Republiscum Birthers and now Tenthers.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by francopinion, Sep 3, 2009.

  1. francopinion
    Offline

    francopinion Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    Perry and I think Palin are part of the "Republiscums Tenthers" movement. They want to do away with a few things. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Aid to Education, Overtime, Minimum Wage, Federal Highway System, 7 day work week, and anything else the Federal Government touches. Google Tenther's Constitution. Interesting.
     
  2. Oscar Wao
    Offline

    Oscar Wao Victory is Mine

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    2,139
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Quahog, RI
    Ratings:
    +301
    7-day work week? Wow, I'll ask my BIL who works 5 days a week
     
  3. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,221
    Thanks Received:
    14,910
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,989
    PDS: Until there is a cure, just laugh at the masculine Libruls that suffer penis envy at the mere mention of Sarah Palin
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. BasicGreatGuy
    Offline

    BasicGreatGuy Aut libertas aut mors

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    Thanks Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +427
    Are you still in grade school? Why the adolescent "Republiscums" term? Do you have something against the proper application of the X Amendment?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. nodoginnafight
    Offline

    nodoginnafight No Party Affiliation

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,755
    Thanks Received:
    1,069
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,497
    More loonies - While I'd be more than happy to let Texas go their own way - I can't go along with this misinterpretation of the constitution.
     
  6. Ringel05
    Online

    Ringel05 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    40,244
    Thanks Received:
    8,009
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    El Paso, TX
    Ratings:
    +17,361
    Who's interpretation do you subscribe to? Madison? Hamilton? Someone else?
     
  7. nodoginnafight
    Offline

    nodoginnafight No Party Affiliation

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,755
    Thanks Received:
    1,069
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,497
    I subscribe to my own - but I'm not so ego-centric as to think it is the "only defensible intepretation"
     
  8. Ringel05
    Online

    Ringel05 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    40,244
    Thanks Received:
    8,009
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    El Paso, TX
    Ratings:
    +17,361
    Ok, given that why would you consider anyone else's a misinterpretation.
    (For clarification I personally subscribe to the "intent of the framers" version, the same version which, in the not so distant past, was exclusively used by the Supreme Court when deciding cases).
     
  9. nodoginnafight
    Offline

    nodoginnafight No Party Affiliation

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,755
    Thanks Received:
    1,069
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,497
    Problem with "intent of the framers" is that it depends on which framer's quotes you want to use to justify your interpretation - and WHEN they said the quote. The framers were all over the place in their quotes.

    The interpretation of the supreme court is what's gonna stick - as it should. But the supreme court isn't going to be able to circumvent the will of the people (if the majority is big enough) for very long.

    The "intent of the framers" imho - was to create a document that is flexible enough to reflect changing attitudes - but not so flimsy that it was subject to fickle whims. That's the second problem with the "intent of the framers" argument - they never expected their "intent" to be the final word for all eternity.
     
  10. nodoginnafight
    Offline

    nodoginnafight No Party Affiliation

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,755
    Thanks Received:
    1,069
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,497
    The reason I call the secessionists' intepretation an incorrect interpretation is that it is in conflict with prevailing precedent. They tried to make this case before and they got their butts whipped - and that (imho) is a good thing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2009

Share This Page