NewYorker Mag "Is it time to torch the constitution?" [Archive] - Debate Policy

Kathianne

10-01-2024, 06:31 AM

This is what the left refuses to get, the solution is Federalism and it's the underlying principle of the Constitution:

https://hotair.com/stephen-moore/2024/10/01/can-we-all-get-along-n3795228

Can We All Get Along?

Stephen Moore (https://hotair.com/author/stephen-moore) 2:00 AM | October 01, 2024

https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/2024/254/b627f7c7-fb0a-4a12-9b73-992ecd0ffce1-1052x615.jpgAP Photo/Alex Brandon

At the time of this writing, the outcome of the presidential race is pretty close to being a coin flip. So what I write is not in any way influenced by who will win in November, since that is unknowable.

What is a virtual certainty is that on Nov. 6 roughly half the country will be full of joy, and the other half will be in a deep depression likely to last throughout the next four years.
Don't be surprised if the anger and despair of the losing party spills over into prolonged violent protests -- especially in the streets of the major cities. Politics in America is now -- regrettably -- a contact sport.

Whoever wins, America will be further ripped down its seams. Red- and blue-state America will even be more polarized. Don't be surprised if half the country is near rebellion against the policies of either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.

Patronizing speeches by the victor about being president of "all the people" and promises to "unite" will only pour salt in the wounds of the losing side. The Left will detest the Trump agenda. The Right will fight against every element of the Harris agenda. It will feel like an occupation for the 49% on the losing side.

We need to accept the unhappy reality that we are today the Disunited States of America. The U.S. is ideologically, culturally, economically more polarized than perhaps any time since the Civil War. The conservative half of the country is on Venus and the liberal half is on mars. Yes, there is a moderate/middle section -- but the tails have grown more populated and influential.

We see in polls that more and more Americans don't even want to associate with those with different political views. We are also becoming more geographically segregated -- not on the basis of race or ethnicity or income but on ideology. Red states are getting redder. Blue states are getting bluer. In recent years, an estimated two million Republicans have moved out of states like New York for states like Florida, Texas and the Carolinas.

Given these realities, is there a way for us to "all get along"?

Fortunately, yes. There is a logical way to keep America "united" as one nation and to avert chaos and mayhem. Fortunately, this solution is entirely consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For those who have forgotten, the 10th Amendment decrees that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to "the states and the people."

We need a radical return to federalism. We need to devolve powers back to the states.

We as citizens of all states are, of course, united by a common national defense, the commerce clause, which made America the largest and most prosperous free-trade zone in world history, and most importantly our inalienable rights as citizens as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A state, for example, does not have the right to pass laws that would violate a citizen's right to free speech or peaceful assembly, or to discriminate against citizens on the basis of skin color or gender.

But given the schisms in society, most everything else is better decided at the state -- not the federal -- level. Issues related to transportation, taxation, education, environment, energy and business regulation belong to the states. Americans are then able to escape from policies they view as oppressive by moving to a state that conforms with their values and lifestyle decisions.

People in Mississippi or Utah have no problem with Californians charging a 13.3% income tax rate, enacting forced union policies, providing free health care to illegal immigrants, shutting down their power plants, abolishing gas stoves or plastic bags, or providing reparation payments to aggrieved groups.

New Yorkers shouldn't mind if Texans impose no income tax, allow people to drive 75 miles an hour down the highways or regulate how cattle are bred.

What residents in red states like Montana and South Carolina object to is New Yorkers telling them how to live their lives.

We can under this framework have Harris policies prevail in blue states and Trump policies prevail in red states, and everyone goes away happy.

No harm, no foul.

Again, the federal government is still responsible for protecting the civil liberties and "inalienable rights" of ALL residents of the United States. There would be no bringing back Jim Crow laws.

Alas, this framework is exactly the opposite of what Democrats seek. If you examine the Biden and Harris agendas, the Dems are determined to FEDERALIZE nearly all policies, which forces all Americans in every state to live under the same sets of laws and policies. They want to nationalize union policies, environmental policies, energy policies, welfare policies, taxation and so on. They want to de facto toss out the ninth and 10th amendments altogether.

This inevitably leads to the tyranny of the majority, which now and after November will be a razor-thin majority dictating policies on all Americans. This tyranny will be even greater felt if either a victorious GOP or the Democrats overturn the filibuster rule of 60 votes to muscle sweeping legislation out of the Senate.

Amazing that some 250 years ago our Founding Fathers had exactly the right vision for keeping America united in 2024 and beyond.

Stephen Moore is a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He is also an economic advisor to the Trump campaign. His new book, coauthored with Arthur Laffer, is "The Trump Economic Miracle."

fj1200

10-01-2024, 06:56 AM

Exactly. Just because it's easy to find someone who wants to yeah it doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and ignore the situation.

I'm glad the DS is showing their hand. This kind of shit is waking up the masses and there's cgoing to be a lot of people running around with their hair on fire.

Nobody is shrugging it off. Some folks are considering voting for a buffoonish, narcissistic, man-child who has his own issues with constitutional integrity in the hopes that the traditionally small-government, Constitution-adhering party won't let him fall to his base desires.

revelarts

10-01-2024, 09:38 AM

Nobody is shrugging it off. Some folks are considering voting for a buffoonish, narcissistic, man-child who has his own issues with constitutional integrity in the hopes that the traditionally small-government, Constitution-adhering party won't let him fall to his base desires.

We could have had more adult constitution friendly candidates over the past 20 years, but most republicans & conservatives didn't/don't want that really.
If Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Ron Paul, John Adams, James Madison or George Washington were running I suspect there'd still be complaints about "extremist" or "populist" or the OH so vital personality Issues. + George Washington is not a "true" republican.

They want pro-constitution TALKERS who look respectable even as they piss on the constitution & keep the establishment status quo & a facade of order, while working for more war, corporations and less personal & national sovereignty.
Establishment scum bags who make excuses that republicans & conservatives swallow like milk as these respectable politicians whittle away their rights.
Brainwashing them to the point where they deny many (any?) rights are "really" being taken. And are shocked, confused & angered by those who point out the layers of clearly unconstitutional (& corrupt) moves that the "right" makes (has made) under the excuses of "safety", commerce and national/military strength.

All the while these conservatives seem FAR more concerned about having polite adult politics than wether or not the constitution is in any danger.
All their emotion is pointed at the personalities they dont like. With pearl clutching at how things are said rather than what's been said and done.
Unable to get past, or see beyond, their desire for proper decorum even while the floor is being pulled out from under their feet.

The mentality where if firemen show up at a house with smoke coming out of it & scream
"Hey! The house is on fire! let's get a water hose! Everyone get out, NOW!"
And the reply of the people inside is "I dont like his/her tone! So I can't take them seriously. Why can't we get proper firemen who shave & know how to speak to people? & I'm not minimizing the fire but the fire isn't that bad."
The mentality is tragic & weird.

When i was a kid I use to think that this kind of POV was just something made up in the movies for dramatic effect.
You know, where the lone scientist, official &/or Crackpot WHO IS RIGHT is ignored by the regular sensible folks because... they're sensible... & know better than the outlier who wants to do "EXTREME" things to secure the family/area/world.
The sensible folks know better... until their kid is eaten by the shark, they freeze to death or the flood/fire/quake/enemy gets to them ...pretty much like the weird uncouth 'hair on fire' people who 'no one should listen to seriously' said.

Sad thing is, real life is too often just like that.

But hey, FJ I'd love to see a list of "proper" candidates who we can count on to move back towards constitutional limits... I'd LOVE to see them. please point them out.
If that's what you really want?
Instead of candidates who PRIMARILY have proper social skills, adult personalities, who are sensible, who don't rock the boat (especially for corporations) & have a clear record of speaking well about the constitution from time to time. Because the constitution, rights and sovereignty are not really in any danger as long as enough politicians speak well of it. Sensible people know this.

fj1200

10-01-2024, 09:59 AM

We could have had more adult constitution friendly candidates over the past 20 years, but most republicans & conservatives didn't/don't want that really.

...

But hey, FJ I'd love to see a list of "proper" candidates who we can count on to move back towards constitutional limits... I'd LOVE to see them. please point them out.
If that's what you really want?

I don't really know what you want here. We could have had a lot of things. If you're right and "most" don't want that then we take what we can get and not be surprised when nobody is left to defend the Constitution. If most don't want that then there are no candidates that we can count on and all we can do is vote for the ones that come along. After that we can hope the Overton Window shifts where those candidates are there or window shifting candidates come along which would be preferred. As for today I can tell you/agree with you that most of the Republican presidential primary and caucus voters don't really give a whit about it because... well, see my previous post.

revelarts

10-02-2024, 04:48 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXqaE7IakAAnSji?format=jpg&name=small

Gunny

10-02-2024, 05:13 PM

We could have had more adult constitution friendly candidates over the past 20 years, but most republicans & conservatives didn't/don't want that really.
If Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Ron Paul, John Adams, James Madison or George Washington were running I suspect there'd still be complaints about "extremist" or "populist" or the OH so vital personality Issues. + George Washington is not a "true" republican.

