The Rule of Law?

[Billo_Really]

That may just have been the single dumbest thing anyone has ever posted on the internet.....EVER!

Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube

I loved that movie!

Especially the part when he's telling that teacher how to "...go out and get that f-ing dog!"

 

[Boatswain2PA]

This could be because conservatives have a greater moral compass, or it could be that liberal's know that they can get away with it because there will be no media focus on their actions.

Balderdash. Now you sound like a ten-year old. You seem to be more intelligent than that.

I offered up two explanations. #1 - Conservatives are more likely to be self-described Christians, and therefore MAY hold themselves to a higher moral standard (of course this is generalized, and therefore not applicable to any individual), or #2 - Liberals know they can get away with much more because the media won't shine the spotlight on them nearly as much. I think both of those are plausible explanations. Do you have any others?

So, are there no liberals out there who can give me a reasonable explanation of why they support Holder and Obama on this issue?

On what issue? Your generalizations are so broad, you preclude any sensible response. It's like if I asked you to debate why conservatives all love totalitarians and support death squads.

I gave several specific examples - President Obama's refusal to enforce DOMA. AG Holder's assured unwillingness to pursue prosecution of Lois Lerner. His refusal to prosecute fully the Philly voter intimidation.

Oh, I am not a liberal and never claim to be. So technically I have no dog in the fight. I am a Left Opposition--Spartacist politically and a technical wonk economically.

I disagree about you having no dog in the fight. The basis of our constitution is that the PEOPLE have God-given rights, and the government gets it's power FROM the people. This ideology has created the greatest force for "good" in the history of the planet, but the whole ideology is being overturned.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

In my part of the legal pasture (tax law) there are statutory regulations where the law specifically directs the Treasury to promulgate regulations to interpret certain provisions. The alternative would be to delay all laws by several years (based on the average time it takes such regulations to become final) which would frustrate the purpose of the law in the first place.

Further, the system of temporary regulations, proposed regulations, and final regulations has no easy counterpart in the law itself. When there is no applicable regulation to refer to, there is a huge uncertainty as to the outcome until a court case has its decade in court. Do we really want our tax system and economy to bear the costs of that kind of dead weight loss? As it is, Treasury issues proposed regulations which will be open for public comment and set in motion a well-defined process in which (at least theoretically) different groups can be heard and make their arguments. This process is pretty robust. Usually the proposed regulations are also temporary regulations, so that the public can rely upon them. They create a safe harbor from punitive penalties and certain adverse results for those who rely on them in good faith. Try doing that in a law!

I take the other side of this spectrum. Our laws should be simple enough that a person of average intelligence should be able to understand them. This KEEPS the power of the law in the hands of that person with average intelligence.

The current rapidly expanding system perversely complicated laws and regulations take the power out of the average citizen and puts the power in the elite - the lawers.

When our great nation was founded our politicians were farmers, physicians, beer-makers, craftsmen, and a few lawyers. Now our politicians are almost completely lawyers.

For another example: I have two graduate degrees and I practice medicine for a living....yet, because our tax laws/regulations are so incredibly complicated, I can't figure out how to do my own taxes without risking going to jail. That just isn't right.

Furthermore, when the laws are this complicated it gives those elite (lawyers/politicians) more ways to get around them, which takes us back to the point of President Obama and AG Holder simply choosing to ignore the basic intent of the law.

 

[Indeependent]

I don't think it is unique to liberals, but what IS unique is that many people are, seemingly, willing to accept it.

I also think it is certainly more predominant with liberals. Conservatives are much more likely to break with their party and "fire" those who need fired. Nixon, for example.

This could be because conservatives have a greater moral compass, or it could be that liberal's know that they can get away with it because there will be no media focus on their actions.

As to whether this, in itself, is justification to support conservatives? Then no, but we unfortunately operate in a 2-party system where the only way to be "against" one party is to be "for" the other party.

So, are there no liberals out there who can give me a reasonable explanation of why they support Holder and Obama on this issue?

I listened to Rush and Hannity during the GW years and either Pubs/Cons LOVED GW or R & H simply didn't take too many calls critical of GW.

It was a default to assume that the vast majority of Pubs/Cons approved of anything GW did.

 

[oldfart]

This could be because conservatives have a greater moral compass, or it could be that liberal's know that they can get away with it because there will be no media focus on their actions.

Balderdash. Now you sound like a ten-year old. You seem to be more intelligent than that.

I offered up two explanations. #1 - Conservatives are more likely to be self-described Christians, and therefore MAY hold themselves to a higher moral standard (of course this is generalized, and therefore not applicable to any individual), or #2 - Liberals know they can get away with much more because the media won't shine the spotlight on them nearly as much. I think both of those are plausible explanations. Do you have any others?

