Jump to content
tanknet.org

The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left


Recommended Posts

What, you're getting all bent out of shape about a little mutability of text? Why the change of heart?

You think you're so clever, yet you can't even spell my handle right. :lol:

 

And I still think, as is always the case in this overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ, that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.

 

 

Do tell us more oh enlightened one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What, you're getting all bent out of shape about a little mutability of text? Why the change of heart?

You think you're so clever, yet you can't even spell my handle right. :lol:

 

I think we should have a vote on what your name should be, since text is so mutable, living constitution stuff ya know. If public use can mean private use and congress's limit on exercise of power means that congress has no limit on what it can do or order us to do, we should be able to vote your name to be spelt

 

GroundStoppre because that's about the same as Skywalkre right? Text and meaning can change and be mutable, so why not names?

 

And I still think, as is always the case in this overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ, that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.

 

We hope so actually. Having a president patently ignore a supreme court decision would be a major challenge for the republic. What, might I ask, would your response be if the president were to ignore such an order and have DHHS continue to execute Obamacare?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What, you're getting all bent out of shape about a little mutability of text? Why the change of heart?

You think you're so clever, yet you can't even spell my handle right. :lol:

 

I think we should have a vote on what your name should be, since text is so mutable, living constitution stuff ya know. If public use can mean private use and congress's limit on exercise of power means that congress has no limit on what it can do or order us to do, we should be able to vote your name to be spelt

 

GroundStoppre because that's about the same as Skywalkre right? Text and meaning can change and be mutable, so why not names?

 

And I still think, as is always the case in this overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ, that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.

 

We hope so actually. Having a president patently ignore a supreme court decision would be a major challenge for the republic. What, might I ask, would your response be if the president were to ignore such an order and have DHHS continue to execute Obamacare?

 

Hell, he's ignored everything else, why should he start paying attention now?

 

If you start enumerating the number of things that have served as restraints on executive power that this administration has either bypassed or ignored, without general public outrage or condemnation, we'd be here all day. Congress has surrendered so much authority to the Executive that it's not even funny--Why shouldn't the Judiciary?

 

I mean it--Where in that rotting mass of legislation commonly called Obamacare is there even the authority for Sebelius to grant these waivers she's been handing out like popcorn to the administration's favored entities? Congress hasn't whimpered a word of protest, either--They already gave away their power and authority to write the laws when they told the Executive to go ahead and do the real work through the bureaucrats and the regulations written by the agencies. Has Congress said one word about all the "Czars" established by this administration, totally bypassing Congress's obligation and right to review the appointees of the Executive branch?

 

Let's face it: Our representational form of government is in the process of dying out due to apathy and the way that Congress has been abdicating its responsibilities and duties under the Constitution. It didn't start with this administration, but it sure as hell applied some JATO rockets and hit the "accelerate" button.

 

Meanwhile, Congress continues to worry about trivia and their own paychecks. If they don't get off their asses soon, and start doing the things required of them by the Constitution, the Republic is dead in short order, probably a generation or two. People used to call Nixon's term the "Imperial Presidency". Don't look now, but Obama's gotten away with bloody murder, compared to him.

Edited by thekirk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats "Jew Cash Money Team"

The Democratic Party’s newly appointed Jewish outreach liaison is pictured on Facebook in a series of provocative photos with her friends holding dollar bills and referring to themselves as “Jewbags” and the “Jew cash money team.”

Dani Gilbert, who has been a staffer in the office of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), was recently appointed as the Democratic National Committee’s Jewish outreach liaison, according to her Twitter feed.

Photos publicly available on her Facebook page depict her engaged in the kind of youthful displays that social media like Facebook and Twitter have made increasingly common and problematic for young Washington staffers.

In one photo, Gilbert is seen kissing paper currency of undetermined denomination. The caption at the bottom of the photo reads “JEWBAGS.” A comment left on the posting refers to Gilbert and a coterie of female companions as the “Jew cash money team.” Other photos depict Gilbert as a bit of a party girl, including one featuring an assortment of condoms.

 

http://freebeacon.co...ash-money-team/

Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of years ago, I was involved in a TN discussion with French member Durandal. For some reason, I spelled his name Durandel (not intentionally meaning to make an error) and I did this several times. So, in response, he started addressing me as Rockel. The point was made and I was more careful about it from then on.

 

If Skywalkre wants to spell his moniker that way, so be it and nobody should call him on it. I'll not be a part of this thread or similar political, hothead threads. But, arguing over the spelling of a member's chosen name is beyond ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I still think, as is always the case in this overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ, that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.

Like the unlikely scenario of marching an entire class of people off to concentration camps? Done at the behest of the "greatest" president of the 20th C. no less. Oh damn, that isn't to be spoken about in mixed company.

 

BTW, good prejorative there. Any broad painting of racism you would like to include on your palette?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of years ago, I was involved in a TN discussion with French member Durandal. For some reason, I spelled his name Durandel (not intentionally meaning to make an error) and I did this several times. So, in response, he started addressing me as Rockel. The point was made and I was more careful about it from then on.

 

If Skywalkre wants to spell his moniker that way, so be it and nobody should call him on it. I'll not be a part of this thread or similar political, hothead threads. But, arguing over the spelling of a member's chosen name is beyond ridiculous.

 

The point I was making was not about the spelling of a name, but of the interpretation of text and how it's meaning should be respected and not changed just because it's convenient politically. What is at issue is how the interpretation of the Constitution and it's limits on government and how those clearly stated limits in black and white are wildly distorted so as to mean nothing at all (Art I Sec 8) or precisely the opposite of what it clearly says (takings clause). If law, especially Constitutional law is mutable and constantly drifting in meaning and direction, why not names?

