Log of Failed Liberal Policies

[OohPooPahDoo]

If the Constitution is so black and white why did the people who wrote it disagree with each other on what it meant?

Stop avoiding the question. If you can decide for yourself that the ultimate law of the land - the US Constitution - is open to "interpretation" and "definition", then surely lesser laws such as speed limit, laws against rape, theft, and murder must be open for interpretation and challenge by your own "logic" (and I use that term loosely with you).

I didn't decide that for myself. Nor is my interpretation of any law binding on anyone. Only the Court's is.


Its strange you think the Court never had the authority to determine the Constitutionality of the ACA in the first place.

Come on anti-constitutional parasite liberal, try to squirm your way out of this one.

Are you 14?

The law is the law son. Period. End of story. Why have law or contracts if the words are open to "interpretation"?

All words are not only "open" to interpretation, they require it. Are you seriously some kind of idiot?

Society would fall apart if liberals were in charge because signed laws and contracts have no meaning in their warped little minds.

That's not even true. You're a seriously retarded human being. Its amazing you having not fallen prey to death by monumental stupidity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

BTW, in your "black and white" interpretation of the Constitution, can you tell me where the Constitution makes the President Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force?

Yes I can. Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (the Commander in Chief Clause) states that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Any other questions?

The Air Force is not the Army, nor is it the Navy, nor is it a militia, its a separate uniformed branch known as the "Air Force" (DUH). The Constitution is black and white, isn't it? Well the Constitution does not say the President is Commander-In-Chief of the AIR FORCE - does it? So black and white - he's NOT, is he?


What about the 9th Amendment? Ever fucking read it? I doubt it. Let's see, it says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What "other rights" is this amendment referring to? Pretty black and white, right? Guess it means Congress can't deny us our "other rights", either, that's certainly not open to any sort of interpretation. Everyone knows what the "other rights" are, right? What are they, genius?

 

[P@triot]

The Air Force is not the Army, nor is it the Navy, nor is it a militia, its a separate uniformed branch known as the "Air Force" (DUH).

ROTFLMFAO!!!! The fact that you just used the terms "seperate" and "branch" in the same sentence speaks volumes about your knowledge my friend. The very definition of "branch" means part of something - the exact opposite of "seperate"

Branch */branCH/
A limited part of a larger or more complex unit or system
Divided into one or more subdivisions

 

[P@triot]

I didn't decide that for myself. Nor is my interpretation of any law binding on anyone. Only the Court's is.

You are dancing around the question like a mad man. You wrongly believe that what is written on the Constitution is meaningless and open to the opinions of a certain body which can change (one case yes, one case no) on any given day. Not only does this mean that it is literally impossible for people to be compliant with the law because it can change depending on the moods of the people on the court that day, but it also means that lesser laws (such as speed limits) are open for interpretation by your assinine "logic".

So answer the question - do you believe that speed limits, laws against rape, murder, and theft are not set in stone and are open to the interpretation of the offender and the courts? After all, if the court can interpret it, it's not set in stone and thus the offender must interpret it "on the fly" as well.

 

[P@triot]

Its strange you think the Court never had the authority to determine the Constitutionality of the ACA in the first place

In your desperation to wiggle out of the corner I have trapped you in with your own words, you're just making shit up. I said the Constitution is set in stone (save for when properly amended of course) and not open to "interpretation". The constitutionality of the ACA is absolutely open to the determination of the Supreme Court. That's why the Supreme Court exists - to see if a wide range of issues are Constitutional. Not to see if the Constitution exists, stupid.

 

[onecut39]

"The United States federal government spends $480 billion per year of tax payers money on R&D and the resulting commercialization from that research has resulted in a less than 5% ROI (Return On Investment for you liberals)". - Robert Brumley (Pegasus Global Holdings)

So because he says so, it must be true?

EDIT - Since when is R&D a "liberal" policy? LOL! Tell that to all the researchers working for the U.S. military.

