Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[JakeStarkey]

I never said it was the driveing force good buddy.. But if you look in the history books you will see quite clearly the Dems were trying to kill it and Johnson had to get help from the Republicans to pass it. That is look uppable

Oh, silliness, westwall. You tell only the minority report of the story. The divide for the bills was geographical, not ideological. That means ~ now follow me closely ~ that if you were southern republicans and democrats, you overwhelmingly voted against it, that if you were democrats and republicans elsewhere, you voted for it. Now the minority party (and very minor in numbers) did vote in higher % for it because the GOP normally did not get elected downhere back then.

But don't ever pretend the GOP was the driving, motivational force for Civil Rights, kiddo, because it was flatly not.

Why do you insist on lying?

Democrats and Republicans in the South were resisting, Democrats and Republicans in the North and West were pushing it through. The issues was not ideology but one of geography. The Democrats, under the lead of Kennedy then Johnson, were committed to pushing it through. To say otherwise denies what was happening. This is how we make sure it is taught in our local school districts.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm thinking PC must be absolutely on point since so many of the lefties have abandoned the thread topic and are now focusing on trashing her.

On my thread analysis calculator, that almost always translates to her being the clear winner.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm thinking PC must be absolutely on point since so many of the lefties have abandoned the thread topic and are now focusing on trashing her.

Uhh, no, SHE abandoned the topic, that's why you see us all discussing amongst ourself, and she isn't here. You're not too bright, are you? I'm still waiting for her to tell me how regulating the airlines does not fall under interstate commerce.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm thinking PC must be absolutely on point since so many of the lefties have abandoned the thread topic and are now focusing on trashing her.

Uhh, no, SHE abandoned the topic, that's why you see us all discussing amongst ourself, and she isn't here. You're not too bright, are you? I'm still waiting for her to tell me how regulating the airlines does not fall under interstate commerce.

I never claimed to be too bright.

I only claim the right to keep score as I see fit. PC has offered some excellent points for discussion on this thread. Whether I think her right or wrong, she gets a point for every one of those points.

Those that trash her personally rather than the points she is making get demerits.

She wins.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

 

[Father Time]

I'm thinking PC must be absolutely on point since so many of the lefties have abandoned the thread topic and are now focusing on trashing her.

Uhh, no, SHE abandoned the topic, that's why you see us all discussing amongst ourself, and she isn't here. You're not too bright, are you? I'm still waiting for her to tell me how regulating the airlines does not fall under interstate commerce.

I never claimed to be too bright.

I only claim the right to keep score as I see fit. PC has offered some excellent points for discussion on this thread. Whether I think her right or wrong, she gets a point for every one of those points.

Those that trash her personally rather than the points she is making get demerits.

She wins.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

If you want to be official her abandonment means we win by default. Although if you want to be real official you can't have a participant of the debate be a judge as well. Conflict of interest and whatnot.

And half her posts contain unwarranted personal insults.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you want to be official her abandonment means we win by default. Although if you want to be real official you can't have a participant of the debate be a judge as well. Conflict of interest and whatnot.

And half her posts contain unwarranted personal insults.

\

I don't think she abandoned anything. I am guessing she either considered what needed to be said has been said or otherwise has a life to lead. Some of us do have lives to lead.

Unwarranted personal insults? Really?

But you're right. The participant cannot be the judge.

But then i'm not official either.

But every single time somebody resorts to personal insult, ad hominem, straw man, non sequitur, or red herring in lieu of a competent argument, I figure they're out of ammo.

PC has yet to be out of ammo on this topic so far as I can see.

Anyhow, if you eliminate the schoolyard nonsense, it has been a good discussion. I enjoyed it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm thinking PC must be absolutely on point since so many of the lefties have abandoned the thread topic and are now focusing on trashing her.

Uhh, no, SHE abandoned the topic, that's why you see us all discussing amongst ourself, and she isn't here. You're not too bright, are you? I'm still waiting for her to tell me how regulating the airlines does not fall under interstate commerce.

I never claimed to be too bright.

I only claim the right to keep score as I see fit. PC has offered some excellent points for discussion on this thread. Whether I think her right or wrong, she gets a point for every one of those points.

Those that trash her personally rather than the points she is making get demerits.

She wins.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Thanks so much for the vote of confidence.

But when you are dealing with Larry, Moe & Curly, don't expect any more than we've seen.

I expected more from the Spider, when he actually referred to a SC decision, but he revealed himself to be an empty suit. He sidesteps and ignores, and makes vague and vapid points as though they were dispositive.

And the clincher for me was when he asked for proof re: my note about Madison and Hamilton, post #204 (?) and then complained that it was from Wiki, even though I included the footnotes that validated the point.

