressman Joe Barton apologized to BP over the Gulf oil spill?
That is the PC position on the environment.
Look how desperate you have become. You are arguing about whether the utterance of a judge 80 years ago, but not officially recognized is relevant or not. And to do so you have to edit and take out of context a posters comment. How pathetic will you get in trying to defend this dopey concept of yours?
You had to edit my post to fit your agenda. This is a good example of how you distort facts. It is a fact that your quote of my statement is a true fact. However, you have used an editing similar to a cut and paste to distort the quote and take it out of context.You are a dunce. It doesn't matter if he said it or not. His comment is just a rumored remark and has no legal standing. That is what I said and I am right. Did the Guffy-Vinson Act get adjusted to fit the court's comments and critiques or not? Yes, it did. When the FDR administration heard from the court they made adjustments to the bill.He said it.
He was correct.
You're still a lying, anti-America low-life.
" It doesn't matter if he said it or not."
Only to a lying low-life America hater.
Raise your paw.
Did you post " It doesn't matter if he said it or not."??
Did you raise your paw????
Do it now.
Everything is 'theft' to the RWnuts. It's hilarious.
When the government can take the land you own or the house you live in at any time what do you call it?