(Since liberals are the parasite class that lives off of the government, they don't understand these concepts. So allow me to dumb it down to your level: the over bloated, unconstitutional, monstosity of a government that you have created spends an enormous amount of money and we have very little to show for it).
Reply With Quote

Why is it any rightie who has taken Econ 101 thinks he's the world's most brilliant economist and everyone else is stupid?

Really? You know that? Are you sure they have taken econ 101?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Air Force is not the Army, nor is it the Navy, nor is it a militia, its a separate uniformed branch known as the "Air Force" (DUH).

ROTFLMFAO!!!! The fact that you just used the terms "seperate" and "branch" in the same sentence speaks volumes about your knowledge my friend. The very definition of "branch" means part of something - the exact opposite of "seperate"

Branch */branCH/
A limited part of a larger or more complex unit or system
Divided into one or more subdivisions

That's great, but where does the Constitution say the President is the Commander In Chief of all branches of the military? The copy I have says he's Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and the militias of the states. Doesn't say he's the Commander-In-Chief of every branch of the military. So if the Constitution is Black&White just like you say, its obvious he isn't Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The constitutionality of the ACA is absolutely open to the determination of the Supreme Court.

What did they determine?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I didn't decide that for myself. Nor is my interpretation of any law binding on anyone. Only the Court's is.

You are dancing around the question like a mad man. You wrongly believe that what is written on the Constitution is meaningless and open to the opinions of a certain body which can change (one case yes, one case no) on any given day.

Change day to day? Please. The number of times that the Supreme Court has overruled itself in our 236 year history is what?

 

[P@triot]

I didn't decide that for myself. Nor is my interpretation of any law binding on anyone. Only the Court's is.

You are dancing around the question like a mad man. You wrongly believe that what is written on the Constitution is meaningless and open to the opinions of a certain body which can change (one case yes, one case no) on any given day.

Change day to day? Please. The number of times that the Supreme Court has overruled itself in our 236 year history is what?

Yes - similar cases can result in difference results based on human emotion, back room deals, or changes in members of the court.

 

[P@triot]

The constitutionality of the ACA is absolutely open to the determination of the Supreme Court.

What did they determine?

That under the Commer Clause (which Obama claimed authority under), it is absolutely 100% unconstitutional. The federal government simply does not have the authority to force citizens to purchase a good or service.

 

[P@triot]

That's great, but where does the Constitution say the President is the Commander In Chief of all branches of the military? The copy I have says he's Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and the militias of the states. Doesn't say he's the Commander-In-Chief of every branch of the military. So if the Constitution is Black&White just like you say, its obvious he isn't Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.

Why won't you answer the question? You realize that it proves once and for all that you are wrong! And sadly, you're not man enough to just acknowledge you were wrong on your opinion about the US Constitution.

If what is written in black & white and signed into law in the US Constitution is open to "interpretation", then other (lesser) laws such as the speed limit, or laws such as those regarding rape, murder, and theft are also open to interpretation, correct? A person must interpret for themselves that a residential speed limit of 25 is not actually 25, but can be 65 depending on their interpretation. A woman can be raped so long as the offender interprets their need of sex & control supercedes her right not to be raped, right?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The constitutionality of the ACA is absolutely open to the determination of the Supreme Court.

What did they determine?

That under the Commer Clause (which Obama claimed authority under), it is absolutely 100% unconstitutional. The federal government simply does not have the authority to force citizens to purchase a good or service.

Did you happen to continue reading the opinion or, like FOX News and CNN, did you stop there?

Oh, wait, nevermind, you've never even read the first part of the damn opinion, let alone the whole thing, who am I kidding?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's great, but where does the Constitution say the President is the Commander In Chief of all branches of the military? The copy I have says he's Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and the militias of the states. Doesn't say he's the Commander-In-Chief of every branch of the military. So if the Constitution is Black&White just like you say, its obvious he isn't Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.

Why won't you answer the question? You realize that it proves once and for all that you are wrong! And sadly, you're not man enough to just acknowledge you were wrong on your opinion about the US Constitution.

