Ooops! There Goes Another Freedom!

[Wry Catcher]

The Federalist Papers do not carry the weight of law.

 

[Spoonman]

The Federalist Papers do not carry the weight of law.

they are only the opinions and perspectives of the individuals who wrote the constitution and bill of rights. but then again, liberal idiots don't care about what the intent was. they only care about their subversive agendas

 

[Wry Catcher]

The author of this thread needs to attempt to understand the principle of presumption of innocence,

aka innocent until proven guilty.

I made that mistake earlier, when I gave you the presumption of intelligence.

Won't happen again.

But your use of the personal attack will, since it always crops up whenever you're challenged. You're not only predictable PC, you've become a living cliché.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Constitution.....that 'ol' thing?


It all changed with the Progressive era.

The Constitution gives the federal government a massive amount of power, and legal supremacy.

Without it, your rights could not be protected. It is the power of the federal goverment that protects your rights, not some imaginary limitation of power.

wrong, we elect the members of the federal government they work for us. they are not an all powerful entity that can make decisions in a vaccuum and go against our will, change our rights or infringe on them.

LOL, Yes, we elect some members of the Federal Government and many times do make "decisions in a vacuum" and have gone against the will of, for example, Southern Governors who hoped to keep schools separate but equal. You might consider reading a book sometime, I suspect the Limbaugh letter or History revised by Hannity, et al, has infected your brain.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another inane PC cut and paste thread.

What time is it? I do believe she missed an hour.

What does 'cut and paste' mean?


Why do you consider it a pejorative.

Seems to be one of those meaningless phrases that the inept use in trying to be relevant.


To me, it means that you object to the OP, dislike its import, yet haven't the ability or knowledge to contest it.



True?

Tell us, for the record, did Nixon use the IRS against his enemies or not? Since you're on record once that he did, and once that he didn't, as I documented,

I do believe a clarification would be in order.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Federalist Papers do not carry the weight of law.

they are only the opinions and perspectives of the individuals who wrote the constitution and bill of rights. but then again, liberal idiots don't care about what the intent was. they only care about their subversive agendas

Interesting comment. So the words in the Constitution strictly construed matter not, it's how they were interpreted by those who lived centuries ago, but not by those who live today. Fascinating.

 

[manifold]

Tell us, for the record, did Nixon use the IRS against his enemies or not? Since you're on record once that he did, and once that he didn't, as I documented,

I do believe a clarification would be in order.

Good luck with that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The author of this thread needs to attempt to understand the principle of presumption of innocence,

aka innocent until proven guilty.

I made that mistake earlier, when I gave you the presumption of intelligence.

Won't happen again.

But your use of the personal attack will, since it always crops up whenever you're challenged. You're not only predictable PC, you've become a living cliché.

She does articulate the right wing's neo-victimology quite well. boo hoo. poor us.

 

[Spoonman]

The Constitution gives the federal government a massive amount of power, and legal supremacy.

Without it, your rights could not be protected. It is the power of the federal goverment that protects your rights, not some imaginary limitation of power.

wrong, we elect the members of the federal government they work for us. they are not an all powerful entity that can make decisions in a vaccuum and go against our will, change our rights or infringe on them.

LOL, Yes, we elect some members of the Federal Government and many times do make "decisions in a vacuum" and have gone against the will of, for example, Southern Governors who hoped to keep schools separate but equal. You might consider reading a book sometime, I suspect the Limbaugh letter or History revised by Hannity, et al, has infected your brain.

I see Stalin, lennin and marx are firmly implanted in yours

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another inane PC cut and paste thread.

What time is it? I do believe she missed an hour.

What does 'cut and paste' mean?


Why do you consider it a pejorative.

Seems to be one of those meaningless phrases that the inept use in trying to be relevant.


To me, it means that you object to the OP, dislike its import, yet haven't the ability or knowledge to contest it.



True?

Tell us, for the record, did Nixon use the IRS against his enemies or not? Since you're on record once that he did, and once that he didn't, as I documented,

I do believe a clarification would be in order.

Didn't I provide a definition of 'endeavored'?