They want pro-constitution TALKERS who look respectable even as they piss on the constitution & keep the establishment status quo & a facade of order, while working for more war, corporations and less personal & national sovereignty.
Establishment scum bags who make excuses that republicans & conservatives swallow like milk as these respectable politicians whittle away their rights.
Brainwashing them to the point where they deny many (any?) rights are "really" being taken. And are shocked, confused & angered by those who point out the layers of clearly unconstitutional (& corrupt) moves that the "right" makes (has made) under the excuses of "safety", commerce and national/military strength.

All the while these conservatives seem FAR more concerned about having polite adult politics than wether or not the constitution is in any danger.
All their emotion is pointed at the personalities they dont like. With pearl clutching at how things are said rather than what's been said and done.
Unable to get past, or see beyond, their desire for proper decorum even while the floor is being pulled out from under their feet.

The mentality where if firemen show up at a house with smoke coming out of it & scream
"Hey! The house is on fire! let's get a water hose! Everyone get out, NOW!"
And the reply of the people inside is "I dont like his/her tone! So I can't take them seriously. Why can't we get proper firemen who shave & know how to speak to people? & I'm not minimizing the fire but the fire isn't that bad."
The mentality is tragic & weird.

When i was a kid I use to think that this kind of POV was just something made up in the movies for dramatic effect.
You know, where the lone scientist, official &/or Crackpot WHO IS RIGHT is ignored by the regular sensible folks because... they're sensible... & know better than the outlier who wants to do "EXTREME" things to secure the family/area/world.
The sensible folks know better... until their kid is eaten by the shark, they freeze to death or the flood/fire/quake/enemy gets to them ...pretty much like the weird uncouth 'hair on fire' people who 'no one should listen to seriously' said.

Sad thing is, real life is too often just like that.

But hey, FJ I'd love to see a list of "proper" candidates who we can count on to move back towards constitutional limits... I'd LOVE to see them. please point them out.
If that's what you really want?
Instead of candidates who PRIMARILY have proper social skills, adult personalities, who are sensible, who don't rock the boat (especially for corporations) & have a clear record of speaking well about the constitution from time to time. Because the constitution, rights and sovereignty are not really in any danger as long as enough politicians speak well of it. Sensible people know this.

We could have had more adult constitution friendly candidates over the past 20 years, but most republicans & conservatives didn't/don't want that really.Not even you and/or most anyone else. THAT is the problem. You want what YOU call a conservative by your definition.

Inherent to those who put individual/personal liberty above all things is a herd of cats. And it shows.

fj1200

10-02-2024, 08:12 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXqaE7IakAAnSji?format=jpg&name=small

Problem solved with a meme. :slowclap: It would be the first time.

SassyLady

10-02-2024, 09:59 PM

Problem solved with a meme. :slowclap: It would be the first time.

Memes are powerful images that convey what's going on in our culture these days. You really should get on board fj.

revelarts

10-02-2024, 11:08 PM

Problem solved with a meme. :slowclap: It would be the first time.

Right here's the problem I outlined.

You're far more concerned about HOW the idea is presented than the IDEAS presented themselves.
Focused on the Form, Pitch & moan about it... but completely ignore content.

revelarts

10-02-2024, 11:13 PM

Not even you and/or most anyone else. THAT is the problem. You want what YOU call a conservative by your definition.

Inherent to those who put individual/personal liberty above all things is a herd of cats. And it shows.

Gunny, if you put the constitution beside Ron Pauls proposals and record, then beside Mitt Romneys or George Bush's or Donald Trump's who's policies would align more closely in your view?
If we're being honest we know the answer.

The constition and Politician's proposed and actual policy records are not Cloudy amorphous things.
The words of the constitution have meaning, & it's not written in legalese. We don't have to be scholars to get the main points.
That's why they want to TORCH IT.

fj1200

10-03-2024, 01:08 PM

Memes are powerful images that convey what's going on in our culture these days. You really should get on board fj.

Memes are the domain of the simple-minded, those with questionable arguments, and/or those who are unable to express effective arguments. Their only service is to validate those who already agree with the sentiment. I'm glad they work for you but my previous statement is fact; it would be the first time. :)

Right here's the problem I outlined.

You're far more concerned about HOW the idea is presented than the IDEAS presented themselves.
Focused on the Form, Pitch & moan about it... but completely ignore content.

Incorrect. It won't change anyone's mind (see above) and nobody here disagrees with the sentiment anyway. What I'm concerned with is effective arguments that have a chance in hades of changing anyone's mind.

Gunny

10-03-2024, 07:02 PM

Gunny, if you put the constitution beside Ron Pauls proposals and record, then beside Mitt Romneys or George Bush's or Donald Trump's who's policies would align more closely in your view?
If we're being honest we know the answer.

The constition and Politician's proposed and actual policy records are not Cloudy amorphous things.
The words of the constitution have meaning, & it's not written in legalese. We don't have to be scholars to get the main points.
That's why they want to TORCH IT.

The US Constitution, like all law, is open for interpretation. That is why we have a judiciary that rules based on juris preudence. I will go as far as agreeing that the law and its intent aren't that hard to understand, but our agreement ends there and I default to my previous post. You believe in your interpretation of the Constitution. Just like everybody else does.

Nobody on your list is/was a strict Constitutionalist. No one is. Ron Paul is an isloationist. Isolationism will doom whatever the Hell is left of this nation. That's every bit as dangerous as warmongering. It's a slow, painful death rather than a quick one.

revelarts

10-03-2024, 10:11 PM

Memes are the domain of the simple-minded, those with questionable arguments, and/or those who are unable to express effective arguments. Their only service is to validate those who already agree with the sentiment. I'm glad they work for you but my previous statement is fact; it would be the first time. :)

:rolleyes:
Memes are short & if done well, biting comedy truth, which has always been a magnificent tool against haughty oppressive bureaucratic BS.

You're far more concerned about HOW the idea is presented than the IDEAS presented themselves.
Focused on the Form, Pitch & moan about it... but completely ignore content.
Incorrect.

nope, i'm correct.
What I posted wasn't even a "Meme" it was a quote from Thomas Sowell, who's far from simple minded.
And the quote, with or without his picture, is still just as true.
It's your simple minded & incorrect POV that somehow automatically gets bent when you see an image with text.
Seems You say "meme!"... and don't/can't THINK anymore.

It won't change anyone's mind (see above)

If i thought what i post here had to change people's mind i'd have left YEARS ago.
Sometime things are posted just so others are AWARE of how other people think about an issue.
& or planting seeds and letting people know information they may not be aware of.

...and nobody here disagrees with the sentiment anyway. ...
It's reality, not a sentiment. they're a statement of reality. a reality that some folks seem to minimize.
If not outright dismiss. At the least, from your replies one can only conclude that you think the "sentiment" is overblown and there's not much to be concerned about. no one's hair should be on fire. the real problems people need to focus our rhetorical debating guns on are MEMES, proper decorum, political civility and getting more money to afg..Iraq... Ukraine & Israel!. those are worth some emotion and serious focus.
But the constitution tut tut no need to get worked up about it... it's a populist concern not a problem, "subject to interpretation" ANYWAY, and not a "real" republican issue.
At least that's how you come across to me FJ.

fj1200

10-03-2024, 10:25 PM

fj1200

10-04-2024, 07:37 AM

As the dialectical method is to the ancient Greeks, the meme is to the modern day populists.

revelarts

10-04-2024, 08:58 AM

^I know it's a quote. Memes, pictures with quotes, whatever... will not ever change a mind. Sowell's brilliance, and others, is minimized when it's attempted to be boiled down to a quote. People will not change their mind until they are led through the logic of why they are wrong and that is not going to happen with quips. I will beg to be wrong and be shown how a quote from Sowell has led someone down the correct path.

Ok sorry to be harsh but C'mon, look FJ, seem to me your standards have set folks up for failure in the changing minds dept.

You complain that a few quotes wont work, Ok maybe, but then you also
complain that a "laundry list" of facts and logic is too much... and too far reaching in scope.
That links, articles & studies can never really be conclusive,
That videos are not worth watching,
That some media sources have gone bad, and others are unknown so those are rejected as too bias to take ANY facts or info from.
That asking "rhetorical" questions is bothersome.
You've even complained when i pointed out and quoted information from books that you haven't read and say you'll never read them!

