What Is Wrong With Liberals??

[PoliticalChic]

They say that comedians are the most intelligent of entertainers.

I note from your post that humor is lost on those with.....limitations.


As soon as Islamists inflicted damage in Madrid.....Aznar quickly pulled all Spanish troops out of the battle.

"Spain plans quick pullout of Iraq
The 43-year-old prime minister was elected just three days after the deadly March 11 Madrid train bombings that killed 190 people and wounded 1,800 -- attacks blamed on Islamic terrorists.

The al Qaeda terrorist network had threatened Spain publicly for its support of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq,...."
CNN.com - Spain plans quick pullout of Iraq - Apr 19 2004

Oh, no bloody wonder I didn't get what you're saying, you don't have a fecking clue what you're talking about.

THREE DAYS after the bombings the PSOE of Zapatero was elected, they be quite left wing, and HE pulled the troops out, and it was part of his manifesto before the bombings.

Jeez you're embarrassing.

You are absolutely right....it was Zapatero, not Aznar.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Constitution is the only document that the American people agreed to be governed by.

In it, is the instruction on how to alter it.

It is not done by Liberal judges.

I don't insult....I correctly identify.

How many people signed the constitution? All 4 million of them? No..... Just a few. Did all the people agree to the constitution? Well they could have gone to Canada, mind, most of them couldn't even read the damn thing.

Yes, there are instructions on how to alter it. It isn't by referendum, if you actually read the constitution you'd know how to change the constitution. It's pretty clear.

You insult, don't act like a petulant school kid, you're a petulant adult, and try and act like a bloody adult for once.

"Yes, there are instructions on how to alter it. It isn't by referendum, if you actually read the constitution you'd know how to change the constitution. It's pretty clear."

Earlier I called you a moron.

I was wrong.

You're an imbecile.




The point was that judges have no right to alter the results of referenda unless it the language of the Constitution is infracted.

Not their 'opinion'....the actual Constitution.

I referred to the amendment process. Those are the instructions.
I never said that a referendum could change the Constitution.
Nor can a judges decision.

Both Hamilton and Madison who wrote the bulk of the Federalist papers could not agree with what the constitution actually means on all issues, yet somehow you can?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Referenda are not always constitutional."
The people,not judges,are the correct arbiters.

2. "Let's have one banning black people from marrying,..."
Could you provide same?

Otherwise you appear quite the moron.

Do you understand rights and the constitution? They are there, not by popular demand, but they protect rights assumed to exist already. The founding fathers didn't not set up the constitution to have it destroyed by muppets voting in referenda to take away protections of rights.

Could I provide same? What does that mean?

And then you have to insult, as if you simply can't get through a post without doing so. What do you think YOU look like?

The Constitution is the only document that the American people agreed to be governed by.

In it, is the instruction on how to alter it.

It is not done by Liberal judges.

I don't insult....I correctly identify.

Just because you always seem to disagree with the Supreme Court doesn't make them liberals.

The American people by way of the constitution have agreed to abide by all laws ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. There are ways to alter those laws if one disagrees.

"The American people by way of the constitution have agreed to abide by all laws ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court."

Absolutely false.

It was a power grab by Marshall.



1. John Marshall was at odds with Jefferson, who he mocked as "the great Lama of the mountains."(NYTimes This was because Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government. "He worried that the Court had eliminated all checks on its power by misreading the clear messages of Article III and the eleventh amendment." "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," Kevin R. C. Gutzman

2. The real problem of the judiciary is that judges are humans, individuals who, more often than not, have a need and desire to impose their views.

For Jefferson, judges were there simply to apply the clear and original understanding of the Constitution.

For John Marshall, and others, such as Justice Joseph Story, judges should "see" beyond the written law and use their superior judgment to influence outcomes.

A judge or Justice who cannot show that a decision is tied to the Constitution, should be summarily dismissed.


The basis for said dismissal would be that he or she doesn't understand their job.
As you don't, either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution is the only document that the American people agreed to be governed by.

In it, is the instruction on how to alter it.

It is not done by Liberal judges.

I don't insult....I correctly identify.

How many people signed the constitution? All 4 million of them? No..... Just a few. Did all the people agree to the constitution? Well they could have gone to Canada, mind, most of them couldn't even read the damn thing.