One can only hope for some better competition for us, but I have to admit that most of it was fun and allows our exposition.

 

[Foxfyre]

Uhh, no, SHE abandoned the topic, that's why you see us all discussing amongst ourself, and she isn't here. You're not too bright, are you? I'm still waiting for her to tell me how regulating the airlines does not fall under interstate commerce.

I never claimed to be too bright.

I only claim the right to keep score as I see fit. PC has offered some excellent points for discussion on this thread. Whether I think her right or wrong, she gets a point for every one of those points.

Those that trash her personally rather than the points she is making get demerits.

She wins.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Thanks so much for the vote of confidence.

But when you are dealing with Larry, Moe & Curly, don't expect any more than we've seen.

I expected more from the Spider, when he actually referred to a SC decision, but he revealed himself to be an empty suit. He sidesteps and ignores, and makes vague and vapid points as though they were dispositive.

And the clincher for me was when he asked for proof re: my note about Madison and Hamilton, post #204 (?) and then complained that it was from Wiki, even though I included the footnotes that validated the point.

One can only hope for some better competition for us, but I have to admit that most of it was fun and allows our exposition.

I know there are smart liberals out there. I read them. Who can't apprecaite the point of view of say a Camile Paglia or Michael Kinsley or even, when she is on her game, the queen-of-mean Maureen Dowd or, RIP, Molly Ivans. Or my all time favorite, also alas departed from us, William Raspberry?

There are even a few leftwingers here in USMB that competently express a point of view and don't think that the non sequitur, ad hominem, straw man etc. is intelligent debate.

I wish we could attract more of them to a thread like this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I never claimed to be too bright.

I only claim the right to keep score as I see fit. PC has offered some excellent points for discussion on this thread. Whether I think her right or wrong, she gets a point for every one of those points.

Those that trash her personally rather than the points she is making get demerits.

She wins.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Thanks so much for the vote of confidence.

But when you are dealing with Larry, Moe & Curly, don't expect any more than we've seen.

I expected more from the Spider, when he actually referred to a SC decision, but he revealed himself to be an empty suit. He sidesteps and ignores, and makes vague and vapid points as though they were dispositive.

And the clincher for me was when he asked for proof re: my note about Madison and Hamilton, post #204 (?) and then complained that it was from Wiki, even though I included the footnotes that validated the point.

One can only hope for some better competition for us, but I have to admit that most of it was fun and allows our exposition.

I know there are smart liberals out there. I read them. Who can't apprecaite the point of view of say a Camile Paglia or Michael Kinsley or even, when she is on her game, the queen-of-mean Maureen Dowd or, RIP, Molly Ivans. Or my all time favorite, also alas departed from us, William Raspberry?

There are even a few leftwingers here in USMB that competently express a point of view and don't think that the non sequitur, ad hominem, straw man etc. is intelligent debate.

I wish we could attract more of them to a thread like this.

I don't know if this is simply my impression, but I feel that we had more vociferous lefties prior to and just after President Obama's election.

And some really good battles.

But the longer this administration has been in office, I find that fewer lefties- not all- but fewer are coming onto the board, or speaking up.

And some of our lefty colleagues have become more strident. Human nature, I guess. Frustration, perhaps the realization that this bunch is not the answer.

If we become primarily a right wing board, it will be really, really boring.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we become primarily a right wing board, it will be really, really boring.

Amen to that. That is one of the reasons I stayed with my former favorite board for as long as I did--it leaned strongly left overall. I think us active conservatives were outnumbered like 10 to 1, but we did have some really intelligent give and take debates on a number of issues.

But I think you're basic observation might be right.

After President Obama got elected, it all changed. The smart leftists didn't come around as much and the trolls, numbnuts, and idiots weren't able to defend the indefensible, so they became much more shrill and hateful and targeted people for abuse instead of ideas. And when every single thread of substance invariably dissolved into pages of such demonstrated behavior, it just wasn't fun any more. So I came here which seemed to have a really good mix of bright left and right types.

Whether or not they can defend Obama and his surrogates, I hope they will stay with us to debate the basic concepts that should be part of the national debate. I agree that if all that is left is the rightwing choir, there won't be any challenge to our point of view and therefore nothing to defend and nothing new to learn. Boring.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And the clincher for me was when he asked for proof re: my note about Madison and Hamilton, post #204 (?) and then complained that it was from Wiki, even though I included the footnotes that validated the point.