Do you understand why Article Two said 'endeavored' rather than 'used'????


One would suppose that you understand English better than I....but not so.

 

[Spoonman]

The Federalist Papers do not carry the weight of law.

they are only the opinions and perspectives of the individuals who wrote the constitution and bill of rights. but then again, liberal idiots don't care about what the intent was. they only care about their subversive agendas

Interesting comment. So the words in the Constitution strictly construed matter not, it's how they were interpreted by those who lived centuries ago, but not by those who live today. Fascinating.

considering they were the ones who wrote them, yes.

 

[manifold]

I get it now, Nixon's attempt failed, therefore he's exonerated.

 

[hunarcy]

The author of this thread needs to attempt to understand the principle of presumption of innocence,

aka innocent until proven guilty.

I made that mistake earlier, when I gave you the presumption of intelligence.

Won't happen again.

If you can't understand something as basic as the presumption of innocence in our Constitution, you really shouldn't be talking about the Constitution at all.

If you can't understand that the Constitution requires the GOVERNMENT to give you the presumption of innocence, you're unworthy of attention at all.

 

[rightwinger]

PC

What does any of this have to do with Freedom of Speech?

Even us ignerant publik skool kids can tell your OP makes no point

 

[Spoonman]

I get it now, Nixon's attempt failed, therefore he's exonerated.

no, nixon gets a pass because he violated no ones rights. according to wry catcher, they were written 200 years ago and are open to modern interpretation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Federalist Papers do not carry the weight of law.

they are only the opinions and perspectives of the individuals who wrote the constitution and bill of rights. but then again, liberal idiots don't care about what the intent was. they only care about their subversive agendas

Nonsense.

Liberals correctly understand that the Constitution exists in the context of its case law.

They also correctly follow that case law as intended by the Framers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The author of this thread needs to attempt to understand the principle of presumption of innocence,

aka innocent until proven guilty.

You mean like Nixon was?

 

[Barb]

The Federalist Papers do not carry the weight of law.

they are only the opinions and perspectives of the individuals who wrote the constitution and bill of rights. but then again, liberal idiots don't care about what the intent was. they only care about their subversive agendas

Intent of the written word was pretty specific - to the point of obsession (and thank heaven) back in the day. The intent of the letters were to hammer out the end results - the specificity of their collective words. The Constitution is the end result of all that wrangling, almost as if they foresaw all this petty and ridiculous bickering and splitting of hairs over the definitions of "all" "rights" "speech," and...um...ALL.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The author of this thread needs to attempt to understand the principle of presumption of innocence,

aka innocent until proven guilty.

You mean like Nixon was?

Duke LaCrosse?

 

[ItsOnlyMe]

Take back the Senate in 2014, then impeach. Take the WhiteHouse in 2016. Set up a Nuremburg style commission to try the more criminal elements of this rogue administration.
I can see public hangings being carried out in my crystral ball on the DC Mall in the trials aftermath with all the spectators in a holiday mood, vendors selling prepared chicken dinners in baskets to the eager paying customers and other souvenirs.

That is an incredibly stupid idea. If republicans even attempt to start impeachment proceedings now it will ensure they won't accomplish a damned thing with their new found majority, since they'll be too busy with the impeachment. Not only that, but an impeachment proceeding would take LONGER than Obama has left in office.
Mebbe even require everyone who voted for Obama in 2012, those who voted for him in 2008 forgiven, because they didn't know any better at the time, required to wear a red hammer and sickle on their clothing at all times as well as on all their doors and windows.

It will piss off everyone but their die hard base. It will waste money, time, and resources. And in the end it will not have accomplished a single damn thing.

I totally agree. The best way to treat Obama and his cronies is the same way you would treat a 2 year old having a temper tantrum. Ignore them, go about business as usual, and once they realize their antics are getting them nowhere, they are getting the reaction then desired, they basically fizz out.

In fact, if Obamacare got NO coverage on ANY network, good or bad, it would be interesting to see the outcome of that. they LOVE the attention, negative or positive, they LOVE they are fodder for comedians, negative or positive. They eat it with a spoon.