Jury convicts DeLay in money-laundering case

[daveman]

WHy don't you just admit the fact that you made up that nonsense about how burning a SUV creates more pollution that driving it?

Because I didn't.

You think that looks harmless?

Like I said, wingnut don't defend their own words. They lie, and when caught, they run away

Yawn.

 

[sangha]

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

I agree there.

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

When the Government does that, it is both an enemy to the people and itself. To be anti business for the sake of being anti business is self destructive. To hold business accountable through regulation, in an impartial way, in defense of the common good, and decency, is acceptable. The primary Role of Government is to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes business when business abuses us, and it includes Government Itself, when It abuses us.

Very true. Some people worship government for government's sake, and wish to have government make all their decisions for them. When they get their way, the rest of us who are capable of making our own decisions have lost our freedom.

Screw that. I'm a citizen, not a subject. We fought a revolution so we would no longer be subjects.

The government works for me, not the other way around.

Wingnuts want the govt to decide who can have an abortion. Who can marry whom. Who people can have sex with. Who can dump toxic waste (big Business) and who can't (individuals), and on and on.

Once again, instead of an argument, the wingnut posts a slogan

 

[daveman]

In wingnut world, the people who own and work for businesses vote for politicians who hate them.

Don't forget, folks...it's in your best interests to keep liberals in power. The liberals said so.

In wingnut world, liberals don't own or work for businesses

If the wingnut had a real argument, based on the real world, he wouldn't depend on wingnut slogans

Do you have anything to add besides unwarranted arrogance?

No?

Okay, then.

 

[sangha]

WHy don't you just admit the fact that you made up that nonsense about how burning a SUV creates more pollution that driving it?

Because I didn't.

You think that looks harmless?

Like I said, wingnut don't defend their own words. They lie, and when caught, they run away

Yawn.

The wingnut CAN'T defend his lie, so he lies and pretends I said "buring an SUV is harmless"

He makes us things I said, because he can't defend what he said

He said that torching an SUV would "release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

But he won't defend it

 

[daveman]

When the Government does that, it is both an enemy to the people and itself. To be anti business for the sake of being anti business is self destructive. To hold business accountable through regulation, in an impartial way, in defense of the common good, and decency, is acceptable. The primary Role of Government is to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes business when business abuses us, and it includes Government Itself, when It abuses us.

Very true. Some people worship government for government's sake, and wish to have government make all their decisions for them. When they get their way, the rest of us who are capable of making our own decisions have lost our freedom.

Screw that. I'm a citizen, not a subject. We fought a revolution so we would no longer be subjects.

The government works for me, not the other way around.

Wingnuts want the govt to decide who can have an abortion. Who can marry whom. Who people can have sex with. Who can dump toxic waste (big Business) and who can't (individuals), and on and on.

Once again, instead of an argument, the wingnut posts a slogan

Perhaps if you listened to what people say (REAL people, not the voices in your head), you might be interesting to talk to.

Meanwhile, there are still a few protest signs you haven't quoted.

 

[sangha]

Don't forget, folks...it's in your best interests to keep liberals in power. The liberals said so.

In wingnut world, liberals don't own or work for businesses

If the wingnut had a real argument, based on the real world, he wouldn't depend on wingnut slogans

Do you have anything to add besides unwarranted arrogance?

No?

Okay, then.

Yes, I have arguments backed by facts. You have nothing but slogans and lies. That's why you won't defend your claim that torching an SUV would "release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime."

 

[Intense]

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

I agree there.

But when Government bases its laws on contempt for business and bases them on bad science, that's not looking out for the people its supposed to represent.

When the Government does that, it is both an enemy to the people and itself. To be anti business for the sake of being anti business is self destructive. To hold business accountable through regulation, in an impartial way, in defense of the common good, and decency, is acceptable. The primary Role of Government is to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes business when business abuses us, and it includes Government Itself, when It abuses us.

Very true. Some people worship government for government's sake, and wish to have government make all their decisions for them. When they get their way, the rest of us who are capable of making our own decisions have lost our freedom.