Yes, there are instructions on how to alter it. It isn't by referendum, if you actually read the constitution you'd know how to change the constitution. It's pretty clear.

You insult, don't act like a petulant school kid, you're a petulant adult, and try and act like a bloody adult for once.

"Yes, there are instructions on how to alter it. It isn't by referendum, if you actually read the constitution you'd know how to change the constitution. It's pretty clear."

Earlier I called you a moron.

I was wrong.

You're an imbecile.




The point was that judges have no right to alter the results of referenda unless it the language of the Constitution is infracted.

Not their 'opinion'....the actual Constitution.

I referred to the amendment process. Those are the instructions.
I never said that a referendum could change the Constitution.
Nor can a judges decision.

Both Hamilton and Madison who wrote the bulk of the Federalist papers could not agree with what the constitution actually means on all issues, yet somehow you can?

Wrong again.

.This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Earlier I called you a moron.

I was wrong.

You're an imbecile.




The point was that judges have no right to alter the results of referenda unless it the language of the Constitution is infracted.

Not their 'opinion'....the actual Constitution.

I referred to the amendment process. Those are the instructions.
I never said that a referendum could change the Constitution.
Nor can a judges decision.

Fine, definition of someone who understands how the US constitution works is..... imbecile. Right, got it.

US judges have the right to do this. Why? Because they are the judiciary. ANY law that is passed by any state or federal govt needs to live up to the US CONSTITUTION. If it doesn't, the judiciary has judicial power, which means they can, and do, quite often, pull down laws which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The amendment process is a changing of the constitution. it's very clear what it says.

No, no judge can change the constitution, they can change the interpretation of the constitution only. But a referendum is not a constitutional amendment, it doesn't become an amendment it has nothing to do with the constitution, except that it must, like any law that is passed, abide by the constitution.

Seriously, do you know what you're talking about here?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are absolutely right....it was Zapatero, not Aznar.

Yes, I know, because I was there. Also, I do my homework BEFORE I post, and I don't insult and make a fool of myself.

No sorry? No apology? Going to carry on insulting me? Think I'm still limited huh?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Constitution is the only document that the American people agreed to be governed by.

In it, is the instruction on how to alter it.

It is not done by Liberal judges.

I don't insult....I correctly identify.

Just because you always seem to disagree with the Supreme Court doesn't make them liberals.

The American people by way of the constitution have agreed to abide by all laws ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. There are ways to alter those laws if one disagrees.



"The American people by way of the constitution have agreed to abide by all laws ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court."

Absolutely false.

It was a power grab by Marshall.



1. John Marshall was at odds with Jefferson, who he mocked as "the great Lama of the mountains."(NYTimes This was because Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government. "He worried that the Court had eliminated all checks on its power by misreading the clear messages of Article III and the eleventh amendment." "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," Kevin R. C. Gutzman

2. The real problem of the judiciary is that judges are humans, individuals who, more often than not, have a need and desire to impose their views.

For Jefferson, judges were there simply to apply the clear and original understanding of the Constitution.

For John Marshall, and others, such as Justice Joseph Story, judges should "see" beyond the written law and use their superior judgment to influence outcomes.

A judge or Justice who cannot show that a decision is tied to the Constitution, should be summarily dismissed.


The basis for said dismissal would be that he or she doesn't understand their job.
As you don't, either.

The constitution merely gives the Supreme Court judicial power. It doesn't say what judicial power is. Does it need to? Not really, govt decides what judicial power is seeing as other parts of govt appoint justices, they can have a strong impact on what it means, and seeing as the Supreme Court controls them anyway.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Earlier I called you a moron.

I was wrong.

You're an imbecile.




The point was that judges have no right to alter the results of referenda unless it the language of the Constitution is infracted.

Not their 'opinion'....the actual Constitution.

I referred to the amendment process. Those are the instructions.
I never said that a referendum could change the Constitution.
Nor can a judges decision.

Fine, definition of someone who understands how the US constitution works is..... imbecile. Right, got it.

US judges have the right to do this. Why? Because they are the judiciary. ANY law that is passed by any state or federal govt needs to live up to the US CONSTITUTION. If it doesn't, the judiciary has judicial power, which means they can, and do, quite often, pull down laws which are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The amendment process is a changing of the constitution. it's very clear what it says.

