I love America because...

[JakeStarkey]

No one is after your guns, TN. BHO has owned Congress when he had a majority and when he has not had a majority. This week and the budget was another example of it.

But! if you are right, and COTUS has done well, then what the **** are you crying about? And why do you ignore the talk about armed militias and rising up?

 

[TNHarley]

No one is after your guns, TN. BHO has owned Congress when he had a majority and when he has not had a majority. This week and the budget was another example of it.

But! if you are right, and COTUS has done well, then what the **** are you crying about? And why do you ignore the talk about armed militias and rising up?

I was talking about the SUPREME COURT.
COTUS has done well and I ***** when it DOESNT GET FOLLOWED. Like ANY American SHOULD. AGAIN, I will mention Paul Ryan and his totalitarian demands...
Rising up against tyranny? Isnt that why we have a second amendment?!?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Totalitarian demands? You are loony.

 

[Bonzi]

I've never lived anywhere else so I have nothing to compare it to.
I appreciate the fact that I have a comfortable home, transportation etc. and if you are smart you can live quite well on very little. I suppose I love the fact of that, because, I don't think you can have such a good quality of life for so little in very many other places.....

The Homeless here can even get food and clean drinking water - many places do not have that option in this world...

 

[daws101]

I love America because we make the best movies

 

[TNHarley]

Totalitarian demands? You are loony.

Ignoring the COTUS is totalitarian? REALLY?
Them getting rid of the ability to oust a speaker? REALLY?
You sound like a statist, Jake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Totalitarian demands? You are loony.

Ignoring the COTUS is totalitarian? REALLY?
Them getting rid of the ability to oust a speaker? REALLY? You sound like a statist, Jake.

I am a sound believer in constitutionalism. The president is co-equal to Congress. Congresses can pass all the laws they want, and the president can veto them or issue EOs and EAs, which can be changed by the new president and so forth. Why are you against constitutional procedure?

A person who wants COTUS or SCOTUS to effect social, government, political, or economic change is a progressive statist, and said person can be either a liberal or a conservative. Progressive statism is a process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Totalitarian demands? You are loony.

Ignoring the COTUS is totalitarian? REALLY?
Them getting rid of the ability to oust a speaker? REALLY? You sound like a statist, Jake.

I am a sound believer in constitutionalism. The president is co-equal to Congress. Congresses can pass all the laws they want, and the president can veto them or issue EOs and EAs, which can be changed by the new president and so forth. Why are you against constitutional procedure?

A person who wants COTUS or SCOTUS to effect social, government, political, or economic change is a progressive statist, and said person can be either a liberal or a conservative. Progressive statism is a process.

Ryan has every right to demand concessions from the caucus if they want him as Speaker.

 

[TNHarley]

Totalitarian demands? You are loony.

Ignoring the COTUS is totalitarian? REALLY?
Them getting rid of the ability to oust a speaker? REALLY? You sound like a statist, Jake.

I sound like a believer in constitutionalism. The president is co-equal to Congress. They can pass all the laws they want, and the president can veto them or issue EOs and EAs, which can be changed by the new president and so forth. Why are you against constitutional procedure?

A person who wants COTUS or SCOTUS to effect social, government, political, or economic change is a progressive statist, and said person can be either a liberal or a conservative. Progressive statism is a process.

Now we are having strawmen! Hell yea! Let me break down this ONE strawman today. I fully support constitutional processes. But when they are NOT constitutional I have a problem with it. There, that was easy.
You don't seem to care about the COTUS. You are riding my ass because I don't bow down to unconstitutional acts. I find that contradicting and humorous. 2 birds, one stone

 

[Asclepias]

I love America because we make the best movies

Obviously you've never seen Bollywood.

 

[daws101]

I love America because we make the best movies

Obviously you've never seen Bollywood.

lol I've seen a few Bollywood films

 

[JakeStarkey]

Totalitarian demands? You are loony.

Ignoring the COTUS is totalitarian? REALLY?
Them getting rid of the ability to oust a speaker? REALLY? You sound like a statist, Jake.

I sound like a believer in constitutionalism. The president is co-equal to Congress. They can pass all the laws they want, and the president can veto them or issue EOs and EAs, which can be changed by the new president and so forth. Why are you against constitutional procedure?