Screw that. I'm a citizen, not a subject. We fought a revolution so we would no longer be subjects.

The government works for me, not the other way around.

It is a two way street. Government by the consent of the Governed. We seem to have forgotten that and Impartiality along with it. Maybe one of the problems with Government run and Union run Schools, is that education get's undermined by indoctrination, and rather than empowering and expanding, the focus becomes conformity and managing the hordes. The centralization of Power takes precedence over the need, the convenience of generic one size fits all, no matter how absurd the reality of it is. I the end the misstep is the lust for power and control.

 

[sangha]

Very true. Some people worship government for government's sake, and wish to have government make all their decisions for them. When they get their way, the rest of us who are capable of making our own decisions have lost our freedom.

Screw that. I'm a citizen, not a subject. We fought a revolution so we would no longer be subjects.

The government works for me, not the other way around.

Wingnuts want the govt to decide who can have an abortion. Who can marry whom. Who people can have sex with. Who can dump toxic waste (big Business) and who can't (individuals), and on and on.

Once again, instead of an argument, the wingnut posts a slogan

Perhaps if you listened to what people say (REAL people, not the voices in your head), you might be interesting to talk to.

Meanwhile, there are still a few protest signs you haven't quoted.

In wingnut world, the people who oppose things like abortion, gay marriage, repeal of DADT, etc are not REAL people

Meanwhile, there is still no defense for you inane lie about how torching an SUV would "release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime."

 

[jillian]

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably. The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

to protect with impartiality? i'm not sure i know what that means. it isn't a phrase with which i'm familiar and it isn't in the constitution or in any caselaw of which i'm aware.

but i do know that congress has a very broad right to act in furtherance of the general welfare... something the right hates.

and yet, those same people think its ok to invade my body or interfere in people's marriages.

 

[sangha]

When the Government does that, it is both an enemy to the people and itself. To be anti business for the sake of being anti business is self destructive. To hold business accountable through regulation, in an impartial way, in defense of the common good, and decency, is acceptable. The primary Role of Government is to protect from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes business when business abuses us, and it includes Government Itself, when It abuses us.

Very true. Some people worship government for government's sake, and wish to have government make all their decisions for them. When they get their way, the rest of us who are capable of making our own decisions have lost our freedom.

Screw that. I'm a citizen, not a subject. We fought a revolution so we would no longer be subjects.

The government works for me, not the other way around.

It is a two way street. Government by the consent of the Governed. We seem to have forgotten that and Impartiality along with it. Maybe one of the problems with Government run and Union run Schools, is that education get's undermined by indoctrination, and rather than empowering and expanding, the focus becomes conformity and managing the hordes. The centralization of Power takes precedence over the need, the convenience of generic one size fits all, no matter how absurd the reality of it is. I the end the misstep is the lust for power and control.

Yes, our govt operates with the consent of the governed as demonstrated by the elections we hold every year. WIngnut dave wants to pretend this is not so

 

[goldcatt]

The end result is the same. And I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion that government regulation is overwhelming and burdensome.we

corporations are amoral. they have zero... zip, zilch, nada, no interest in protecting the environment or acting responsibly unless it is financially not advantageous for them *to* act responsibly. I'd direct your attention to the number of superfund sites in this country; to what happened in bophal (sp?) and a myriad of other circumstances.

do you think your dryclearners down the street would protect the ground water from perc if there were no regulations?

Yes. Because they live here, too.

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably. The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

I think I understand what you're getting at here with "protect with impartiality". You're basically describing due process, where everybody is guaranteed treatment under the same procedures, rules and processes regardless of station, and equal protection of the laws for all. If I'm right, then we basically agree as to that part.

Government is not a living breathing thing with its own memory though, it is an institution made up of individual people working within a legal construct. And if the people in government have forgotten what their role should be they can be easily replaced. The government itself is a tool, it can be used for good or bad depending on how the individuals running it choose to use it.