If what is written in black & white and signed into law in the US Constitution is open to "interpretation", then other (lesser) laws such as the speed limit, or laws such as those regarding rape, murder, and theft are also open to interpretation, correct? A person must interpret for themselves that a residential speed limit of 25 is not actually 25, but can be 65 depending on their interpretation. A woman can be raped so long as the offender interprets their need of sex & control supercedes her right not to be raped, right?

Speeders and rapists don't get to interpret the law, only the judiciary gets to do that.



Now that I've answered yours, please show me where in the Constitution the President is made Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.


Thanks.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You are dancing around the question like a mad man. You wrongly believe that what is written on the Constitution is meaningless and open to the opinions of a certain body which can change (one case yes, one case no) on any given day.

Change day to day? Please. The number of times that the Supreme Court has overruled itself in our 236 year history is what?

Yes - similar cases can result in difference results based on human emotion, back room deals, or changes in members of the court.

I didn't ask you for a hypothetical, I asked you to show me how many times the Court has over turned itself.

Why must you insist on arguing without factual evidence of any kind?

 

[P@triot]

That's great, but where does the Constitution say the President is the Commander In Chief of all branches of the military? The copy I have says he's Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and the militias of the states. Doesn't say he's the Commander-In-Chief of every branch of the military. So if the Constitution is Black&White just like you say, its obvious he isn't Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.

Why won't you answer the question? You realize that it proves once and for all that you are wrong! And sadly, you're not man enough to just acknowledge you were wrong on your opinion about the US Constitution.

If what is written in black & white and signed into law in the US Constitution is open to "interpretation", then other (lesser) laws such as the speed limit, or laws such as those regarding rape, murder, and theft are also open to interpretation, correct? A person must interpret for themselves that a residential speed limit of 25 is not actually 25, but can be 65 depending on their interpretation. A woman can be raped so long as the offender interprets their need of sex & control supercedes her right not to be raped, right?

Speeders and rapists don't get to interpret the law, only the judiciary gets to do that.



Now that I've answered yours, please show me where in the Constitution the President is made Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.


Thanks.

Actually, you didn't answer at all. You avoided, like you've been doing.

But let me ask you this about your avoiding question - if the judiciary gets to interpret the law, that means it's not set in stone. And if it's not set in stone, how do you expect law abiding citizens to be compliant with a laws that are (to quote you idiot liberals) "living and breathing" and thus changing and open to interpretation?

You know I've completely broken down your flawed logic here, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why won't you answer the question? You realize that it proves once and for all that you are wrong! And sadly, you're not man enough to just acknowledge you were wrong on your opinion about the US Constitution.

If what is written in black & white and signed into law in the US Constitution is open to "interpretation", then other (lesser) laws such as the speed limit, or laws such as those regarding rape, murder, and theft are also open to interpretation, correct? A person must interpret for themselves that a residential speed limit of 25 is not actually 25, but can be 65 depending on their interpretation. A woman can be raped so long as the offender interprets their need of sex & control supercedes her right not to be raped, right?

Speeders and rapists don't get to interpret the law, only the judiciary gets to do that.



Now that I've answered yours, please show me where in the Constitution the President is made Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force.


Thanks.

Actually, you didn't answer at all. You avoided, like you've been doing.

But let me ask you this about your avoiding question - if the judiciary gets to interpret the law, that means it's not set in stone.

"set in stone" has no legal meaning, its a metaphor. Please do not use metaphor, tell me exactly what you mean in black and white.

And if it's not set in stone, how do you expect law abiding citizens to be compliant with a laws that are (to quote you idiot liberals) "living and breathing" and thus changing and open to interpretation?

I never said anything was "living and breathing", so I won't be held to account for saying it. You can go find someone who has used that phrase and ask them.

You know I've completely broken down your flawed logic here, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

I can't wait until the fall comes and you run off back to school.

 

[Hemingway]

So Rottweiler is Mr. Brumley. How is CITE coming? When will be the grand opening? It is exciting!