I'd really like to know FJ
what specific sources & presentation formats for logical rational info do you think are the RIGHT way for people to get it?
That will help people "change their minds"?
Because it really seems you only want to accept information & logic that agrees with your current POVs... no matter how it's presented.

Seems to me, all anyone can do is present info in logical short statements or various longer forms.
What people do with it AFTER it's presented is on them.

As i've said, the FORMATS & Sources are window dressing. There are scientist who've had their minds changed and spurred by comicbooks & bad sci-fi-TV. Children can say a few words that inform or inspire and change adults.
True information and concepts can come in any form and many sources,
Like water from a paper cup with a clown on it in the street or water in golden goblet in a fine restaurant, If people are wise enough to drink it they're better off for it either way. Good Water is good water

here's a story.
Man gets on a subway train with 2 little kids and slumps in a seat puts his chin on his chest closes his eyes.
the kids run around the car like wild things hitting, bumping, grabbing, yelling etc..
The whole car is upset, a woman says to the man "Can you get control of your kids, please?".
The man raises his head & says , "oh I'm sorry, We just came from the hospital. Their mom just died, I dont know what to do, how to act right now, i guess they don't ethier."
A few women grab the kids and start to comfort them.
Every mind in the car is changed about the man & his kids.

With ONE statement.
New info can change minds even in short forms.
just sayin'

Kathianne

10-04-2024, 09:19 AM

Ok sorry to be harsh but C'mon, look FJ, seem to me your standards have set folks up for failure in the changing minds dept.

You complain that a few quotes wont work, Ok maybe, but then you also
complain that a "laundry list" of facts and logic is too much... and too far reaching in scope.
That links, articles & studies can never really be conclusive,
That videos are not worth watching,
That some media sources have gone bad, and others are unknown so those are rejected as too bias to take ANY facts or info from.
That asking "rhetorical" questions is bothersome.
You've even complained when i pointed out and quoted information from books that you haven't read and say you'll never read them!

I'd really like to know FJ
what specific sources & presentation formats for logical rational info do you think are the RIGHT way for people to get it?
That will help people "change their minds"?
Because it really seems you only want to accept information & logic that agrees with your current POVs... no matter how it's presented.

Seems to me, all anyone can do is present info in logical short statements or various longer forms.
What people do with it AFTER it's presented is on them.

As i've said, the FORMATS & Sources are window dressing. There are scientist who've had their minds changed and spurred by comicbooks & bad sci-fi-TV. Children can say a few words that inform or inspire and change adults.
True information and concepts can come in any form and many sources,
Like water from a paper cup with a clown on it in the street or water in golden goblet in a fine restaurant, If people are wise enough to drink it they're better off for it either way. Good Water is good water

here's a story.
Man gets on a subway train with 2 little kids and slumps in a seat puts his chin on his chest closes his eyes.
the kids run around the car like wild things hitting, bumping, grabbing, yelling etc..
The whole car is upset, a woman says to the man "Can you get control of your kids, please?".
The man raises his head & says , "oh I'm sorry, We just came from the hospital. Their mom just died, I dont know what to do, how to act right now, i guess they don't ethier."
A few women grab the kids and start to comfort them.
Every minds in the car is changed about the man & his kids.

With ONE statement.
New info can change minds even in short forms.
just sayin'

I've heard the 'story' many times and that point is direct and easy to understand. The problem is, the in person human empathy possible. That's not true in meme's or in short quotes.

Now I doubt there are many that have used quotes more than myself over the years. For a long time I tended to quote in whole what I considered most important, for the very reason fj stated.

Then for both 'fair use' reasons and ease, I went to short blurbs with some comment.

Now at work I just put up links, for the simple reason it's just too hard to copy and past from my phone.

At home though? I want at minimum the ideas someone wants me to glean from the links they are posting, especially when there are many. I find myself on topics directly related to election to using the whole post-though things from X, sometimes the most important items are not available if the links are not followed.

In any case, that has been my experience.

fj1200

10-04-2024, 01:07 PM

Ok sorry to be harsh but C'mon, look FJ, seem to me your standards have set folks up for failure in the changing minds dept.

You complain that a few quotes wont work, Ok maybe, but then you also
complain that a "laundry list" of facts and logic is too much... and too far reaching in scope.
That links, articles & studies can never really be conclusive,
That videos are not worth watching,
That some media sources have gone bad, and others are unknown so those are rejected as too bias to take ANY facts or info from.
That asking "rhetorical" questions is bothersome.
You've even complained when i pointed out and quoted information from books that you haven't read and say you'll never read them!

I'd really like to know FJ
what specific sources & presentation formats for logical rational info do you think are the RIGHT way for people to get it?
That will help people "change their minds"?
Because it really seems you only want to accept information & logic that agrees with your current POVs... no matter how it's presented.

Seems to me, all anyone can do is present info in logical short statements or various longer forms.
What people do with it AFTER it's presented is on them.

As i've said, the FORMATS & Sources are window dressing. There are scientist who've had their minds changed and spurred by comicbooks & bad sci-fi-TV. Children can say a few words that inform or inspire and change adults.
True information and concepts can come in any form and many sources,
Like water from a paper cup with a clown on it in the street or water in golden goblet in a fine restaurant, If people are wise enough to drink it they're better off for it either way. Good Water is good water

here's a story.
Man gets on a subway train with 2 little kids and slumps in a seat puts his chin on his chest closes his eyes.
the kids run around the car like wild things hitting, bumping, grabbing, yelling etc..
The whole car is upset, a woman says to the man "Can you get control of your kids, please?".
The man raises his head & says , "oh I'm sorry, We just came from the hospital. Their mom just died, I dont know what to do, how to act right now, i guess they don't ethier."
A few women grab the kids and start to comfort them.
Every mind in the car is changed about the man & his kids.

With ONE statement.
New info can change minds even in short forms.
just sayin'

Point of order; you don't post laundry lists of facts and logic. You post laundry lists of your current bevy of complaints as though they are relevant to whatever is being discussed at the time. And yes, my standards are high because my standard when discussing issues is what will actually cause a reconsideration of someone's beliefs and/or viewpoints.

Videos without verifiable back up aren't worth watching (looking at you rumble :rolleyes: )
Studies without independent variable are by definition not conclusive.
Articles may or may not be relevant, worth the read, or actually are relevant to the point you are making.
And no, I'm not going to read a book about pre-WWII IBM activities as though they are relevant to what's going on today.
You presenting something as "interesting" is also not to be taken seriously because you make no comment.

If you want to change someone's mind you need to understand what they think, why they think it, how they came to that conclusion, etc. before you can address the actual issues. If I'm talking to a proponent of protectionism then I'll provide studies, logic, stories, etc. on why protectionism is not the way forward. I'm guessing even comic book of why protectionism is a failed policy would not be accepted by AHZ even if it was the most brilliant form of argument ever made because he was either Russian or paid by Russians is my guess.

And your story? The meme would be what the guy said. It would not contain any of the other information that sets the context. Memes have zero context. Anything Sowell says? Probably brilliant but a quote without knowledge of Hillary Clinton suggesting jailing those spreading "disinformation" and Tim Wallz suggesting that government has the authority to regulate speech, hate speech or otherwise, is lacking in context.

New information in context can change minds. Memes are not new information in context.

Gunny

10-04-2024, 05:09 PM

So, my point regarding torching the US Constitution is I'm against it. I'm against those who want to for the reason I stated before that can be expanded to include anyone's self-serving BS. None of these people want better. They want to destroy what is there. It's always been their goal. It is progressive left that has torn down any norms we've ever had. Whatever the norm, it has to go.

They've been wanting the Constitution every time it inconveniences them.

At the same time, I'm not in love the US Constitution. It has its flaws. The most glaring one to me being it does not provide for its own defense. It is literally being used to destroy everything it stands for.

I'm also not a literal conservative to point of no change ever. That's ridiculous. Change is a constant. Evolve or die. That's how life works. I've also found most "strict Constitutionalists' to cherry pick like the rest. That isn't any better than current government doing it.

Kathianne

10-04-2024, 05:42 PM

Gunny

10-04-2024, 06:01 PM

I don't share your concerns in the Constitution. However, what is now being done regarding government is operating outside of the Constitution, including trying to neuter the SCOTUS, so the last check is gone. The safeguards are there, they are being trashed.I agree with that. Don't recall how many times I've said much the same.

I'm not talking about doing away with the Constitution. This is how I see it: when they come up wit something better, call me. Otherwise, I have seen nothing that comes close that will work.