No, no judge can change the constitution, they can change the interpretation of the constitution only. But a referendum is not a constitutional amendment, it doesn't become an amendment it has nothing to do with the constitution, except that it must, like any law that is passed, abide by the constitution.

Seriously, do you know what you're talking about here?

"... they can change the interpretation of the constitution only."

Bogus.

The only way to correctly judge constitutionality is via the actual language of the Constitution....not by imagining things. Liberals do that.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
2. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’ “Originalism,” Steven Calabresi, p. 263.

If a change is necessary...it can only be done via the amendment process.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are absolutely right....it was Zapatero, not Aznar.

Yes, I know, because I was there. Also, I do my homework BEFORE I post, and I don't insult and make a fool of myself.

No sorry? No apology? Going to carry on insulting me? Think I'm still limited huh?

I apologize for that error.....but don't promise not to insult you again.

It's on a case by case basis.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution is the only document that the American people agreed to be governed by.

In it, is the instruction on how to alter it.

It is not done by Liberal judges.

I don't insult....I correctly identify.

Just because you always seem to disagree with the Supreme Court doesn't make them liberals.

The American people by way of the constitution have agreed to abide by all laws ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. There are ways to alter those laws if one disagrees.



"The American people by way of the constitution have agreed to abide by all laws ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court."

Absolutely false.

It was a power grab by Marshall.



1. John Marshall was at odds with Jefferson, who he mocked as "the great Lama of the mountains."(NYTimes This was because Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government. "He worried that the Court had eliminated all checks on its power by misreading the clear messages of Article III and the eleventh amendment." "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," Kevin R. C. Gutzman

2. The real problem of the judiciary is that judges are humans, individuals who, more often than not, have a need and desire to impose their views.

For Jefferson, judges were there simply to apply the clear and original understanding of the Constitution.

For John Marshall, and others, such as Justice Joseph Story, judges should "see" beyond the written law and use their superior judgment to influence outcomes.

A judge or Justice who cannot show that a decision is tied to the Constitution, should be summarily dismissed.


The basis for said dismissal would be that he or she doesn't understand their job.
As you don't, either.

The constitution merely gives the Supreme Court judicial power. It doesn't say what judicial power is. Does it need to? Not really, govt decides what judicial power is seeing as other parts of govt appoint justices, they can have a strong impact on what it means, and seeing as the Supreme Court controls them anyway.....

If you are speaking of the United States Constitution, it requires a capital 'C.'

It simply states that courts will be produced.

I provided Chief Justice Rehnquist's view earlier.

Read it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"... they can change the interpretation of the constitution only."

Bogus.

The only way to correctly judge constitutionality is via the actual language of the Constitution....not by imagining things. Liberals do that.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
2. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’ “Originalism,” Steven Calabresi, p. 263.

If a change is necessary...it can only be done via the amendment process.

You might as well apologise now... get it over with before you make yourself look foolish.

If you look at Supreme Court cases you will see they don't just look at the language of the clause they are looking at. They look at precedent, they look at historical evidence, common law, writings of the founding fathers, even precedent from other countries.

You say if change is necessary, it can only be done via the amendment process. History says this is complete bull.

Brown v. Board of Education managed to stop segregation without an amendment process. In theory the amendment process that stopped segregation was the 14A passed 100 years previously, but the justices didn't give a damn. A reinterpretation took place.
Same with abortion in Roe v. Wade, same with quite a few things. The right to privacy exists because the Supreme Court says it exists, not because the constitution says it exists. Unless of course you can find the term "right to privacy" in the constitution. I can find it in Supreme Court case law and I KNOW the Supreme Court accepts it exists, as with all other branches of state and federal govt.

You're wrong. Simple as.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I apologize for that error.....but don't promise not to insult you again.

It's on a case by case basis.

You don't promise not to insult again because, quite frankly, you use it as a substitute for debate when you can't debate.

Sad, but true. Some would tell you to grow up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you are speaking of the United States Constitution, it requires a capital 'C.'

It simply states that courts will be produced.

I provided Chief Justice Rehnquist's view earlier.

Read it.

So you get all your facts mixed up, and yet you have the tenacity to pick up on a dropped capital letter. Bloody hell.