A person who wants COTUS or SCOTUS to effect social, government, political, or economic change is a progressive statist, and said person can be either a liberal or a conservative. Progressive statism is a process.

Now we are having strawmen! Hell yea! Let me break down this ONE strawman today. I fully support constitutional processes. But when they are NOT constitutional I have a problem with it. There, that was easy.
You don't seem to care about the COTUS. You are riding my ass because I don't bow down to unconstitutional acts. I find that contradicting and humorous. 2 birds, one stone

The only straws are yours that I have snapped.

How are what you don't like unconstitutional. In no way shape or form have you shown any unconstitutional behavior in Congress or the President.

You are so easy to handle.

 

[TNHarley]

Totalitarian demands? You are loony.

Ignoring the COTUS is totalitarian? REALLY?
Them getting rid of the ability to oust a speaker? REALLY? You sound like a statist, Jake.

I sound like a believer in constitutionalism. The president is co-equal to Congress. They can pass all the laws they want, and the president can veto them or issue EOs and EAs, which can be changed by the new president and so forth. Why are you against constitutional procedure?

A person who wants COTUS or SCOTUS to effect social, government, political, or economic change is a progressive statist, and said person can be either a liberal or a conservative. Progressive statism is a process.

Now we are having strawmen! Hell yea! Let me break down this ONE strawman today. I fully support constitutional processes. But when they are NOT constitutional I have a problem with it. There, that was easy.
You don't seem to care about the COTUS. You are riding my ass because I don't bow down to unconstitutional acts. I find that contradicting and humorous. 2 birds, one stone

The only straws are yours that I have snapped.

How are what you don't like unconstitutional. In no way shape or form have you shown any unconstitutional behavior in Congress or the President.

You are so easy to handle.

Like education? Education is a states right according to the 10th amendment. You can bring up analogies, if you want, but the point stands.
Isnt obamas immigration ordeal on hold because of the unconstitutionality of it?
Does the federal government have the authority to FORCE commercial purchases? (ACA)
Hell, the ACA had to be deemed a tax to be constitutional.. in fact, doesn't taxes have to come from the Congress?
Libya?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Education? Better talk with COTUS and SCOTUS because I think they disagree with you.

Immigration EA? It is has been challenged in the courts. That's how it works, similar to AL having its law on stop funding for PP put on hold.

ACA? Better talk with COTUS and SCOTUS because I think they disagree with you.

Libya? Here you have a point but a weak one.

 

[TNHarley]

Education? Better talk with COTUS and SCOTUS because I think they disagree with you.

Immigration EA? It is has been challenged in the courts. That's how it works, similar to AL having its law on stop funding for PP put on hold.

ACA? Better talk with COTUS and SCOTUS because I think they disagree with you.

Libya? Here you have a point but a weak one.

Can you point me to the education and SCOTUS?
Yep. hell, you would figure a constitutional lawyer wouldn't even try to come up with something like that..
No they don't. I am going by what Roberts said..
How is it weak? Of course, I don't think any unconstitutionality is weak. I think Lincoln was the biggest tyrant in our history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are babbling, nothing more, TN.

Robert has told you that ACA is legal and constitutional.

Congress supports NCLB and its follow ons.

So forth and so on.

 

[TNHarley]

You are babbling, nothing more, TN.

Robert has told you that ACA is legal and constitutional.

Congress supports NCLB and its follow ons.

So forth and so on.

Can you point me to the SCOTUS and education or not?
Roberts said it had to be deemed a tax. Damn Jake.. That's exactly what I said!
Just because they support something doesn't make it constitutional Jake.
Some of those congress critters thought a ban of gay marriage is constitutional too...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You continue to babble.

OK, let's make it simple.

Do you support SCOTUS and COTUS, generally.

If not, give specific examples.

 

[TNHarley]

You continue to babble.

OK, let's make it simple.

Do you support SCOTUS and COTUS, generally.

If not, give specific examples.

I support the COTUS always. Even if I don't like it. I do try to be consistent..
SCOTUS depends. Some judges are partisan. Partisanship does no one any good..
Like what Scalia demonstrated with the gay marriage ruling.. He was full of shit..

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't understand the Scalia remark. Inform me, please.