First, I find all claims that one group (ethnic, religious, political, or any other) is more "moral" to be insulting and ridiculous. Everyone thinks they are more and ethical and the outgroup is the spawn of Satan. Like I said, this is the spouting of a ten year old out to save the world.

Perhaps you can persuade me. First you must define "moral" in a manner most people would accept. Since you have already labelled large groups as less moral than your in-group, this is going to be pretty hard. Second, you would have to have some evidence for your assertion, and you have provided none. Now I know that ethically challenged individuals such as yourself have no problem with this. You can manufacture as many examples to prove your point as you need. You simply take an issue, decide your side is right, and that becomes evidence. This is called "special pleading" in logic. You might look it up. It is what passes for reasoning on the Right these days.

Try it out on yourself. Is theft moral? Is war moral? Is lying moral?

Then ask yourself: If theft is immoral, then why do we think stealing is OK if we do it as corporations who violate laws such as fraud or anti-trust? If war is immoral, why do we think it is OK to wage war for economic advantage in Iraq? If lying is immoral, why are we justifying war based on falsehoods regarding WMD?

It seems to me that morality is the refuge of liars when they cherry-pick situations in which to apply it.

As to the media bias issue, you are simply delusional. Probably have been watching Fox too long. Again, you filter the world through your own bias. Got any good conspiracy theories lately? Maybe about the socialist Jewish press? Or maybe it's just Rupert Murdock conspiring with the communists again.

On what issue? Your generalizations are so broad, you preclude any sensible response. It's like if I asked you to debate why conservatives all love totalitarians and support death squads.

I gave several specific examples - President Obama's refusal to enforce DOMA. AG Holder's assured unwillingness to pursue prosecution of Lois Lerner. His refusal to prosecute fully the Philly voter intimidation.

Oh please. It never occurred to you that DOMA was indefensible? So indefensible a conservative Supreme Court struck it down? But an administration sworn to "protect the Constitution of the United States" is wrong to exercise its constitutional duty and must knee-jerk defend bad law until the Nine Wise Persons strike it down?

There is not a case against Lerner or the Philadelphia "Black Panthers". But again the refusal to bring a meritless case is a big issue to you. REALLY? THIS IS THE BEST YOU CAN COME UP WITH?

Oh, I am not a liberal and never claim to be. So technically I have no dog in the fight. I am a Left Opposition--Spartacist politically and a technical wonk economically.

I disagree about you having no dog in the fight. The basis of our constitution is that the PEOPLE have God-given rights, and the government gets it's power FROM the people. This ideology has created the greatest force for "good" in the history of the planet, but the whole ideology is being overturned.

READ MY LIPS. I am not a liberal. I am far to the left of "liberal". You spend so much time trying to intimidate people by calling them liberal you have missed the point that there is a movement to the left of liberals.

I gave you everything you needed to figure this out. Ignorance can be cured, but dumb is forever. Last chance:

1. Go to Wikipedia and read the articles on "Left Opposition" and "Spartacists".

2. Then tell me again I am a liberal.

 

[oldfart]

I take the other side of this spectrum. Our laws should be simple enough that a person of average intelligence should be able to understand them. This KEEPS the power of the law in the hands of that person with average intelligence.

1. I see nothing in your post that is responsive to anything I said. Since you obviously are parroting someone else's talking points, actually answering the arguments in another's post is too much to expect.

2. I am disturbed by your concept that only average intelligence should be used in drafting law. You really want law dumbed down? Perhaps we should set limits to IQ scores, any public official scoring over 105 is forbidden from serving?

The current rapidly expanding system perversely complicated laws and regulations take the power out of the average citizen and puts the power in the elite - the lawers.

Either you did not read or did not understand the discussion of the process for developing statutory regulations. I can understand that you are not a "lawer". But I fail to see why you feel you must trash an entire profession about which you obviously know so little about. Which raises a curious question: Are you the great constitutional expert who has been lecturing me on the constitution and God-given rights, or are you the little "common man" unintelligent enough to still be trusted in framing our laws and sufficiently uninformed to avoid the appellation of evil "lawers". Which is it?

For another example: I have two graduate degrees and I practice medicine for a living....yet, because our tax laws/regulations are so incredibly complicated, I can't figure out how to do my own taxes without risking going to jail. That just isn't right.

And of course you think anyone who tries to practice brain surgery on themselves is an idiot, but you think you and everyone else should be able to practice professions and run businesses without needing help by professionals in law or taxation. NEWS FLASH. If you are too cheap to hire a competent tax practitioner, you could always go to H & R Block. Give me a break.