As far as government operating outside the Constitution goes, the concern IS the same, just worded different. Using it to destroy itself is stating the same.

Gunny

10-04-2024, 06:06 PM

I don't share your concerns in the Constitution. However, what is now being done regarding government is operating outside of the Constitution, including trying to neuter the SCOTUS, so the last check is gone. The safeguards are there, they are being trashed.

The concern is the same. Just worded differently. Operating outside the Constitution/using it to destroy itself is the same concern, IMO.

I'm not for doing away with the Constitution. To get me to that point one would have to present something better. With current people and mindset? Not seeing that happen. If and/or when this goes? There will be war and we won't have to leave the country to find it.

Getting government back within the nature and scope of the Constitution would be nice. Curent government is a mockery of what it is supposed to be.

Gunny

10-04-2024, 06:09 PM

I am having serious internet issues. That's why two responses. I thought I'd lost the first because it timed me out. Definitely getting on my nerves. Been like this for the past couple of days.

Kathianne

10-04-2024, 06:18 PM

I am having serious internet issues. That's why two responses. I thought I'd lost the first because it timed me out. Definitely getting on my nerves. Been like this for the past couple of days.

I thought you were avoiding me. :laugh2:

Gunny

10-05-2024, 10:15 AM

I thought you were avoiding me. :laugh2:Nope. Busy week. You should know. Turning 65 in a couple of months comes with paperwork:rolleyes: Most concerned with ensuring all t's are crossed and i's dotted on medical insurance so I don't get blind-side screwed. Seems very straight forward. Which is exactly why I don't trust it:laugh:

Meantime, not sure on the internet. Still a new development (where we live) with people moving in and finish workers here and there. Wouldn't surprise me a bit that whatever was installed is bare minimum and can't service the amount of traffic. Middle of the afternoon doesn't make sense though. 5-7 PM I get.

revelarts

10-05-2024, 12:02 PM

I've heard the 'story' many times and that point is direct and easy to understand. The problem is, the in person human empathy possible. That's not true in meme's or in short quotes.

Now I doubt there are many that have used quotes more than myself over the years. For a long time I tended to quote in whole what I considered most important, for the very reason fj stated.

Then for both 'fair use' reasons and ease, I went to short blurbs with some comment.

Now at work I just put up links, for the simple reason it's just too hard to copy and past from my phone.

At home though? I want at minimum the ideas someone wants me to glean from the links they are posting, especially when there are many. I find myself on topics directly related to election to using the whole post-though things from X, sometimes the most important items are not available if the links are not followed.

In any case, that has been my experience.

Point of order; you don't post laundry lists of facts and logic. You post laundry lists of your current bevy of complaints as though they are relevant to whatever is being discussed at the time. And yes, my standards are high because my standard when discussing issues is what will actually cause a reconsideration of someone's beliefs and/or viewpoints.

Videos without verifiable back up aren't worth watching (looking at you rumble :rolleyes: )
Studies without independent variable are by definition not conclusive.
Articles may or may not be relevant, worth the read, or actually are relevant to the point you are making.
And no, I'm not going to read a book about pre-WWII IBM activities as though they are relevant to what's going on today.
You presenting something as "interesting" is also not to be taken seriously because you make no comment.

If you want to change someone's mind you need to understand what they think, why they think it, how they came to that conclusion, etc. before you can address the actual issues. If I'm talking to a proponent of protectionism then I'll provide studies, logic, stories, etc. on why protectionism is not the way forward. I'm guessing even comic book of why protectionism is a failed policy would not be accepted by AHZ even if it was the most brilliant form of argument ever made because he was either Russian or paid by Russians is my guess.

And your story? The meme would be what the guy said. It would not contain any of the other information that sets the context. Memes have zero context. Anything Sowell says? Probably brilliant but a quote without knowledge of Hillary Clinton suggesting jailing those spreading "disinformation" and Tim Wallz suggesting that government has the authority to regulate speech, hate speech or otherwise, is lacking in context.

New information in context can change minds. Memes are not new information in context.

oookk
so just to be clear you folks think that,

I shouldn't use quotes, because they are useless. (unless they evoke empathy?)
That I'm not using logic.
That my 'list' dont have any relevant facts, they are just random complaints.
That the Videos i post are unverifiable, so i shouldn't post them. no need.
The studies & articles I post may or may not be any good but are never really conclusive so those are not worth posting.
And the books that i post about history are not relevant to the present so not worth reading. So logically not worth posting?
Also I shouldn't post anything I think is interesting, if i don't want to comment on it. I'm not sure why but i shouldn't.
And memes are just wrong in general, no one can understand them without a lot of context, but they are simple, or even though they make a point they don't change minds, so no need to post those here.

If that's what the consensus view of my post are, then there's not much for me to do here other than agree with what you folks post.
I have to say, that view of my post sounds a LOT like how Dems assess points they don't agree with.

But as I've mentioned before. I'm backing away so as not to disturb the waters with my illogical, fact-less, old, out of context, unverifiable, simple post.
Maybe i'll post more political cartoons. I guess they're JUST for humor so they are Ok maybe?
And people get the context without any of the verifiable backup info/articles needed for memes maybe? I dont know.
I'm weary, but no worries.

SassyLady

10-05-2024, 12:20 PM

oookk
so just to be clear you folks think that,

I shouldn't use quotes, because they are useless. (unless they evoke empathy?)
That I'm not using logic.
That my 'list' dont have any relevant facts, they are just random complaints.
That the Videos i post are unverifiable, so i shouldn't post them. no need.
The studies & articles I post may or may not be any good but are never really conclusive so those are not worth posting.
And the books that i post about history are not relevant to the present so not worth reading. So logically not worth posting?
Also I shouldn't post anything I think is interesting, if i don't want to comment on it. I'm not sure why but i shouldn't.
And memes are just wrong in general, no one can understand them without a lot of context, but they are simple, or even though they make a point they don't change minds, so no need to post those here.

If that's what the consensus view of my post are, then there's not much for me to do here other than agree with what you folks post.
I have to say, that view of my post sounds a LOT like how Dems assess points they don't agree with.

But as I've mentioned before. I'm backing away so as not to disturb the waters with my illogical, fact-less, old, out of context, unverifiable, simple post.
Maybe i'll post more political cartoons. I guess they're JUST for humor so they are Ok maybe?
And people get the context without any the verifiable backup info/artcles needed for memes maybe? I dont know.
I'm weary, but no worries.
I have no issue with what you post Rev because I actually take the time to go to your sources which lead me to other sources and all of them help me make up my mind. I'm here to learn more and different people have different sources. Plus .. I'm old enough to make my own decisions. I don't need fj refuting your information in an attempt to protect me from information he doesn't deem appropriately presented. He comes across as a government worker .. like it's his job to protect us from ourself.

Please keep posting the info you find. If only one person gets something from it you have accomplished your mission to educate.

Gunny

10-05-2024, 12:36 PM

oookk
so just to be clear you folks think that,

I shouldn't use quotes, because they are useless. (unless they evoke empathy?)
That I'm not using logic.
That my 'list' dont have any relevant facts, they are just random complaints.
That the Videos i post are unverifiable, so i shouldn't post them. no need.
The studies & articles I post may or may not be any good but are never really conclusive so those are not worth posting.
And the books that i post about history are not relevant to the present so not worth reading. So logically not worth posting?
Also I shouldn't post anything I think is interesting, if i don't want to comment on it. I'm not sure why but i shouldn't.
And memes are just wrong in general, no one can understand them without a lot of context, but they are simple, or even though they make a point they don't change minds, so no need to post those here.

If that's what the consensus view of my post are, then there's not much for me to do here other than agree with what you folks post.
I have to say, that view of my post sounds a LOT like how Dems assess points they don't agree with.

But as I've mentioned before. I'm backing away so as not to disturb the waters with my illogical, fact-less, old, out of context, unverifiable, simple post.
Maybe i'll post more political cartoons. I guess they're JUST for humor so they are Ok maybe?
And people get the context without any the verifiable backup info/artcles needed for memes maybe? I dont know.
I'm weary, but no worries.

Here's the point you are missing. When I post something, regardless source, on this board, I own it. And any flak that comes with it. I accept it for what it is. You have this win/lose mindset you get caught up in and double down on the more someone disagrees with you to the point you listen to nothing. The only "winner" on this or any other board, regardless topic, is the person who learns something.

Lighten up and try listening. For the purposes of discussion, there is no one here more equal than anyone else. You promote individualism while at the same time getting bent because all won't agree with you. Your stances conflict.

No one on this board agrees with everything I say or do and likewise the other way around. Nature of the beast.