"courts will be produced"? I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals repeatedly tell whopper lies even after those lies have been pointed out to them, and not some obscure liberals the very leaders in the Democratic party. They lie intentionally, they lie with purpose. To try to excuse that behavior with the "all politicians lie" excuse is pretty lame. I point out a liberal lie and instead of discussing the lie liberals deflect with this everybody lies crap. Hence I have virtually no reason to speak with a liberal let alone negotiate with one or try to reach a compromise. They can all pound sand as far as I'm concerned. When they stop excusing the lies and start holding their own accountable call me, I won't hold my breath though.

Spain 2004. Aznar was Prime Minister, a PP man, Conservative to you and me, Bush arse licker too. Al Qaeda supporters bombed Atocha train station killing hundreds of people. Everyone knew it was al Qaeda. With an election 3 days away, the PP said it was ETA. Even after it was proven conclusively that it was al Qaeda they still said they thought it was ETA, when they clearly knew it wasn't.
Bush, conservative to you an me, said Iraq was about WMDs, we all know it was about oil. You still find plenty of people on here who claim it was for "moral reasons" and that it was because of WMDs or something. Yet we know for a fact that the US govt's foreign policy since the time of Colin Powell's involvement in foreign/military affairs has been one of US interests and nothing else. It was clearly about oil.
Not only that they claimed they had nothing to do with Chavez's socialist govt being subject to a coup d'etat, even when clear evidence of people involved in the coup receiving money from the US govt came to light they still claim it wasn't them. Another OPEC country.

Nothing really changes. These are whopper lies, they have been repeated even when shown to be complete rubbish. These were lies on purpose, intentional. The first to win an election, they lost, because it only took a few days for the truth to come out and the people hammered the right. The 2nd has come out too,.

So......

Personally I don't like either democrats or republicans, but everyone ignores calls for Proportional Representation, or claims they don't even know what it is.

Iraq wasn't about oil, now Libya was about oil SOS Clinton admitted it.

 

[Jroc]

The founders would spit upon todays liberals and their mindless agendas....

Speaking for the founders? Did they really go around spitting on people? Sounds like a conservative thing.

No,we piss on liberal ideology.

Yeah, like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are products of Enlightenment Era Classical Liberalism...which is not at all related to present day Progressive Liberalism.

A liberal is a liberal.....is a liberal

The issues and challenges of each era may change.....but liberals remain the same
Unfortunately, so do conservatives

See what i mean? ...Stupid

 

[Jroc]

No,we piss on liberal ideology.

Yeah, like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are products of Enlightenment Era Classical Liberalism...which is not at all related to present day Progressive Liberalism.

A liberal is a liberal.....is a liberal

The issues and challenges of each era may change.....but liberals remain the same
Unfortunately, so do conservatives

wrong again, Norton. today's liberalism is yesterday's tyranny. Today's liberalism is yesterday's monarchies. today's conservatism if the philosophy of the founders of this great nation--------------freedom and personal responsibility, and an unintrusive federal government.

Conservatives today are the same as conservatives of 200 years ago....same rhetoric, same denial

Conservatives of the day supported the monarchy. The reason is the same as conservatives today.....that is where the money is

Liberals love monarchs still.....

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No,we piss on liberal ideology.

Yeah, like the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are products of Enlightenment Era Classical Liberalism...which is not at all related to present day Progressive Liberalism.

A liberal is a liberal.....is a liberal

The issues and challenges of each era may change.....but liberals remain the same
Unfortunately, so do conservatives

wrong again, Norton. today's liberalism is yesterday's tyranny. Today's liberalism is yesterday's monarchies. today's conservatism if the philosophy of the founders of this great nation--------------freedom and personal responsibility, and an unintrusive federal government.

Conservatives today are the same as conservatives of 200 years ago....same rhetoric, same denial

Conservatives of the day supported the monarchy. The reason is the same as conservatives today.....that is where the money is

Its true that if it were up to conservatives, we would all be speaking with an English accent.

And the same thing is wrong with libs now that has always been wrong with libs -

RWs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why do they hate this great nation?
Why do they strive, not just to "fundamentally transform" it, but to end it??


Seems the very center of Liberalism is to find every wound and apply salt......how often must we hear of the evils of slavery, with hardly a word about the cathartic Civil War, and the monumental efforts Americans have made to amend same?



