Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

[NYcarbineer]

This thread fails as a straw man fallacy and false dilemma fallacy

So....you can't find any errors in it, huh?

He just identified them. Learn to read.

 

[emilynghiem]

Am I the only person who can't read PC's long, drawn out posts that are full of red herrings and sophomoric arguments?

Why bother?

Like Flanders and emilynghiem they just wander around aimlessly for a while and then poop out.

Dear Luddly Neddite:

Sorry that it sickens me so much to see people like liberal Democrats
pushing their own political beliefs by majority-rule, then cry for "separation of church and state"
when anyone ELSE does that.

That I react and try to fix the problem.

Sorry that when I see people vomiting on each other verbally,
that makes me vomit also, and it makes others sick as well.

I hope we can get this "contagion of ill will" out of our system,
and try to fix these problems that are making all of us and society sick!

What I gained from the board, is I learned that people with such political beliefs
cannot help thinking and seeing this way, and honestly DO NOT BELIEVE
the other opponents have a right to their beliefs which are seen as wrong, nonexisting
or just used for political control. This is part of the belief inherent, and cannot be
changed; if it is imposed upon by Government that is still political abuse and unconstitutional.

There is NO WAY out of this deadlock of both sides projecting their political beliefs by law.

The only way I see is to either mediate or separate.

I had THOUGHT people could be counseled, trained or educated to see how to
separate "political beliefs as equal" under Constitutional principles.

But what I learned is some people's beliefs are so inherent to them,
they cannot be changed, they CANNOT see people as equal, nor their beliefs as equal.
If they REALLY believe the other is wrong, unlawful and/or nonexistent
no amount of education or counseling is going to fix that.

So thanks for verifying
that you are one of these people.

You do not believe in or respect the beliefs of other people
as real or equally protected by law as your own.

You really believe your way is the right way,
like a fundamentalist does, and you cannot see this
because of your beliefs.

You DEPEND on Govt to establish your beliefs,
and if this is blocked then you see it as discriminating and PREVENTING you from
exercising your beliefs that DEPEND ON GOVT.

You do have the equal right to practice your beliefs without harassment, but YOU do NOT believe in the same for others: You believe YOU have the right to impose YOUR political beliefs by majority-rule, but you do not believe that OTHER people have the right to violate "separation of church and state" with their beliefs.

That level of equality is not within
your beliefs, and I have to accept this lopsided reality.

Most people believe in the Golden Rule, that what you want for yourself you respect for others, or what you don't want done to you, don't do to others; but this is not REQUIRED in order to invoke Constitutional rights.

So you feel you can impose YOUR beliefs by law but then turn around and block someone else from doing that. You do not believe in equal law enforcement, because this is not "legally required" in order to push your beliefs politically; right now it is perfectly legal for the Democrats to take their beliefs and force them by majority rule on anyone or everyone else, because this is NOT legally recognized the same as a "religion like Christianity" is.

You are teaching me that people
are NOT equal who believe this way.

That you have this BELIEF in using GOVT for establishing your beliefs
"as the only way" so that stopping you is "discriminating against you and your beliefs" (similar to how Christians want to impose Jesus "as the only way")
and cannot see or treat people equally who believe in EQUAL AND FREE CHOICE
so you are LESS EMPOWERED than
someone who CAN see and treat people equally.

So you will NEVER be equal to someone
who can mediate between the two sides.

All you know to do is to demand FREE CHOICE FOR YOUR BELIEFS
and bully and block opponents from equal free choice of theirs.

So people like you who DEPEND on BULLYING
will never be equal to people at a higher level of responsibility for law
and government who are trying to mediate and include both sides EQUALLY by law.

You don't believe in this level of equality and inclusion,
but only your version that excludes others opposed to your views.

Very depressing but thanks for this valuable lesson in life.

Luddly Neddite I REALLY REALLY believed
that this inequality could be overcome if we
worked together and "included everyone"
but you have proven to me that your beliefs
DO NOT allow you to include everyone as equals.

I thought this could be taught, but apparently
you will never see people who disagree with you
as equal human beings under your belief system.

Since you have the right to it,
it cannot be forced to change.

So people can never be equal in your eyes.

Thanks, Luddly!

 

[NYcarbineer]

"To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old."

Well then, how do you explain the Revolution, the armed rebellion that led to the founding of this country,

a founding you claim was the work of Conservatives?

They love to credit for what happened, while they were hiding out in Canada hoping the Crown would win.

Why doesn't she condemn the Founders for being impulsive and impatient? Canada is independent, sans a revolutionary war. As is Australia, as examples.

She's ridiculing the founders and doesn't have a clue she's done it. That is today's best entertainment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Am I the only person who can't read PC's long, drawn out posts that are full of red herrings and sophomoric arguments?

Why bother?

Like Flanders and emilynghiem they just wander around aimlessly for a while and then poop out.

Dear Luddly Neddite:

Sorry that it sickens me so much to see people like liberal Democrats
pushing their own political beliefs by majority-rule, then cry for "separation of church and state"
when anyone ELSE does that.