Kathianne

10-05-2024, 12:46 PM

revelarts

10-05-2024, 12:52 PM

I have no issue with what you post Rev because I actually take the time to go to your sources which lead me to other sources and all of them help me make up my mind. I'm here to learn more and different people have different sources. Plus .. I'm old enough to make my own decisions. I don't need fj refuting your information in an attempt to protect me from information he doesn't deem appropriately presented. He comes across as a government worker .. like it's his job to protect us from ourself.

...

Thanks Sassy but my post are all just complaints, illogical, fact-less, old, out of context, unverifiable, irrelevant stuff... and worse of all, i post MEMES.
No one should have time for that kinda jibberjabber.:rolleyes:

I'm here through the election.
But After the election I'll PivateMessage you stuff i find interesting.
Everyone else already knows better. The nation just needs some good ol competent republican leadership and we'll all be ok.
Seems nothing I post is worth a 2nd thought unless I agree with folks already.
Plus it seems to rub folks the wrong way, no matter how I phrase or format it.
At this point I dont really want to argue with or upset people who don't want to hear things they don't like or think are ridiculous.

Gunny

10-05-2024, 12:58 PM

Kathianne

10-05-2024, 12:58 PM

I usually read all of your links. That's what takes me so damned long to reply. I confess though, I did not follow the link to the squash recipe:laugh:

Only cause I posted the recipe, you didn't have to. LOL! ;)

Gunny

10-05-2024, 01:00 PM

Thanks Sassy but my post are all just complaints, illogical, fact-less, old, out of context, unverifiable, irrelevant stuff... and worse of all, i post MEMES.
No one should have time for that kinda jibberjabber.:rolleyes:

I'm here through the election.
But After the election I'll PivateMessage you stuff i find interesting.
Everyone else already knows better. The nation just needs some good ol competent republican leadership and we'll all be ok.
Seems nothing I post is worth a 2nd thought unless I agree with folks already.
Plus it seems to rub folks the wrong way, no matter how I phrase or format it.
At this point I dont really want to argue with or upset people who don't want to hear things they don't like or think are ridiculous.

"Victim" isn't going to play at all. Not sure where this attitude is coming from. Because people don't think like you and/or believe everything you say? What you need is a good dose of my 5 grandchildren 24/7. You'll get over yourself quick :laugh:

Kathianne

10-05-2024, 01:13 PM

Thanks Sassy but my post are all just complaints, illogical, fact-less, old, out of context, unverifiable, irrelevant stuff... and worse of all, i post MEMES.
No one should have time for that kinda jibberjabber.:rolleyes:

I'm here through the election.
But After the election I'll PivateMessage you stuff i find interesting.
Everyone else already knows better. The nation just needs some good ol competent republican leadership and we'll all be ok.
Seems nothing I post is worth a 2nd thought unless I agree with folks already.
Plus it seems to rub folks the wrong way, no matter how I phrase or format it.
At this point I dont really want to argue with or upset people who don't want to hear things they don't like or think are ridiculous.

I have more times that I've agreed with you than not. No, I don't read all your links, especially when they lead to videos. It's not my thing. Mind you, that you truly disagree a lot with my pov, especially on Ukraine and Israel. That doesn't mean you don't like me, it means you don't agree. I respect that. I like when you more completely explain why, rather than just say, 'How much Kath? How many?' That doesn't really work with me, but it's fine for you to post.

I for one, would not like to see you not posting. I do wish sometimes you'd post on more than vaccines and anti-war, but that's on me, not you.

revelarts

10-05-2024, 01:24 PM

I have to say that I agree in the main with Gunny, though I totally agree with SL that influencing one person is worth whatever any of us post.

I guess I truly do have resentment that not following all your or anyone's links to videos or podcasts makes one stupid or uninformed. I just totally disagree. While I will mostly stick with the fact that following either is just not in my wheelhouse due to hearing issues, the very proposition that one wants to spend time-oftentimes hours listening to what you deem worthy.

While you and SL certainly are welcome to all of your sites and the people you enjoy listening/learning from, to say that others are less because they don't? Sorry that dog don't hunt.

I post tons of links, I doubt you or most others bother reading a tenth of them. No problem with me, I read and share what interests myself. If someone else reads and likes or doesn't and comments? Gravy.

I've never said anyone has to read everything i post, all i've ever asked is that if commented on it not be dismissed without a reading hearing or watching.
Or that replies not just assume & attack of my motives, like hate for America, or Catholics, or all corporations, or all cops or all govt etc.

And if the stuff posted happens to be heard, read or watched then Im open to debate worthy comments rather than incredulity or harsh denials uniformed by info on the table.

Here's the point you are missing. When I post something, regardless source, on this board, I own it. And any flak that comes with it. I accept it for what it is. You have this win/lose mindset you get caught up in and double down on the more someone disagrees with you to the point you listen to nothing. The only "winner" on this or any other board, regardless topic, is the person who learns something.

Lighten up and try listening. For the purposes of discussion, there is no one here more equal than anyone else. You promote individualism while at the same time getting bent because all won't agree with you. Your stances conflict.

No one on this board agrees with everything I say or do and likewise the other way around. Nature of the beast.

here's the thing Gunny You call it "WIN LOSE"
that's not how i think about it.
I think about a lot of it as TRUE OR FALSE.
So I defend it. And yes I'm well aware of Grey areas.

Concerning taking flak, I think I've taken more flak than anyone who lasted this long on the board.
I've got no problem with that, if it rational and honest.

Here's the thing FJs post said that little of what I regularly post is TRUE or even relevant.
You and kath agreed with his post.
So what am i missing?

no need for me to upset or bother folks with info they already KNOW is false and irrelevant.
I've listened to everyone here respectfully for years, without wholesale dismissals of your personal experiences, beliefs, sources or the formats of what you post.

You 3 have agreed that not only is what I post generally FALSE, but ALL of the ways I post information is flawed as well.
so what's the point. no worries.

with me, I read and share what interests myself. If someone else reads and likes or doesn't and comments? Gravy.
I do the same, Has Fj or anyone ever called you out for it?
Or assumed your motives?

Kathianne

10-05-2024, 01:36 PM

I've never said anyone has to read everything i post, all i've ever asked is that if commented on it not be dismissed without a reading hearing or watching.
Or that replies not just assume & attack of my motives, like hate for America, or Catholics, or all corporations, or all cops or all govt etc.

And if the stuff posted happens to be heard, read or watched then Im open to debate worthy comments rather than incredulity or harsh denials uniformed by info on the table.

her's the thing Gunny You call it "WIN LOSE"
that's not how i think about it.
I think about a lot of it as TRUE OR FALSE.
So I defend it. And yes I'm well aware of Grey areas.

Concerning taking flak, I think I've taken more flak than anyone who lasted this long on the board.

Here's the thing FJs post said that little of what I regularly posted is TRUE or even relevant.
You and kath agreed with his post.
So what am i missing?

no need for me upset or bother folks with info you already KNOW is false and irrelevant.
I've listened to everyone here respectfully for years, without wholesale dismissals of your personal experiences, beliefs, sources or the formats of what you post.

I do the same, Has Fj or anyone ever called you out for it?
Or assumed your motives?

I know that fj has disagreed with me, most often with my read on something. Sometimes I see what he's saying, mostly he's wrong, of course! Same with Gunny. There are times that Gunny actually attacks what I post. That's where the fun is.

I am sorry if you feel that there has been gang up on you, I know I don't mean to do that. I think that sometimes you get responses that are incomplete for at least 2 reasons-as you say, you post a lot of links to sites folks don't want to go to. That leads to assumptions being made on either what they find on opening the link or the very little you post regarding the topic. Two-I may be very wrong here, it really is only my opinion, but you seem to concentrate on something that you are very interested in, but want others to also follow along. Again, I'm only commenting on my own observations, but it seems to be topics that you and SL have deep interest in, but others don't or disagree with the premises as they know of, (or one may say, are ignorant of.)

While I admit there are days when I'm very focused on one topic, usually something big in the news, for the most part I try to diversify my topics. My interests are also pretty varied: education, finance, children, politics, conservatives/liberals, foreign affairs...

Gunny

10-05-2024, 01:50 PM

I've never said anyone has to read everything i post, all i've ever asked is that if commented on it not be dismissed without a reading hearing or watching.
Or that replies not just assume & attack of my motives, like hate for America, or Catholics, or all corporations, or all cops or all govt etc.

And if the stuff posted happens to be heard, read or watched then Im open to debate worthy comments rather than incredulity or harsh denials uniformed by info on the table.

her's the thing Gunny You call it "WIN LOSE"
that's not how i think about it.
I think about a lot of it as TRUE OR FALSE.
So I defend it. And yes I'm well aware of Grey areas.