 

[Intense]

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably. The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

to protect with impartiality? i'm not sure i know what that means. it isn't a phrase with which i'm familiar and it isn't in the constitution or in any caselaw of which i'm aware.

but i do know that congress has a very broad right to act in furtherance of the general welfare... something the right hates.

and yet, those same people think its ok to invade my body or interfere in people's marriages.

Impartiality is a Scriptural term implying fair handedness, without favoritism that effects either side, but service to truth and justice. I have no problem with the Government serving the General Welfare, as a referee maintaining a fair playing field. I have a problem with the Government inventing Jurisdiction without consent or due process. The Referee should not have money bet on the game and ringers playing on the other team. The job description is to maintain the integrity of the game, not influence outcome by abusing power and authority. It is not the Referee's job to choose who wins and who loses. Again, I have no problem with the Government serving the interest of the General Welfare, within It's means.

The issue of Abortion has been in contention since the Federal Government opened that Pandora's Box. Still the Federalist Remedy would be to either leave it to the Individual States, or deposit it there until a Constitutional Amendment could be worked out one way or the other. Many men and Women, on both sides of the aisle are mixed on the matter. It's not fair to project one way or the other. It's not even fair to claim moral high ground Jillian, justified or not, it is still the taking of human life. I understand that there are circumstances that argue effectively the merits of either side, yet be honest, it is a hard decision either way.

 

[Intense]

Yes. Because they live here, too.

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably. The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

I think I understand what you're getting at here with "protect with impartiality". You're basically describing due process, where everybody is guaranteed treatment under the same procedures, rules and processes regardless of station, and equal protection of the laws for all. If I'm right, then we basically agree as to that part.

Government is not a living breathing thing with its own memory though, it is an institution made up of individual people working within a legal construct. And if the people in government have forgotten what their role should be they can be easily replaced. The government itself is a tool, it can be used for good or bad depending on how the individuals running it choose to use it.

That is why we were given the tool of Amendment, to repair and fine tune, to correct course and bearing.

 

[sangha]

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably. The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

to protect with impartiality? i'm not sure i know what that means. it isn't a phrase with which i'm familiar and it isn't in the constitution or in any caselaw of which i'm aware.

but i do know that congress has a very broad right to act in furtherance of the general welfare... something the right hates.

and yet, those same people think its ok to invade my body or interfere in people's marriages.

Impartiality is a Scriptural term implying fair handedness, without favoritism that effects either side, but service to truth and justice. I have no problem with the Government serving the General Welfare, as a referee maintaining a fair playing field. I have a problem with the Government inventing Jurisdiction without consent or due process. Te Referee should not have money bet on the game and ringers playing on the other team. The job description is to maintain the integrity of the game, not influence outcome by abusing power and authority. It is not the Referee's job to choose who wins and who loses. Again, I have no problem with the Government serving the interest of the General Welfare, within It's means.

The issue of Abortion has been in contention since the Federal Government opened that Pandora's Box. Still the Federalist Remedy would be to either leave it to the Individual States, or deposit it there until a Constitutional Amendment could be worked out one way or the other. Many men and Women, on both sides of the aisle are mixed on the matter. It's not fair to project one way or the other. It's not even fair to claim moral high ground Jillian, justified or not, it is still the taking of human life. I understand that there are circumstances that argue effectively the merits of either side, yet be honest, it is a hard decision either way.

It would help if you stopped using meaningless generalities like "inventing Jurisdiction" and referring to someone (who?) or something (what?) as a Referree. It only shows you have nothing more than a vague understanding of such matters

It would also help if you didn't hypocritically claim the moral high ground, as Jillian said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the morality of the anti-abortion position; She (and I) mentioned it as an example of how conservatives want to tell people how to live their life. Neither of us stated an opinion on the matter of abortion. You're just a sanctimonious prick who can't admit that the right wants to tell people how to live their lives

 

[goldcatt]

I don't. That is why we establish laws and that is why Governments primary role it to protect, with impartiality, a role which it fails at miserably. The Government does not exist for It's own sake, It exists for our sake, something It too easily forgets.

