Sean Hannity Is Abandoning Bush

[archangel]

What I said has nothing to do with Civil War history. I was responding to a comment musicman made about me and "liberals" in general. What I said about the Civil War was that it started because of many different factors. Do you refute that?

I was very clear on my position...go back to history 101 before ya make a total ass of yourself!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

No - liberals advocate giving CERTAIN people more rights, thus creating artificial, dependent constitutencies on the backs of productive Americans. Know this: Worldly power is a zero/sum game. You cannot "empower" one group without disenfranchising another.

What "powers" have liberals given to certain groups that "disenfranchise" you? You still haven't named anything.

If my little community wishes to establish - according to majority rule - standards of right and wrong by which we wish to live, tough shit. The judiciary has already set NATIONAL POLICIES on matters that are none of its business.

The judiciary can step in if something your "little community" passes is unconstitutional. It's that pesky fourteenth amendment again!

You've been answered numerous times; you just refuse to hear.

You still won't answer me. You're playing a shell game here. I want to know how liberals have infringed upon your freedoms. Tell me.

 

[GotZoom]

Well, with the specific issue of slavery, no, because you would be effectively stealing people from other countries. I feel like you're trying to back me into some corner, so why don't we just skip the groping and ask me what you're trying to get at.

You say that if the majority wants it, then it should be ok. If the majority of caucasians and hispanics in the United States wanted African-Americans to become their slaves, and voted for it, what happens?

Forget shipping them in from other countries, etc....the people in the country now.

Or..if NAMBLA was able to convince a majority of people o legalize pedophila?

There are many examples.

 

[archangel]

What "powers" have liberals given to certain groups that "disenfranchise" you? You still haven't named anything.


The judiciary can step in if something your "little community" passes is unconstitutional. It's that pesky fourteenth amendment again!


You still won't answer me. You're playing a shell game here. I want to know how liberals have infringed upon your freedoms. Tell me.

your diatribe in here makes a good case...now back to your drama class.....you failed journalism 101...maybe there will be a remake of the "Lost Boys" more along the lines of your expertise!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

your diatribe in here makes a good case...now back to your drama class.....you failed journalism 101...maybe there will be a remake of the "Lost Boys" more along the lines of your expertise!

Oldie, it's becoming more and more apparent that you are in fact a "daisy." The strain is proving to be more than you can bare.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

but it was over unfair-taxation..not the slave issue..hard to swallow yeah...but a fact! now go bury hag...he is a actor in training!...lol

The Civil War would never have happened had it not been for slavery. You can't just take the Civil War and say it started because of an issue in a vacuum. No war starts over one single, isolated issue. They start over various complex and interwoven issues.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

They start over various complex and interwoven issues.

Huh? Is there an echo in here?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You say that if the majority wants it, then it should be ok. If the majority of caucasians and hispanics in the United States wanted African-Americans to become their slaves, and voted for it, what happens?

Forget shipping them in from other countries, etc....the people in the country now.

Or..if NAMBLA was able to convince a majority of people o legalize pedophila?

There are many examples.

There are many examples both ways.

I guess the question then becomes, if it's not about the majority wanting something, then what defines what goes and what doesn't go? Earlier it seemed that the argument was over the will of the people, and you seem to think the will of the people doesn't matter as much as the morality of the issue, or am I confused?

 

[archangel]

The Civil War would never have happened had it not been for slavery. You can't just take the Civil War and say it started because of an issue in a vacuum. No war starts over one single, isolated issue. They start over various complex and interwoven issues.

and I see you failed history 101 too...and to think I stuck up for ya on a previous post with your background and all...then ya come back and bite the hand that feeds...bye bye non fly guy!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yes, I think it's important to consider as many sources as possible when ruling on law. Taking foreign law into consideration doesn't change what the constitution says. And the constitution is what the justices use as the final litmus test.

Why on earth would SCOTUS justices take foreign law into their consideration?

We are getting back to the original question as to who makes the ultimate decision regarding law in our country - the people or the justices. The Constitution was ratified by the people and it is the supreme law of our land. The Court justices should be looking soley to the U.S. Constitution (and subsequent U.S. law) on which to base their decisions.

Obviously when it comes down to brass tacks you think liberal justices should be able to circumvent the people and make (interpret) laws however they see fit, even to the point of engaging foreign law in their decision-making which can obviously color the "litmus tests" they make.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sean "Great American" Hannity is abandoning his President. He talks continuously now about how "asking questions" is appropriate, even when it casts our President's decisions in doubt, i.e., on Miers. Hannity is also "questioning" our President's fiscal policies, among others. Yet the self-proclaimed "Great American" professes to support our President. What a hypocrite. With supporters like him, who needs enemies? Join the Democrat party, "Great American," or better: "Fair Weather Friend."

Hannity has never had a problem questioning the issues that he disagrees with the President on. Why is this news to you? I disagree with the President on some issues as well. Hannity and I have disagreed with him last year during the election. but he was alot better choice than Kerry was.

 

[archangel]

Hannity has never had a problem questioning the issues that he disagrees with the President on. Why is this news to you? I disagree with the President on some issues as well. Hannity and I have disagreed with him last year during the election. but he was alot better choice than Kerry was.

this we can agree on....being a VN era vet..well Lt Kerry sucks in my books...would rather have a Air National Guard party guy anyday..and John Mc Cain sold out as well!