Concerning taking flak, I think I've taken more flak than anyone who lasted this long on the board.

Here's the thing FJs post said that little of what I regularly posted is TRUE or even relevant.
You and kath agreed with his post.
So what am i missing?

no need for me upset or bother folks with info you already KNOW is false and irrelevant.
I've listened to everyone here respectfully for years, without wholesale dismissals of your personal experiences, beliefs, sources or the formats of what you post.

with me, I read and share what interests myself. If someone else reads and likes or doesn't and comments? Gravy.[/QUOTE]
I do the same, Has Fj ever called you out for it?
Or assumed your motives?[/QUOTE]

Interesting. So you pay attention to who thanks/likes posts? So now we have the who thanks/likes and why question:rolleyes: Let me clear this up for you as far as I am concerned. I thank/like posts if I am in general agreement OR if I agree with some of. I have thanked/liked posts I don't necessarily agree with what is said, but appreciate the post and/or effort. Sometimes it's just acknowledgement. I don't have, nor am I aware of any, set rule to thanks/likes.

I thank/liked your posts and even the memes if I find them humorous/spot on. And I'm not a meme guy. I occasionally look at the meme treads. Like semi-annually.

One thing you will not find going back to pre-thank/like days is it is the rare, and beyond deserved occasion that I have neg-repped anyone, or clicked on piss off. I don't see a point to it. Others do and that's their business. I don't do it even in retaliation.

If I don't have anything to say to you, I don't. Agreement with others is coincidental, not planned. If I agree with part of a post, then it is that I address. So there's no "piling on" on my part and I don't see it from others unless a lib happens to stumble across the board. I don't even like it then.

But if I agree, it is what it is. Kathianne and I have known each other since 2003-ish. We've had some serious come-aparts at times in the past. One would assume that such a friendship would probably not last if we disagreed more than agreed? Meaning it's not hard for us to get along and/or agree, and for the most part, we would rather maintain the friendship than get into pissing contests over all this political crap that's going to change tomorrow anyway.

Just depends on what you think is more important and how you set those priorities.

revelarts

10-05-2024, 01:51 PM

I know that fj has disagreed with me, most often with my read on something. Sometimes I see what he's saying, mostly he's wrong, of course! Same with Gunny. There are times that Gunny actually attacks what I post. That's where the fun is.

I am sorry if you feel that there has been gang up on you, I know I don't mean to do that. I think that sometimes you get responses that are incomplete for at least 2 reasons-as you say, you post a lot of links to sites folks don't want to go to. That leads to assumptions being made on either what they find on opening the link or the very little you post regarding the topic. Two-I may be very wrong here, it really is only my opinion, but you seem to concentrate on something that you are very interested in, but want others to also follow along. Again, I'm only commenting on my own observations, but it seems to be topics that you and SL have deep interest in, but others don't or disagree with the premises as they know of, (or one may say, are ignorant of.)

While I admit there are days when I'm very focused on one topic, usually something big in the news, for the most part I try to diversify my topics. My interests are also pretty varied: education, finance, children, politics, conservatives/liberals, foreign affairs...

Look it's fine, I've been ganged up on here for years,
that's not a problem

Fj & I were just about the lone people condemning torture.
You & I were nearly the lone voices condemning Trump's 2016 run.
I was the Lone voice promoting Ron Paul during 2 cycles against every smear and joke.
I've been a near lone voice here pointing out issues with bad police and being anti-war.
and several other issues
I have no problem being a lone voice defending my povs.
just seems at this point I'm just rubbing you guys the wrong way, and no one sees the info posted as real or relevant OR even presented properly, or worth looking into, so again no worries.

Gunny

10-05-2024, 01:56 PM

Look it's fine, I've been ganged up on here for years,
that's not a problem

Fj & I were just about the lone people condemning torture.
You & I were the lone voices condemning Trump's 2016 run.
I was the Lone voice promoting Ron Paul during 2 cycles against every smear and joke.
I've been a near lone voice here pointing out issues with bad police and being anti-war.
and several other issues
I have no problem being a lone voice defending my povs.
just seems at this point I'm just rubbing you guys the wrong way, and no one sees the info posted as real or relevant OR presented properly, or worth looking into, so again no worries.

So? Want me to get started on Man's irresponsible behavior toward the environment which goes over like a snowball in Hell on this board? The first misrepresentation starts with someone thinking I'm a greenie, which I am not, and has nothing to do with my position. Goes downhill from there. Silence or responses that have nothing to do with man's irresponsible behavior toward the environment.

I get over it.

Kathianne

10-05-2024, 02:00 PM

Look it's fine, I've been ganged up on here for years,
that's not a problem

Fj & I were just about the lone people condemning torture.
You & I were nearly the lone voices condemning Trump's 2016 run.
I was the Lone voice promoting Ron Paul during 2 cycles against every smear and joke.
I've been a near lone voice here pointing out issues with bad police and being anti-war.
and several other issues
I have no problem being a lone voice defending my povs.
just seems at this point I'm just rubbing you guys the wrong way, and no one sees the info posted as real or relevant OR even presented properly (to much), or worth looking into, so again no worries.

Ok, I hear you on that. You got SL on your interest list right now, stick around. LOL! Heck, we did make many take a good look at Trump, some became very wary of him, after election. Now? Here I am looking like he is currently our only choice.

Times change, thinking changes. Sometimes what seems right now, becomes more clear down the road.

revelarts

10-05-2024, 02:01 PM

So? Want me to get started on Man's irresponsible behavior toward the environment which goes over like a snowball in Hell on this board? The first misrepresentation starts with someone thinking I'm a greenie, which I am not, and has nothing to do with my position. Goes downhill from there. Silence or responses that have nothing to do with man's irresponsible behavior toward the environment.

I get over it.
You'd probably have an ally with me on the environment Gunny.

But Yeah man, I'm over it.

Kathianne

10-05-2024, 02:12 PM

Well this has been a very serious, personal thread. So, who wants to post on food? LOL!

Gunny

10-05-2024, 05:32 PM

Well this has been a very serious, personal thread. So, who wants to post on food? LOL!

Trying to pick a fight?:poke:

fj1200

10-06-2024, 12:07 PM

oookk
so just to be clear you folks think that,

...

For me... It's a scattershot approach where I see that previously unproven posits that are used as defense of the current unproven posit where it makes no sense to attempt to discuss the current issue because I'll just see another recitation of the current list of ills. I see arguments where A=B and B=C therefore A=C... but A =/= B and B =/= C therefore A can't be proof of C.

... I don't need fj refuting your information in an attempt to protect me from information he doesn't deem appropriately presented. He comes across as a government worker .. like it's his job to protect us from ourself.

I only offer a critical eye. One that doesn't seem to be offered at times.

I do the same, Has Fj or anyone ever called you out for it?
Or assumed your motives?

You two have vastly different posting styles.

I know that fj has disagreed with me, most often with my read on something. Sometimes I see what he's saying, mostly he's wrong, of course! Same with Gunny. There are times that Gunny actually attacks what I post. That's where the fun is.

:eek: :martian:

Kathianne

10-06-2024, 12:12 PM

For me... It's a scattershot approach where I see that previously unproven posits that are used as defense of the current unproven posit where it makes no sense to attempt to discuss the current issue because I'll just see another recitation of the current list of ills. I see arguments where A=B and B=C therefore A=C... but A =/= B and B =/= C therefore A can't be proof of C.

I only offer a critical eye. One that doesn't seem to be offered at times.

You two have vastly different posting styles.

:eek: :martian:

My like thank isn't a slam at anyone else. While I agree for the most part in posting style, I don't mean that others whether posting memes, videos, the Russian guy, any Chinese that stumble thru before NT nukes them, can't have their say.

revelarts

10-06-2024, 12:18 PM

..

You two have vastly different posting styles.

So I think this will be the 3rd time in one thread where you confirm that you're far more concerned about style over substance/content.

Kathianne

10-06-2024, 12:25 PM

So I think this will be the 3rd time in one thread where you confirm that you're far more concerned about style over substance/content.

I think I've been clear, I certainly hope you stay and participate. You do you. If fj or myself or anyone else doesn't care for your post, too bad, so sad.

Same in return. You certainly don't have to agree with anyone's criticism. If it's on 'style,' and you're happy with what you said, their problem. OTOH, if it's substantial you might want to persuade? Just posting a huge excerpt from some link, probably won't get much interaction, but your choice.

revelarts

10-06-2024, 12:25 PM

Well this has been a very serious, personal thread. So, who wants to post on food? LOL!

