Constitution Means Nothing To This Administration

[Yukon]

Is that the best you can do PoliticalcorrectChic? Pouint out a spelling error. Say goodbye to the old ways babe, Obama will change the USA forever. Your world is ending.

 

[uscitizen]

Supporting John Bolton is about like a lefty posting Michael Moore crap.

Now would a rightie expect someone on the left to explain why Moore was not whacked?

Or would they just ridicule?

"Or would they just ridicule?" As in "5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." Saul Alinsky

While ridicule is elegant in its simplicity, it is not honest nor intellectual.

If you have followed any of my posts, you must know that that is never my approach.

If you quoted Moore, I might dispute the veracity of his statement, or I might post some other statements by Moore and show how it is clearly untrue, with statements by authorities.

I don't believe that you can find my responses that use the source as the reason not to accept a point.

As I stated earlier, it is less than sophisticated to simply say "Bolton????" and feel that this is dispositive.

In fact, I claim that it is the hallmark of a dolt. Simple is as simple does.

Ahh but keeping it simple works well. Bolton is classified to me as a neocon parrot that is very unconstitutional in his own right. So why would I want to seriously consider anything he has to say about accusing the other side of being unconstitutional?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Supporting John Bolton is about like a lefty posting Michael Moore crap.

Now would a rightie expect someone on the left to explain why Moore was not whacked?

Or would they just ridicule?

"Or would they just ridicule?" As in "5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." Saul Alinsky

While ridicule is elegant in its simplicity, it is not honest nor intellectual.

If you have followed any of my posts, you must know that that is never my approach.

If you quoted Moore, I might dispute the veracity of his statement, or I might post some other statements by Moore and show how it is clearly untrue, with statements by authorities.

I don't believe that you can find my responses that use the source as the reason not to accept a point.

As I stated earlier, it is less than sophisticated to simply say "Bolton????" and feel that this is dispositive.

In fact, I claim that it is the hallmark of a dolt. Simple is as simple does.

Ahh but keeping it simple works well. Bolton is classified to me as a neocon parrot that is very unconstitutional in his own right. So why would I want to seriously consider anything he has to say about accusing the other side of being unconstitutional?

I must compliment you, as your most recent posts are far more substantial than the original ones!

Bravo.

"Bolton is classified to me as a neocon parrot..."

This would include statements such as...?


"...very unconstitutional ..."

As illustrated by...?

 

[Truthmatters]

Bolten is a hack

 

[uscitizen]

To put it in short, how would you repsond if I posted something that said Hitler was a jews rights advocate? It would be so ridiculous as to not deserve a proper reply?
I view Bolton running down the dems for trashing the constitution in the same way.

 

[uscitizen]

The righties don't even seem to be defending Bolton much on this. Wonder why?

 

[PoliticalChic]

To put it in short, how would you repsond if I posted something that said Hitler was a jews rights advocate? It would be so ridiculous as to not deserve a proper reply?
I view Bolton running down the dems for trashing the constitution in the same way.

If I were you, and it had been pointed out that I could not support my statement, I might withdraw it , or apologize for a misstatement, or, probably best in your case, simply amble away...

It seems we're done.


Merry Christmas.

 

[uscitizen]

To put it in short, how would you repsond if I posted something that said Hitler was a jews rights advocate? It would be so ridiculous as to not deserve a proper reply?
I view Bolton running down the dems for trashing the constitution in the same way.

If I were you, and it had been pointed out that I could not support my statement, I might withdraw it , or apologize for a misstatement, or, probably best in your case, simply amble away...

It seems we're done.


Merry Christmas.

I will not withdraw my opinion on Bolton, so I just say Happy Holidays as I amble away.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I truly don't care about Mr Bolton one way or the other. But I do care about the 2nd amendment. And I notice that all the left attacked Bolton but said nothing about the 2nd amendment possibly coming under attack. Tells us a lot about where their minds are.

Me, I'll still give up my guns one bullet at a time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I truly don't care about Mr Bolton one way or the other. But I do care about the 2nd amendment. And I notice that all the left attacked Bolton but said nothing about the 2nd amendment possibly coming under attack. Tells us a lot about where their minds are.

Me, I'll still give up my guns one bullet at a time.

You are, of course, correct, that this thread is and should be about the 2nd Amendment.

Sorry that I allowed myself to veer off, but I was hoping to illustrate to our friends on the left the kind of post that would, I hope, be more instructive.

The Obama Adminstration, through Sec'y of State Clinton, is ready to acquiesce to a treaty which, if passed by the Democrat Senate, would carry the force of a Constituional amendment.

"Article 7 is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, and once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble. Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”

a. In 1919 there was an international conference to establish the International Labor Organization (ILO). The plan was that members would vote on labor standards, and member nations would automatically adopt those standards. The American members declined, saying that this would be contrary to the Constitution, specifically, it would be delegating the treaty-making power to an international body: we would be surrendering America’s sovereignty as derived from the Constitution. In 90 years, we have unilaterally adopted just three of the standards.

b. Today, there is no longer a consensus on the principle of non-delegation. Two year ago the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, sued the EPA in the D.C. Court of Appeals stating that the Congress had instructed the EPA to conform to the Montreal Protocol, an international conference calling for stricter emission standards. The Appeals Court stated that Congress cannot delegate its constitutional power and responsibility to legislate for the American people to an international body.

c. Delegation of judicial power is also open to question. Although the U.S. can agree to arbitration of disputes with foreign countries, but it is another thing to say that the rights of American citizens can be determined by foreign courts. This would be a delegation of judicial power in Article 3: “…shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts…”

d. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?"