I think I understand what you're getting at here with "protect with impartiality". You're basically describing due process, where everybody is guaranteed treatment under the same procedures, rules and processes regardless of station, and equal protection of the laws for all. If I'm right, then we basically agree as to that part.

Government is not a living breathing thing with its own memory though, it is an institution made up of individual people working within a legal construct. And if the people in government have forgotten what their role should be they can be easily replaced. The government itself is a tool, it can be used for good or bad depending on how the individuals running it choose to use it.

That is why we were given the tool of Amendment, to repair and fine tune, to correct course and bearing.

The amendment process to fine tune the institution and its legal construct, and the vote to fine tune and correct the people running it.

We might not agree on how best to use either of those tools. But that's probably a different discussion.

 

[sangha]

I think I understand what you're getting at here with "protect with impartiality". You're basically describing due process, where everybody is guaranteed treatment under the same procedures, rules and processes regardless of station, and equal protection of the laws for all. If I'm right, then we basically agree as to that part.

Government is not a living breathing thing with its own memory though, it is an institution made up of individual people working within a legal construct. And if the people in government have forgotten what their role should be they can be easily replaced. The government itself is a tool, it can be used for good or bad depending on how the individuals running it choose to use it.

That is why we were given the tool of Amendment, to repair and fine tune, to correct course and bearing.

The amendment process to fine tune the institution and its legal construct, and the vote to fine tune and correct the people running it.

We might not agree on how best to use either of those tools. But that's probably a different discussion.

The claim that the amendment process (or the vote) is limited to "repair and fine tune" is nowhere to be found in the constitution.

 

[goldcatt]

That is why we were given the tool of Amendment, to repair and fine tune, to correct course and bearing.

The amendment process to fine tune the institution and its legal construct, and the vote to fine tune and correct the people running it.

We might not agree on how best to use either of those tools. But that's probably a different discussion.

The claim that the amendment process (or the vote) is limited to "repair and fine tune" is nowhere to be found in the constitution.

That's its function, is it not? If something isn't working with the system, change it. Call it fine tuning, correcting, adjusting, whatever you want. If the people running the system aren't doing it to your satisfaction, change them. What's the problem?

 

[sangha]

The amendment process to fine tune the institution and its legal construct, and the vote to fine tune and correct the people running it.

We might not agree on how best to use either of those tools. But that's probably a different discussion.

The claim that the amendment process (or the vote) is limited to "repair and fine tune" is nowhere to be found in the constitution.

That's its function, is it not? If something isn't working with the system, change it. Call it fine tuning, correcting, adjusting, whatever you want. If the people running the system aren't doing it to your satisfaction, change them. What's the problem?

No, that is not its' function

If the people decide they want a whole new system, entirely unlike the one we have now, the constitution does not prohibit a wholesale repeal of the entire Constitution. None of the words you listed are accurate

There are no limits on what can be changed or why they are being changed. The only limits the constitution places on changes to the constitution refer to HOW the constitution is changed

 

[daveman]

WHy don't you just admit the fact that you made up that nonsense about how burning a SUV creates more pollution that driving it?

Because I didn't.

You think that looks harmless?

Like I said, wingnut don't defend their own words. They lie, and when caught, they run away

Yawn.

The wingnut CAN'T defend his lie, so he lies and pretends I said "buring an SUV is harmless"

He makes us things I said, because he can't defend what he said

He said that torching an SUV would "release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

But he won't defend it

I've seen the claim made before, but can't find any research to back it up. It's possible it hasn't been studied.

I retract my claim.

 

[sangha]

Because I didn't.

You think that looks harmless?

Yawn.

The wingnut CAN'T defend his lie, so he lies and pretends I said "buring an SUV is harmless"

He makes us things I said, because he can't defend what he said

He said that torching an SUV would "release more pollution with that act than the SUVs would have emitted in their entire lifetime.

But he won't defend it

I've seen the claim made before, but can't find any research to back it up. It's possible it hasn't been studied.

I retract my claim.

The wingnut still can't admit he was wrong. He will "retract" it, but he will never defend his decision to use a claim he could not support with facts.