Trying to pick a fight?:poke:

um... I kinda doubt anyone here really wants me or sassy to jumping into any threads about Food with RJk jr ripping up the airwaves right now...
just sayin'.

:cool:;)

Kathianne

10-06-2024, 12:33 PM

um... I kinda doubt anyone here really wants me or sassy to jumping into any threads about Food with RJk jr ripping up the airwaves right now...
just sayin'.

:cool:;)

What? You eating roadkill? Somehow I doubt it.

SSL makes good breakfast!

Seriously, I buy into some of rfk topics like food dyes and processed foods.

fj1200

10-06-2024, 12:39 PM

So I think this will be the 3rd time in one thread where you confirm that you're far more concerned about style over substance/content.

Very incorrect. If you read and understood what I posted then you would have come to the opposite conclusion.

revelarts

10-06-2024, 12:40 PM

What? You eating roadkill? Somehow I doubt it.
SSL makes good breakfast!
Seriously, I buy into some of rfk topics like food dyes and processed foods.

Don't knock road kill until you've tried it.

Kathianne

10-06-2024, 12:44 PM

Don't knock road kill until you've tried it.

Will never happen. More likely to go vegetarian.

SassyLady

10-07-2024, 10:47 PM

Gunny

10-08-2024, 01:49 PM

Will never happen. More likely to go vegetarian.While I tend to agree with you on it, I understand it to a point. At least from when I was stationed in VA. Lot of deer in Western VA/VA. I believe it was WV that changed its laws to allow people to take road kill home based on a lot of poverty v leaving perfectly good meat on the side of the road if you run into a deer.

We got some good Marine humor out of it as a matter of fact. Hillbillies hunting with their 5.56 mm Dodge trucks and whatnot :)

I think I'd be more worried about damage to my vehicle.

revelarts

10-10-2024, 09:06 AM

Hey Rev ... what I've come to appreciate about your postings are your sources. They were not ones I had previously been acquainted with. Some of those led me to other sources. Now I have a ton of people I listen to and read their stuff. So I agree with it all? If course not. But at least I have an idea of what people out there are focused on.

To me it seems your sources question the popular narrative which I have discovered really interests me. The popular, or mainstream narrative, was becoming very boring. All those sources were repeating the same propaganda message (almost verbatim)

And, because I don't adhere to the popular narrative I've been labeled a conspiracy theorist (which was coined during the Kennedy coverup to shame people from asking questions ... and it's still being effectively used today). I brought up the HAARP situation 13-14 years ago and everyone thought I was crazy. There are still people today who don't want to believe that kind of power exists. However, if only 1 person follows the info and it inspires them to do more research on their own (as you did) then I've scored a point.
Just passing on some of what others have passed on to me.
I've learned stuff from you & everyone's links here. One of the reasons I like coming.
Other people seeing bits of the world i don't, I tend to take all the info from nearly any source as something to work with cumulatively. There's something there of interest, even if it PURELY one sided or propaganda. Usually there's some facts in the mix no matter what.
But since about 2004, I've found a lot of the so-called conspiracy sources tend to cover the MOST ground informationally... good, bad, ugly & speculative.

others mileage may vary

Kathianne

10-10-2024, 01:54 PM

Gunny

10-10-2024, 05:31 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/walz-silent-support-eliminating-electoral-college-after-harris-camp-says-doesnt-back-ban

This seems indicative that even those truly out to get rid of the Constitution, know most disagree. Maybe there's a sliver of hope left?

Why would establishment Democrats want to do away with the Constitution? They may blow that smoke, but abusing, misusing, blaming and/or ignoring it is how they get paid. They need laws to force people and Republicans in line with what they want.

Been waiting for the electoral college broken record. If Trump wins the election, the electoral college will come under fire from the left, and all those forced Republican promises to uphold the results of the election will be forgotten and we'll listen to four more years of "stolen election" like we did 16-20, a fact current Dems don't seem to recall.

Kathianne

10-10-2024, 08:55 PM

Why would establishment Democrats want to do away with the Constitution? They may blow that smoke, but abusing, misusing, blaming and/or ignoring it is how they get paid. They need laws to force people and Republicans in line with what they want.

Been waiting for the electoral college broken record. If Trump wins the election, the electoral college will come under fire from the left, and all those forced Republican promises to uphold the results of the election will be forgotten and we'll listen to four more years of "stolen election" like we did 16-20, a fact current Dems don't seem to recall.

I really think the Democrats are determined to do away with Electoral College; they would pack the court; they will basically do away with the 1st and 2nd amendments: A European version of speech-meaning hate speech and disagreeing with those in power lead to incarceration.

IOW, they do want to do away with the Constitution-through the Bill of Rights. As for the 1-4th Articles of the Constitution they want to change the length of time for SCOTUS justices; they've already abdicated many or even most of the powers of Congress to the Executive.

Kathianne

10-10-2024, 09:06 PM

Both sides are gearing up for challenging every loss. Lord only knows when this will be settled.

Gunny

10-11-2024, 09:26 AM

I really think the Democrats are determined to do away with Electoral College; they would pack the court; they will basically do away with the 1st and 2nd amendments: A European version of speech-meaning hate speech and disagreeing with those in power lead to incarceration.

IOW, they do want to do away with the Constitution-through the Bill of Rights. As for the 1-4th Articles of the Constitution they want to change the length of time for SCOTUS justices; they've already abdicated many or even most of the powers of Congress to the Executive.

Their wanting to tailor the Constitution is separate from doing away with it altogether. Regardless rhetoric, they still need the framework. They aren't smart enough to come up with something better from scratch. The Constitution itself is not exactly original. It's tailored English law in most regards to suit the FF's grievances.

I completely agree they want to use the Constitution to do away with those parts not convenient to their World view. Been ranting about it for years. That is where I take issue with it. It was never meant to be a suicide pact, but it seems its enemies benefit more from it than the people it is supposed to serve.

If you take away the Constitution, what do the idiots have to rail against? Anything in its place is what. Progressives are against whatever is there just because it is there. Regardless reason, and to their own detriment. Case in point, they would tear down the one thing that allows them to be the ne'er do wells they are. What other form of government would tolerate them? Certainly not authoritarian right nor fascist left. Freedom of expression is the first thing they each take away.

The left is at war no with freedom of expression that isn't theirs. Moreso in Euro countries than here, but we're on track.

These idiots are bound and determined to lose everything by their own hand not realizing there is no getting it back once its gone. But the Constitution itself protects their right to destroy it. Called stupidity in my book:rolleyes:

Kathianne

10-11-2024, 10:51 AM

Their wanting to tailor the Constitution is separate from doing away with it altogether. Regardless rhetoric, they still need the framework. They aren't smart enough to come up with something better from scratch. The Constitution itself is not exactly original. It's tailored English law in most regards to suit the FF's grievances.

I completely agree they want to use the Constitution to do away with those parts not convenient to their World view. Been ranting about it for years. That is where I take issue with it. It was never meant to be a suicide pact, but it seems its enemies benefit more from it than the people it is supposed to serve.

If you take away the Constitution, what do the idiots have to rail against? Anything in its place is what. Progressives are against whatever is there just because it is there. Regardless reason, and to their own detriment. Case in point, they would tear down the one thing that allows them to be the ne'er do wells they are. What other form of government would tolerate them? Certainly not authoritarian right nor fascist left. Freedom of expression is the first thing they each take away.

The left is at war no with freedom of expression that isn't theirs. Moreso in Euro countries than here, but we're on track.

These idiots are bound and determined to lose everything by their own hand not realizing there is no getting it back once its gone. But the Constitution itself protects their right to destroy it. Called stupidity in my book:rolleyes:

The US Constitution is far from being English Common Law written down. It certainly is also based on philosophical ideas from outside of England in particular or even Europe in general.

Chiseling away at the Constitution outside of Amendment processes, IS TOSSING THE CONSTITUTION.

Gunny

10-11-2024, 11:09 AM

The US Constitution is far from being English Common Law written down. It certainly is also based on philosophical ideas from outside of England in particular or even Europe in general.

Chiseling away at the Constitution outside of Amendment processes, IS TOSSING THE CONSTITUTION.

We will just have to disagree. The US Constitution may have other sources, but it is greatly influenced by the Magna Carta.

By this standard "chiseling away" is tossing the entire work, all Amendments to it amounts to nothing less. They are changes to the Constitution.

We do agree on keeping current Constitution as is. For my part, it's because I have yet to see anything better, if such even exists. Not to mention that given mindset of current society, I would not entertain the notion of allowing these morons to get a toe in the door as status quo is far preferrable to their chaos, stupidity and evil intent.

Kathianne

10-11-2024, 11:14 AM

We will just have to disagree. The US Constitution may have other sources, but it is greatly influenced by the Magna Carta.