Furthermore, when the laws are this complicated it gives those elite (lawyers/politicians) more ways to get around them, which takes us back to the point of President Obama and AG Holder simply choosing to ignore the basic intent of the law.

I think you have managed to make a complete fool of yourself. My advice is to quit while you are behind, rather than doubling down on dumb.

 

[jasonnfree]

I take the other side of this spectrum. Our laws should be simple enough that a person of average intelligence should be able to understand them. This KEEPS the power of the law in the hands of that person with average intelligence.

1. I see nothing in your post that is responsive to anything I said. Since you obviously are parroting someone else's talking points, actually answering the arguments in another's post is too much to expect.

2. I am disturbed by your concept that only average intelligence should be used in drafting law. You really want law dumbed down? Perhaps we should set limits to IQ scores, any public official scoring over 105 is forbidden from serving?

The current rapidly expanding system perversely complicated laws and regulations take the power out of the average citizen and puts the power in the elite - the lawers.

Either you did not read or did not understand the discussion of the process for developing statutory regulations. I can understand that you are not a "lawer". But I fail to see why you feel you must trash an entire profession about which you obviously know so little about. Which raises a curious question: Are you the great constitutional expert who has been lecturing me on the constitution and God-given rights, or are you the little "common man" unintelligent enough to still be trusted in framing our laws and sufficiently uninformed to avoid the appellation of evil "lawers". Which is it?

For another example: I have two graduate degrees and I practice medicine for a living....yet, because our tax laws/regulations are so incredibly complicated, I can't figure out how to do my own taxes without risking going to jail. That just isn't right.

And of course you think anyone who tries to practice brain surgery on themselves is an idiot, but you think you and everyone else should be able to practice professions and run businesses without needing help by professionals in law or taxation. NEWS FLASH. If you are too cheap to hire a competent tax practitioner, you could always go to H & R Block. Give me a break.

Furthermore, when the laws are this complicated it gives those elite (lawyers/politicians) more ways to get around them, which takes us back to the point of President Obama and AG Holder simply choosing to ignore the basic intent of the law.

I think you have managed to make a complete fool of yourself. My advice is to quit while you are behind, rather than doubling down on dumb.

From what I've read, the early American rulers and those of influence, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Marshal, and Hamilton and others, were way above average intelligence. Most politicians are lawyers or have some type of degree, even though we like to refer to them as "idiots" some times.
We are even giving teachers a bad rap now and thinking education can be attained by looking up facts on the internet. And no matter what our position is, we can find a site with "facts" to back it up. Man made global warming advocates and deniers both can find something that will back up their opinions so to hell with what university professors with phd's in the subject say. My opinion anyways.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think it is unique to liberals, but what IS unique is that many people are, seemingly, willing to accept it.

I also think it is certainly more predominant with liberals. Conservatives are much more likely to break with their party and "fire" those who need fired. Nixon, for example.

This could be because conservatives have a greater moral compass, or it could be that liberal's know that they can get away with it because there will be no media focus on their actions.

As to whether this, in itself, is justification to support conservatives? Then no, but we unfortunately operate in a 2-party system where the only way to be "against" one party is to be "for" the other party.

So, are there no liberals out there who can give me a reasonable explanation of why they support Holder and Obama on this issue?

I listened to Rush and Hannity during the GW years and either Pubs/Cons LOVED GW or R & H simply didn't take too many calls critical of GW.

It was a default to assume that the vast majority of Pubs/Cons approved of anything GW did.

I love it when people say stuff like this.

Beating Back Amnesty Bill Will Be Great for Conservative Movement - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Then we have the simple truth that, despite the delusions of the left, Rush isn't actually about being a conservative, he is about ratings. If you follow actual conservatives there was plenty of Bush criticism.

FACT REAL: MYTH BUSTED: Conservatives did oppose Bush

If this wasn't the CDZ I might throw in a comment about the location of your head relative to the posterior of Piers Morgan.

 

[gnarlylove]

Obama is not a liberal President, hasn't one liberal in his Cabinet and does not follow a liberal agenda, so why lay this down as a liberal issue and not an American one?

Not liberal?

He is in fact the most liberal President since Jimmy Carter, perhaps even more so. Just look at his policies. Obamacare, welfare reform, higher taxes, pro-abortion policies, pro-gay marriage (since 1996) ...etc. How much more liberal can he get? If he were to go any further left, he'd tip the scale and merge with the radical right!

Obamacare is very conservative. It allows big business to thrive. Obamacare was an adaptation of Romneycare for the nation. He has dropped defense by like 4%. Is he liberal for maintaining 96% and increasing drone strikes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama is not a liberal President, hasn't one liberal in his Cabinet and does not follow a liberal agenda, so why lay this down as a liberal issue and not an American one?