From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.

 

[California Girl]

To put it in short, how would you repsond if I posted something that said Hitler was a jews rights advocate? It would be so ridiculous as to not deserve a proper reply?
I view Bolton running down the dems for trashing the constitution in the same way.

If I were you, and it had been pointed out that I could not support my statement, I might withdraw it , or apologize for a misstatement, or, probably best in your case, simply amble away...

It seems we're done.


Merry Christmas.

Did we see a touch of the 'attack the messenger' in the responses to your OP? I wonder who came up with that tactic.... I pity the fools. Can't debate the issue, attack the source.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The left hates Bolton because, gulp, he is a U.S. first kinda guy. How DARE him!!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why are lefties such pussies?

 

[FA_Q2]

Where are the responses to politicalchic’s last post. This is the current trend of the US court system and that is downright SCARY.

 

[California Girl]

To be fair, it has been a very long time since any politician - of either side - actually took their oath of office seriously. Most of them haven't even read the Constitution so how the hell are they going to defend it?

Should we not be demanding that our politicians start taking that oath as something more than a bunch of words they parrot?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, come on, Cali Girl, you are one of the biggest talking parrots on the forum: squawk and squawk.

PoliticalChic, until you are willing to use reasonable evidence (Bolton? et al, you have zilch creditibility.

 

[Foxfyre]

Supporting John Bolton is about like a lefty posting Michael Moore crap.

Now would a rightie expect someone on the left to explain why Moore was not whacked?

Or would they just ridicule?

Well, at the risk of being labeled hypercritical, I have always believe those on the Left set the bar really low for their heroes.

But let's look at bios of Michael Moore and John Bolton and see if you still think the comparison valid:

Michael Moore

After dropping out of the University of Michigan-Flint (where he wrote for the student newspaper The Michigan Times) and working for a day at the General Motors plant,[17] at 22 he founded the alternative weekly magazine The Flint Voice, which soon changed its name to The Michigan Voice as it expanded to cover the entire state. In 1986, when Moore became the editor of Mother Jones, a liberal political magazine, he moved to California and The Michigan Voice was shut down.

After four months at Mother Jones, Moore was fired. Matt Labash of The Weekly Standard reported this was for refusing to print an article by Paul Berman that was critical of the Sandinista human rights record in Nicaragua.[18] Moore refused to run the article, believing it to be inaccurate. "The article was flatly wrong and the worst kind of patronizing bullshit. You would scarcely know from it that the United States had been at war with Nicaragua for the last five years."[19] Berman described Moore as a "very ideological guy and not a very well-educated guy" when asked about the incident.[20] Moore believes that Mother Jones fired him because of the publisher's refusal to allow him to cover a story on the GM plant closings in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. He responded by putting laid-off GM worker Ben Hamper (who was also writing for the same magazine at the time) on the magazine's cover, leading to his termination. Moore sued for wrongful dismissal, and settled out of court for $58,000, providing him with seed money for his first film, Roger & Me.[21]. . . .

. . . .Moore is a self-described liberal[5] who has criticized globalization, large corporations, assault weapon ownership, the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush and the American health care system in his written and cinematic works. In 2005 Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.[6] Also in 2005, Moore started the annual Traverse City Film Festival in Traverse City, Michigan. In 2008, he closed his Manhattan office and moved it to Traverse City, where he continued work on new films.[7] . . . .
Michael Moore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Bolton

Secretary, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
John R. Bolton currently serves as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His portfolio includes Foreign Policy and International Organizations.

Prior to arriving at AEI, Amb. Bolton served as the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations from August 1, 2005 to December 9, 2006. From June 2001 to May 2005, Ambassador Bolton served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, also in the Bush Administration.

Prior to this, Ambassador Bolton was Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He supervised the AEI research program, financial oversight, dissemination of the AEI research and publications, public affairs and general management.

Ambassador Bolton has spent many years of his career in public service. Previous positions he has held are Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs at the Department of State, 1989-1993; Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, 1985-1989; Assistant Administrator for Program and Policy Coordination, U.S. Agency for International Development, 1982-1983; General Counsel, U.S. Agency for International Development, 1981-1982.

Ambassador Bolton is also an attorney. He was an associate at the Washington office of Covington & Burling, and then a member of the firm from 1983-1985, after public service at the U.S. Agency for International Development. He currently is “of counsel” to the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis.

Bolton graduated Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude from Yale College (1970), and received his J.D. from Yale Law School (1974), where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal.

Ambassador Bolton is married to Gretchen Smith Bolton. They have one daughter, Jennifer Sarah Bolton.
John Bolton - News, Articles, Biography, Photos - WSJ.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

So the point is the Moore is a self-made American icon in film and opinion making, and Bolton is a right wing hack who climbed the neo-con ladder. OK.

 

[Father Time]

Thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.

How's the weather on your high horse? You're smart enough to know those sources are right wing loons and that people dismiss the ravings of left wing loons as well.

Instead of aspersion, so easy to cast, requiring no knowledge, how about contesting the post?

Care to take the challenge?

If I were to post the ravings of a left wing loon I highly doubt you wouldn't just dismiss and ridicule it out of hand.

 

[California Girl]

Oh, come on, Cali Girl, you are one of the biggest talking parrots on the forum: squawk and squawk.

PoliticalChic, until you are willing to use reasonable evidence (Bolton? et al, you have zilch creditibility.

Bless your heart, Joke. You are one seriously stooopid assclown, are you not? I actually feel sorry for you.