American history.....to be proud of:

September 13th, 1814 British begin 25 hour bombardment of Fort McHenry, Baltimore, but fail to take fort. A giant 15-stripe flag stitched together by Mary Young Pickersgill waved over the fort. By 1818 the third version of the flag, with 13 stripes, was created. Frances Scott Key wrote Star Spangled Banner honoring the 15-stripe version.(See 3/3) The British Navy had used “mortar vessels,” the mortar placed on the forecastle of an anchored boat, capable of blasting a 196-pound explosive shell four thousand yards in a thirty-second, high-arcing flight. Thus “bombs bursting in air.”



Why would Liberals attack these symbols of America.....such as this from a Liberal historian at a major Ivy League university:



1 "Is It Time to Ditch the Star-Spangled Banner?

2. The Star-Spangled Banner, so often a prelude to our ceremonies for others, finds itself on center stage this weekend as Baltimore, the city of its birth, celebrates the national anthem’s bicentennial.

3. Two hundred years ago, a Maryland-born lawyer, Francis Scott Key, poured out his anxious feelings for the fate of his country. Having witnessed the shelling of Fort McHenry by British forces throughout the night of Sept. 13-14, 1814, Key was elated to see the American flag still flying the next morning.He wrote out four stanzas of a poem titled “Defence of Fort M’Henry,”....

4. ... 18th-century London, where the music was actually composed. Indeed, the invading army that shelled Baltimore that night has nearly as much claim to authorship as the composer, for the tune was likely brought to America by British soldiers at the time of the American Revolution. It has been testing our vocal chords and our eardrums ever since.

5. Indeed, from its murky origins, the song has become so ubiquitous that it’s difficult not to hear it... Its martial strains launch every sporting contest, adding a kind of athletic drama of its own, ....Each performance forces us to relive Key’s emotional trauma ... a kind of musical bombardment that endlessly perpetuates Key’s agony of waiting and watching.




6.... the third stanza is troubling. One line taunts the British for their failure, and specifically calls out “the hireling and slave” who joined the British forces.

7. A deeper study of Key only compounds the problem. .... his position on slavery is impossible to avoid. Key was not only a slave-owner, but he zealously defended the peculiar institution in his legal work, persecuting local journalists who questioned slavery, and even those who possessed anti-slavery writings in their homes.

a. His brother-in-law was Roger Taney, who became chief justice of the Supreme Court and authored the infamous Dred Scott decision, which argued that African-Americans could never be citizens of the United States. Indeed, much of what we know about how Key wrote out “The Star-Spangled Banner” comes from an account Taney published in 1857, the year of Dred Scott.




8. .... the “Star-Spangled Banner” gained currency as the Navy began to play it more officially in the 1890s, in the same decade that the Navy was spearheading the spread of American influence around the world. Its use accelerated in World War I, ...

9. .... is it time to rethink the Star-Spangled Banner?.... the story of Key’s nearness to slavery cannot easily be forgotten, especially in an era that demands more accountability, and offers to tools to find it. Critics over the years—I am hardly the first—have been brutal about the Star-Spangled Banner’s many shortcomings.

a. The New York Herald Tribune dismissed it as “words that nobody can remember [set] to a tune that nobody can sing.” In 1918, a woman named Kitty Cheatham denounced the words as “German propaganda” (because they undermined the Anglo-American alliance), and saw the music as a product of “darkness,” “degeneracy,” and “the carnal mind.” .... the columnist Michael Kinsley has ripped its “empty bravado” and “mindless nonsense about rockets and bombs.”

10. It would take a gigantic effort to remove the “Star-Spangled Banner” from its throne—a throne that becomes a little more entrenched this weekend. But to ask hard questions about entrenched power is an American tradition even older than our attempts to sing this enduringly difficult national song."
Is It Time to Ditch the Star-Spangled Banner - Ted Widmer - POLITICO Magazine



What's next.....the flag itself?

The real question should be "what's right with them"?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Hey bitch, what does your dd214 say? Honorable? Or do you even have one? Mine says honorable. In this day and age you have zero excuse for not serving your nation.

And here is example one of what's wrong with libs.
Any challenge. Any dissent from the narrative. The slightest hint of a different point of view and libs come back with insults.

 

[thereisnospoon]

8 years of saying liberals hate America giftwrapped Obama the Presidency twice in a row. Keep it up you self-righteous assholes.

Here we go again...More name calling.