 

[Avatar4321]

Well, if one type of viewpointed dominated the Supreme Court, wouldn't it be par for the course to see conservative-minded laws being favored instead of what is fair for everybody? I think objective moderates who don't support agendas are what should be on the Supreme Court. Wouldn't that be in everybody's interest?

You seem to not understand that the Conservative viewpoint is to apply the Constitution as it is written and not all things to it that aren't there.

How the heck can you be an activist conservative if all you are doing is applying the law?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

and I see you failed history 101 too...and to think I stuck up for ya on a previous post with you background and all...then ya come back and bite the hand that feeds...bye bye non fly guy!

Don't pretend like you didn't hate me before this, pops. I was being a bit bull-headed, and I apologized to you for it. You made one post in my support, and then immediately followed it with a thread divulging out info from private PM's between us in public because you misunderstood what I said. Don't bring up stuff that'll only get you in trouble.

I know you hate to do research, because you're convinced you've got the "how the world works" thing down pat, but in case you're feeling outside yourself:

http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02013.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Origins_of_the_conflict

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

You can not legitimately claim that slavery or states rights played absolutely no role in the start of the Civil War.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Why on earth would SCOTUS justices take foreign law into their consideration?

We are getting back to the original question as to who makes the ultimate decision regarding law in our country - the people or the justices. The Constitution was ratified by the people and it is the supreme law of our land. The Court justices should be looking soley to the U.S. Constitution (and subsequent U.S. law) on which to base their decisions.

Obviously when it comes down to brass tacks you think liberal justices should be able to circumvent the people and make (interpret) laws however they see fit, even to the point of engaging foreign law in their decision-making which can obviously color the "litmus tests" they make.

I don't think the Justices can circumvent the people unless, as it states in the fourteenth amendment, the people (the states) make a law that is unconstitutional. The justices wouldn't be able to get around a constitutional amendment if the people voted on one. But they can certainly circumvent state and federal laws if they are unconstitutional. That's what the rules are! I didn't make them up!

Justices should review whatever they think can help them see every issue clearly from as many different points of view as possible. Foreign laws can certainly help them do that as can many other source types.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

You seem to not understand that the Conservative viewpoint is to apply the Constitution as it is written and not all things to it that aren't there.

How the heck can you be an activist conservative if all you are doing is applying the law?

Already been covered, read previous posts before claiming you know what I do and don't understand.

 

[Avatar4321]

Rulings promoting prayer in schools, banning abortion rights, banning gay marriage, banning assisted suicide, etc. would definately be looked at by many as being unfair, unconstitutional, agenda-driven rulings. Do you disagree?

Prayer in any public forum is completely constitutional. Its called the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

No conservative would read a ban of so called abortion "Rights" into the Constitution. The whole conservative point is the Constitution is completely silent about abortion. Which means the 10th amendment is in effect and its up to the states to decide. So why not let the people decide whether they want to support the murder of children? Why are dems so freaking scared of actually letting the Democratic process decide it?

Murder is not constitutional regardless whether you want to call it "assistant suicide" or not. Regardless it would be a state issue.

I wish people would actually understand what the Constitution says and doesnt say. The Constitution does not provide a right to murder children. It does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. and It does not provide a right to be killed if you are dying.

 

[GotZoom]

There are many examples both ways.

I guess the question then becomes, if it's not about the majority wanting something, then what defines what goes and what doesn't go? Earlier it seemed that the argument was over the will of the people, and you seem to think the will of the people doesn't matter as much as the morality of the issue, or am I confused?

For me, it is both. That is why you measure the morality and ethics of the people who are elected into office. Based on that, you put your faith into someone who shares your beliefs.

If David Duke ran for president, it isn't a stretch to see what might be coming if he is elected.

If someone stood up and announced....."If elected, I will ask for a vote to bring back slavery - I don't think he will live to election day.

 

[archangel]

Don't pretend like you didn't hate me before this, pops. I was being a bit bull-headed, and I apologized to you for it. You made one post in my support, and then immediately followed it with a thread divulging out info from private PM's between us in public because you misunderstood what I said. Don't bring up stuff that'll only get you in trouble.

I know you hate to do research, because you're convinced you've got the "how the world works" thing down pat, but in case you're feeling outside yourself:

http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02013.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Origins_of_the_conflict

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

You can not legitimately claim that slavery or states rights played absolutely no role in the start of the Civil War.

you are one sorry dude..am I in trouble...for being honest...I think not...I have been consistent in here for a year....and now ya come in here and say I am a "Asshole" for showing the world of internet who and what ya are...humm...I guess ya never have visited Nevada...our flag says.....'Battleborn'.. a forgotten trade... so sorry youngn'....you are a disgrace to our wonderful country....sorry Jim...I lost it here...kinda a patriotic thingee..I apologize for losing it!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't think the Justices can circumvent the people unless, as it states in the fourteenth amendment, the people (the states) make a law that is unconstitutional. The justices wouldn't be able to get around a constitutional amendment if the people voted on one. But they can certainly circumvent state and federal laws if they are unconstitutional. That's what the rules are! I didn't make them up!

Justices should review whatever they think can help them see every issue clearly from as many different points of view as possible. Foreign laws can certainly help them do that as can many other source types.

The liberal justices are circumventing the will of the people all the time. Take the case of Lawrence vs Texas again. There is nothing in the Constitution specifically about sodomy....obviously that is an issue that people in the states should vote on. But the liberal justices looked to foreign law which said it was OK. They completely disregarded the votes of the people of Texas who said sodomy was wrong. Just who are these liberal judges serving? The U.S. or degenerate foreigners?