Except the footnote did not validate the claim that Hamilton only disagreed after. They merely provide proof of Hamilton's disagreement with Madison AFTER the Constitution was written, they provide no evidence as to his opinion during its writing. I fail to see why we should just assume he felt the opposite because you like it that way and the wikipedian seems to want to imply it with no evidence to back it up

But I know that's a lot to ask of you - to actually make sure footnotes do in fact validate a wiki statement. So I'm going to go ahead and fix the wiki article to avoid confusion for you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Hey PoliticalChic, whenever you're ready to explain how regulation of airlines engaged in interstate travel does not fall under interstate commerce, I'm all ears.

 

[Father Time]

Unwarranted personal insults?

Do you really need me to point them out? Just look at the old posts and you'll find accusations of being childish and low intelligence all around. Hell on this page we're all of a sudden the 3 Stooges.

It's so low class of her.

 

[Father Time]

Oh and seeing as how she's ignored counter arguments I'd say she is out of ammo.

Once again PC please show how airlines are not interstate commerce, or how the Constitution limits how much the government can regulate interstate commerce.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Oh and seeing as how she's ignored counter arguments I'd say she is out of ammo.

Once again PC please show how airlines are not interstate commerce, or how the Constitution limits how much the government can regulate interstate commerce.

Yeah apparently she thinks the interstate commerce clause doesn't apply to private businesses.

What fucking planet does she live on?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey PoliticalChic, whenever you're ready to explain how regulation of airlines engaged in interstate travel does not fall under interstate commerce, I'm all ears.

I'm not sure as to the reason for the large font, other than proof of the stridency that I indicated earlier. Try to control yourself.

Now let's phrase your question withing the context of my view of the Constitution.

As to your point, I'm astounded that you can't conceive of a common sense limitation on governmental intrusion. Government has no business threatening a private business as to its price schedule: citizens will decide what the proper value is, as long as the business is not a monopoly.

You haven't said that you agree that the government should enforce regulation of salt content in foods, but you seem not to see any limits at all. That is the essence of progressives' views of governmental powers vis-a-vis individual rights. My view? As Madison said, 'Education is the true foundation of civil liberty.' In other words, public discussion as to the value of limiting salt, and then leaving it up to citizens.

I hope you won't dodge or 'decline' to give your view on this idea.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh and seeing as how she's ignored counter arguments I'd say she is out of ammo.

Once again PC please show how airlines are not interstate commerce, or how the Constitution limits how much the government can regulate interstate commerce.

Yeah apparently she thinks the interstate commerce clause doesn't apply to private businesses.

What fucking planet does she live on?

I can understand you point just as well with civil language.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and seeing as how she's ignored counter arguments I'd say she is out of ammo.

Once again PC please show how airlines are not interstate commerce, or how the Constitution limits how much the government can regulate interstate commerce.

Since Interstate Commerce is the transfer of goods from one state to another and there is no mention of airlines being included in that--airlines are regulated by an entirely different agency and concept--I think PC is on pretty solid ground if she said that airlines are not interstate commerce.

Perhaps you can find something that says they are.

She has already cited the article and clause in the Constitution related to Interstate Commerce. Was there some part of that you didn't understand?

Also, I don't know if she included the long standing debates on how much authority the government has to regulate interstate commerce and strict constitutionalists do have a different opinion about that than do people like - well you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

As to your point, I'm astounded that you can't conceive of a common sense limitation on governmental intrusion. Government has no business threatening a private business as to its price schedule: citizens will decide what the proper value is, as long as the business is not a monopoly.

You haven't said that you agree that the government should enforce regulation of salt content in foods, but you seem not to see any limits at all. That is the essence of progressives' views of governmental powers vis-a-vis individual rights. My view? As Madison said, 'Education is the true foundation of civil liberty.' In other words, public discussion as to the value of limiting salt, and then leaving it up to citizens.

I hope you won't dodge or 'decline' to give your view on this idea.

So other than an irrelevant quote, am I to take it you have zero case law, zero writings of the Founders, and zero something actually written in the Constitution, to back your claim, and that I'm to be convinced that you are the correct one solely because you say it makes sense to you?


Are you for real?

Believe it or not, Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" - WITHOUT having to run it by you to check to see if you like it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Since Interstate Commerce is the transfer of goods from one state to another and there is no mention of airlines being included in that--airlines are regulated by an entirely different agency and concept--

Are you making all the crap up on the fly or do you have it written down somewhere already? What "agency and concept" are they regulated under in the Constitution if not the commerce clause?

I think PC is on pretty solid ground if she said that airlines are not interstate commerce.

Perhaps you can find something that says they are.

Do you have a clue at all about anything? Seriously, can you be this stupid? Really? No way!!!!!! I don't fucking believe it!!!


Do I really have to explain to you why a business engaged in the flying of passengers and freight from one state to another qualifies as "commerce among the States" ? Are you seriously this brain dead? Are you like, 3?