By this standard "chiseling away" is tossing the entire work, all Amendments to it amounts to nothing less. They are changes to the Constitution.

We do agree on keeping current Constitution as is. For my part, it's because I have yet to see anything better, if such even exists. Not to mention that given mindset of current society, I would not entertain the notion of allowing these morons to get a toe in the door as status quo is far preferrable to their chaos, stupidity and evil intent.

Again, so much more than the Magna Carta-which was much more influential on England directly than on what would become the US.

I've no problem with amendments to the Constitution. Heck, the best example of flexibility would be prohibition and repeal. In both cases, the citizenry was awakened enough on an issue to make change. When the fools of today have that sort of support, whether or not I agree, so be it. Amendment will be enacted.

The reason for a process is to prevent the insanity we are now being ruled or rather bordering on being dictated to.

Kathianne

10-11-2024, 03:07 PM

Both sides are gearing up for challenging every loss. Lord only knows when this will be settled.

I guess today is one of those where I find a post or article that reinforces what I said a bit ago.

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/11/house-democrats-jan-6-election-trump-raskin

20 hours ago -Politics & Policy
Scoop: Some top Dems won't commit to certifying a Trump win

Andrew Solender

facebook (opens in new window)

twitter (opens in new window)

linkedin (opens in new window)

email (opens in new window)
Jamie Raskin, wearing a gray pinstripe suit and holding up a pen while sitting in front of a wooden wall at a dais with a placard with his name.
Rep. Jamie Raskin during a committee hearing in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 10, 2024. Photo: Kent Nishimura/Getty Images.

House Democrats railed against House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) for hedging on whether a GOP-controlled House would certify a Kamala Harris victory. But some of their senior members are playing a similar game.

Why it matters: Those Democrats are trapped between their deep distrust of Donald Trump and their vigorous denunciations of any election challenges in the years since the Jan. 6 attack.

Democratic leaders, however, seem fully prepared to certify a Trump victory – making potential dissenters a small minority.
What they're saying: Raskin, the House Oversight Committee ranking member and former Jan. 6 committee member who objected to Trump electors in 2017, told Axios in an interview that if Trump "won a free, fair and honest election, then we would obviously accept it."

However, Raskin said he "definitely" doesn't assume that Trump would use free, fair and honest means to secure a victory.
Trump "is doing whatever he can to try to interfere with the process, whether we're talking about manipulating electoral college counts in Nebraska or manipulating the vote count in Georgia or imposing other kinds of impediments," Raskin said.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a senior chief deputy whip who voted to object to George W. Bush electors in 2005, said of Trump, "I don't know what kind of shenanigans he is planning," adding: "We would have to, in any election ... make sure that all the rules have been followed."

Schakowsky later said in a statement that she was "proud to ... join all my Democratic colleagues in certifying the 2020 election" and looks forward to "doing the same in January 2025."
Zoom in: House Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who also objected to Trump electors in 2017, said Democrats would certify a Trump victory "assuming everything goes the way we expect it to."

"We have to see how it all happens," McGovern told Axios – though he added, "My expectation is that we would."
Between the lines: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who wields huge influence over his members, has signaled there is little chance of an organized effort to decertify electors.

"House Democrats are going to do everything necessary to ... ensure that the winner of the presidential election is certified on January 6th without drama or consequences," Jeffries said at a September press conference.
House Administration Committee Ranking Member Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), Jeffries' top deputy on election administration issues, has made similar statements.
Zoom out: The two parties have very different histories when it comes to election objections, with Democrats lodging doomed, symbolic challenges as part of largely uneventful proceedings.

In 2005, Democrats' objection to Bush's win in Ohio failed 31-267 in the House and 1-74 in the Senate.
In 2017, a half dozen House Democrats filed objections to ten Trump elector slates, but failed to get the backing of a senator and were unable to force any votes.
In 2021, a majority of House Republicans voted to object to President Biden's wins in Arizona and Pennsylvania. It was part of a sprawling effort to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in the deadly attack on Jan. 6.
Argued Raskin: "Democrats don't engage in election fraud and election fabrication."
State of play: Trump and his loyalists are already laying the groundwork to deny a Harris victory, including filing over 100 lawsuits challenging election procedures, Axios' Zach Basu reported.

Democrats, for their part, may challenge a Trump win in court but likely wouldn't take that fight all the way to Congress, said former Jan. 6 Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).
Thompson argued there are "enough provisions in law ... so that losers who feel aggrieved in their loss can take it to court."
The bottom line: "I expect we would do as we did in 2016," Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), a member of Jeffries' leadership team, told Axios.

"While disappointed with the outcome of the election and despite a handful of outliers making a 'statement,' we did not object then [nor] would we now object to the result of a democratic election."

Gunny

10-11-2024, 03:23 PM

I guess today is one of those where I find a post or article that reinforces what I said a bit ago.

https://www.axios.com/2024/10/11/house-democrats-jan-6-election-trump-raskinI find Raskin reprehensible. Just a tad short of evil, and only that because I don't keep track of him. Never has anything nice to say. Always insulting Republicans/conservatives just because they are. His mentality is a big part of the negativity that comes from our government and amplified by the MSM. It's no wonder people are depressed. He by no means is the only, but certainly a candidate for poster boy IMO.

Kathianne

10-11-2024, 03:24 PM

I find Raskin reprehensible. Just a tad short of evil, and only that because I don't keep track of him. Never has anything nice to say. Always insulting Republicans/conservatives just because they are. His mentality is a big part of the negativity that comes from our government and amplified by the MSM. It's no wonder people are depressed. He by no means is the only, but certainly a candidate for poster boy IMO.

I see or hear from him, I think of Schiff.

Gunny

10-11-2024, 03:35 PM

I see or hear from him, I think of Schiff.Schiff should at a minimum have been impeached and removed from Congress for his Russian Collusion antics, just flat lying about nonexistent evidence. He's definitely another one.

Raskin on the other and looks and acts like he's sucking persimmons 24-7. One of those people that ruin everyone else's fun by mere presence. Pissing all over everything just because it's there. I bet he thinks he's the life of the party:rolleyes:

Gunny

10-11-2024, 05:58 PM

Kathianne

10-11-2024, 06:07 PM

Lest we forget, no list would be complete without that fat lump of sh*t Nadler. Another harbinger of the doom and gloom. He's disgusting to look at before he ever gets the bile flowing from his maw :rolleyes:

Yeah, but he's a second stringer, even Dems don't like him. He's not shark like the other two.

revelarts

10-14-2024, 11:46 PM

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/10/13/no-kidding-no-joke-liberals-call-on-biden-to-commit-unconstitutional-acts-in-his-final-days-as-president/

“No Kidding! No Joke!” Liberals Call on Biden to Commit Unconstitutional Acts in his Final Days

...In a posting on Substack, Moore told Biden that it was time to yield to temptation and check off a liberal 13-item “bucket list” of demands, tossing aside questions of legality or constitutionality in the process.

“You’re not done. You’ve still got 100 days left in office! And the Supreme Court has just granted you super powers — AND immunity! You don’t answer to anyone. For the first time in over 50 years, you don’t have to campaign for anything…“You have full immunity! No kidding! No joke! That’s not hyperbole! You can get away with anything! And what if anything means everything to the people?”

The list includes
emptying death row,
canceling all student and medical debt,
halting weapons shipments to Israel,
ending the death penalty,
declaring the Equal Rights Amendment a constitutional amendment,
and granting clemency to nonviolent drug offenders.

Other pundits have pushed Biden and Democrats to take some of the actions on Moore’s list before the end of the administration.

Many of these items could only be fulfilled by knowingly gutting the Constitution and assuming the powers of a monarch. That includes just canceling all student and medical debt in defiance of both the courts and Congress.

As discussed in my most recent column, others have added to that bucket list.

Take Olbermann who, while insisting that he is fighting to “save democracy,” has called upon Biden to target political opponents like Elon Musk with deportation: “If we can’t do that by conventional means, President Biden, you have presidential immunity. Get Elon Musk the F out of our country and do it now.”

These calls come in the midst of a counter-constitutional movement led by law professors. Moreover, the disregard for such legal authority has been voiced by liberal academics like Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe. Indeed, his past “just do it” approach was not dissimilar in advice to Biden

For example, the Biden administration was found to have violated the Constitution in its imposition of a nationwide eviction moratorium through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Biden admitted that his White House counsel and most legal experts told him the move was unconstitutional. But he ignored their advice and went with that of Harvard University Professor Laurence Tribe, the one person who would tell him what he wanted to hear. It was, of course, then quickly found to be unconstitutional.....