Not liberal?

He is in fact the most liberal President since Jimmy Carter, perhaps even more so. Just look at his policies. Obamacare, welfare reform, higher taxes, pro-abortion policies, pro-gay marriage (since 1996) ...etc. How much more liberal can he get? If he were to go any further left, he'd tip the scale and merge with the radical right!

Obamacare is very conservative. It allows big business to thrive. Obamacare was an adaptation of Romneycare for the nation. He has dropped defense by like 4%. Is he liberal for maintaining 96% and increasing drone strikes?

Obamacare is almost as conservative as Barney Frank.

 

[gnarlylove]

Maybe you were unaware that conservatives serve their god, mammon/money (as do liberals) and Obamacare is 400 billion in subsidies for the health insurance companies and indefinite public funds transfered to private profit. It's precisely why it went through--because money said so. Money talks, politics is subservient.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe you were unaware that conservatives serve their god, mammon/money (as do liberals) and Obamacare is 400 billion in subsidies for the health insurance companies and indefinite public funds transfered to private profit. It's precisely why it went through--because money said so. Money talks, politics is subservient.

Maybe you were unaware that no Republicans voted for Obamacare.

 

[Jughead]

Obama is not a liberal President, hasn't one liberal in his Cabinet and does not follow a liberal agenda, so why lay this down as a liberal issue and not an American one?

Not liberal?

He is in fact the most liberal President since Jimmy Carter, perhaps even more so. Just look at his policies. Obamacare, welfare reform, higher taxes, pro-abortion policies, pro-gay marriage (since 1996) ...etc. How much more liberal can he get? If he were to go any further left, he'd tip the scale and merge with the radical right!

Obamacare is very conservative. It allows big business to thrive. Obamacare was an adaptation of Romneycare for the nation. He has dropped defense by like 4%. Is he liberal for maintaining 96% and increasing drone strikes?

There is nothing even remotely conservative about me losing my health coverage so my tax dollars could pay for those who never had coverage. This is socialism at it's best (or worst).

As for Romney, he's just like McCain, they are both RINOs. They'd both make fine Presidential candidates in 2016 ... for the democrats.

 

[gnarlylove]

You sound pissed off without understanding why your situation is that way. And instead of looking at the institutional reasons, you prefer to take the easy route and blame those who sympathize with you (the enemy of your enemy does not care about you.) You loosing your coverage is not a result of partisan politics but at the behest of insurance companies. The public option was denied from debate at the behest of insurance giants.

I encourage you to examine the policies and turn off your tv. that shit is infectious and deception and manipulation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In my part of the legal pasture (tax law) there are statutory regulations where the law specifically directs the Treasury to promulgate regulations to interpret certain provisions. The alternative would be to delay all laws by several years (based on the average time it takes such regulations to become final) which would frustrate the purpose of the law in the first place.

Further, the system of temporary regulations, proposed regulations, and final regulations has no easy counterpart in the law itself. When there is no applicable regulation to refer to, there is a huge uncertainty as to the outcome until a court case has its decade in court. Do we really want our tax system and economy to bear the costs of that kind of dead weight loss? As it is, Treasury issues proposed regulations which will be open for public comment and set in motion a well-defined process in which (at least theoretically) different groups can be heard and make their arguments. This process is pretty robust. Usually the proposed regulations are also temporary regulations, so that the public can rely upon them. They create a safe harbor from punitive penalties and certain adverse results for those who rely on them in good faith. Try doing that in a law!

I take the other side of this spectrum. Our laws should be simple enough that a person of average intelligence should be able to understand them. This KEEPS the power of the law in the hands of that person with average intelligence.

The current rapidly expanding system perversely complicated laws and regulations take the power out of the average citizen and puts the power in the elite - the lawers.
e law.

That’s not how things work in the 21st Century.

In fact, that’s never been the case at any point in this Nation’s history.

The ability of administrators to interpret laws as they implement them is a vital component of our comprehensive legal system; it allows lawmakers to amend or repeal measures as needed, and the courts to review the laws as actually administered to determine if they are being executed in good faith and in accordance with lawmakers’ original intent.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You sound pissed off without understanding why your situation is that way. And instead of looking at the institutional reasons, you prefer to take the easy route and blame those who sympathize with you (the enemy of your enemy does not care about you.) You loosing your coverage is not a result of partisan politics but at the behest of insurance companies. The public option was denied from debate at the behest of insurance giants.

I encourage you to examine the policies and turn off your tv. that shit is infectious and deception and manipulation.

It takes a really self deluded anarchist to blame business for complying with government regulations.