 

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

Link to post
Share on other sites

If law, especially Constitutional law is mutable and constantly drifting in meaning and direction, why not names?

 

Ryan - that has been going on since both you and I have been alive with lots of things . . . with law, with interpretation of law, with the American English Language dialect, with music, with art, with architecture, with medicine, with science etc. I just found out (and very recently, I might add) that banging the drum about the constant changing of the things we are familiar with doesn't change those things back to the familiar. Banging that drum only gives everybody a headache.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If law, especially Constitutional law is mutable and constantly drifting in meaning and direction, why not names?

 

Ryan - that has been going on since both you and I have been alive with lots of things . . . with law, with interpretation of law, with the American English Language dialect, with music, with art, with architecture, with medicine, with science etc. I just found out (and very recently, I might add) that banging the drum about the constant changing of the things we are familiar with doesn't change those things back to the familiar. Banging that drum only gives everybody a headache.

 

Were noone to bang that drum and talking about it, we'd not have had the Heller decision in DC, because the standing view would be that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says, but rather what DC politicians WANT it to mean, ie nothing.

 

Law isn't meant to change meaning because of language drift. Law is meant to be changed because you change the law within the scope of the mechanisms laid out for it. Simply calling a spade a fork doesn't make it a spade any more than it make it a spoon. More so, language drift doesn't mean that people means something else entirely. We have this problem because too many people don't talk about it or bang the drums as it were.

 

I will also point out that this is exactly what this thread is about. Insane rationalizations of the left, to whit, a limited government is in effect an unlimited government because law makers have chosen to patently ignore the legal limitations on the power that they may exercise.

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

...that you all are worrying way too much over highly unlikely scenarios.

 

Civil war was highly unlikely scenario in minds of the most people living round here in '50/60/70s/early '80s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A number of years ago, I was involved in a TN discussion with French member Durandal. For some reason, I spelled his name Durandel (not intentionally meaning to make an error) and I did this several times. So, in response, he started addressing me as Rockel. The point was made and I was more careful about it from then on.

 

If Skywalkre wants to spell his moniker that way, so be it and nobody should call him on it. I'll not be a part of this thread or similar political, hothead threads. But, arguing over the spelling of a member's chosen name is beyond ridiculous.

 

Especially if it allows him to change the subject away from " overly-right-wing-extremist-circlejerk-that-is-the-FFZ,..." ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil war was highly unlikely scenario in minds of the most people living round here in '50/60/70s/early '80s.

Indeed. In 1988, who foresaw the events that would unfold in 1989? I spent the Christmas season of 1988 slogging through the snow and mud of the Inner German Border. Little did I realize that just a short year later I would be dodging little Trabbies on the autobahn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were noone to bang that drum and talking about it, we'd not have had the Heller decision in DC, because the standing view would be that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says, but rather what DC politicians WANT it to mean, ie nothing.

 

Law isn't meant to change meaning because of language drift. Law is meant to be changed because you change the law within the scope of the mechanisms laid out for it. Simply calling a spade a fork doesn't make it a spade any more than it make it a spoon. More so, language drift doesn't mean that people means something else entirely. We have this problem because too many people don't talk about it or bang the drums as it were.

 

I will also point out that this is exactly what this thread is about. Insane rationalizations of the left, to whit, a limited government is in effect an unlimited government because law makers have chosen to patently ignore the legal limitations on the power that they may exercise.

 

Legislating or changing (redefining) legislation from the judge's bench has been a problem for the past 50 years. Unless specific restrictions are placed upon the Judiciary Branch (such as making decisions based upon the letter of the law, rather than making decisions using their own loose, personal interpretations of the letter of the law), it will not change in any of our lifetimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Volumes of books have been written about the title of this thread. A few from current and former liberals are: Tammy Bruce--has written at least two books about this. Bernard Godberg's classic--"Bias." This book should be required reading for any Journalism student. David Horowitz--several books. Don't know if the following were/are liberals. Rev. Jesse Peterson--"Scam" A Black preacher's truth about the current NAACP and it's ilk, Peter Schweizer's "Do as I Say, Not as I Do." Accurate profiles on the plethera of liberal hypocrisy. Charles Syke's "Dumbing Down Our Kids." Title says it all.

Edited by Rick
Link to post
Share on other sites

Marion Barry: 'We’ve Got To Do Something About Asians' And Their 'Dirty Shops'

 

While celebrating his Democratic primary victory Tuesday night, D.C. Councilman Marion Barry delivered a remark critical of Asian business owners.

 

“We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops,” Barry said. “They ought to go. I’m going to say that right now. But we need African-American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too.”

 

http://www.breitbart...ut-Dirty-Asians

Link to post
Share on other sites

People and governments will get away with what we allow them to get away with. It's our job to not let them get away with it. That usually entails beating the figurative drum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People and governments will get away with what we allow them to get away with. It's our job to not let them get away with it. That usually entails beating the figurative drum.

 

The point is, Jeff, that once a judge legislates from the bench, it is almost forever etched in stone from that point forward. You and I and everybody can bellyache about it all we want for as long as we want, but it beyond change once it is done. Congress can't change it back and the President can't change it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is, Jeff, that once a judge legislates from the bench, it is almost forever etched in stone from that point forward. You and I and everybody can bellyache about it all we want for as long as we want, but it beyond change once it is done. Congress can't change it back and the President can't change it back.

Sure they can, and they have, either by showing SCOTUS the error of their ways such that SCOTUS overturns themselves, or through the amendment process, or by writing laws so they pass judicial review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...