Democrats are subject to the same Constitution you are, dumbass.

 

[Moonglow]

"To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old."

Well then, how do you explain the Revolution, the armed rebellion that led to the founding of this country,

a founding you claim was the work of Conservatives?

They love to credit for what happened, while they were hiding out in Canada hoping the Crown would win.

Why doesn't she condemn the Founders for being impulsive and impatient? Canada is independent, sans a revolutionary war. As is Australia, as examples.

She's ridiculing the founders and doesn't have a clue she's done it. That is today's best entertainment.

I'm still wondering who's land has been redistributed, all can think of the American Indians...

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

 

[BlindBoo]

"To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old."

Well then, how do you explain the Revolution, the armed rebellion that led to the founding of this country,

a founding you claim was the work of Conservatives?

They love to credit for what happened, while they were hiding out in Canada hoping the Crown would win.

Why doesn't she condemn the Founders for being impulsive and impatient? Canada is independent, sans a revolutionary war. As is Australia, as examples.

She's ridiculing the founders and doesn't have a clue she's done it. That is today's best entertainment.

I'm still wondering who's land has been redistributed, all can think of the American Indians...

Damn that Obama, worst Marxist ever.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread fails as a straw man fallacy and false dilemma fallacy

So....you can't find any errors in it, huh?

He just identified them. Learn to read.

Living up to your name, NYLiar?

Great.

He identified none.

That's zero....like your IQ and reputation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

Since that is meaningless to anyone who understands the difference between conservatives and liberals, you are really making a fool of yourself.

You repeatedly prove that you're good at apeing and parroting, very poor at thinking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread fails as a straw man fallacy and false dilemma fallacy

So....you can't find any errors in it, huh?

He just identified them. Learn to read.

Living up to your name, NYLiar?

Great.

He identified none.

That's zero....like your IQ and reputation.

Well then if that's what you think go back and refute the flaws I identified.

 

[emilynghiem]

7. The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'


a. "in America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the king is law, soin free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
"Common Sense," Thomas Paine.

That was once upon a time.
How very far we have fallen from Paine's precept, now that Liberals have taken hold of the judiciary.

The seeds of destruction of the nation imagined, created, by the Founders can be found in article III of our Constitution.
The courts. Judges.




b. When lying, self-aggrandizing, self-absorbed individuals find their way into the judiciary, and a portion of the electorate is made of such dullards that they accept black as white, and up as down....well, we have what we are witnessing today.

When the Constitution was written, the view was that judges are there to apply the law.....not to write law, or 'interpret' or improvise or decode or adapt law.
Apply...employ....administer the law.....as written!!!

Definition of 'apply': to employ diligently or with close attention; to bring into action




8. . "The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had suffered under tyrannical and dictatorial British judges," the position paper says, adding, "Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches.

The judiciary has acted on the premise of 'judicial supremacy,' where courts not only review and apply laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new constitutional law from the bench that the Supreme Court has asserted should be binding on the other two branches."
"Item No. 9" in the Newt Gingrich 2012 position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution."

Dear PoliticalChic
The problem is that we have not recognized Political Religions or Political Beliefs
that the parties are pushing.

Once we AGREE that is what is happening, we can AGREE how to use, interpret or clarify/amend
what is MEANT by religion in the First Amendment and by Creed in the Fourteenth Amendment.

The liberals are basically pushing a political religion that puts
Government first, then the religions or churches as optional second,
so that if a conflict comes up, they revert to GOVT authority to decide disputes involving religious, personal or political beliefs where GOVT has the right to impose or dictate law.

The Christians and others push a political religion that puts
God/Church first, then the government and secular laws follow in support of that,
and where a conflict comes up they revert back to GOD and RELIGION
but then are required to use secular systems to resolve issues with govt.

The problem is both sides have a BIAS IN BELIEFS to put EITHER
church authority and duty FIRST, before STATE which can be changed
or
state authority and duty BEFORE religion or churches which are optional

So for ANY govt mediation to be neutral
it must INCLUDE both beliefs EQUALLY and NOT impose one over the other.

And as I see on this board, these people are rare.

Most people take sides and impose THEIR way over others.

I have found maybe a handful of people here who even
understand what I am saying about WHY mediation and consensus
becomes legally NECESSARY to protect the Constitutional rights
and beliefs of BOTH SIDES equally that have their biased political beliefs.

We need to have a Constitutional convention or conference
on how to AGREE on identifying political beliefs in conflict,
how to set up means for remediation and conflict resolution
to reach a consensus, and/or how to separate policies and funding.

Once we AGREE on a system to solve these conflicts, we can look at the reforms to
laws that need to take place to offer this assistance to all citizens and parties.

We may have to separate social programs under a separate govt network
that is OPTIONAL to fund and follow, and let Democrats run that through their
party if this is their political belief they want to make mandatory for their members.

Trying to push those political beliefs through govt as mandatory for EVERYONE
is hardly different from Christians doing that which the liberals oppose.
For some reason, their beliefs do not require them to treat themselves
equally as opponents whose rights and beliefs they have the right to exclude by law.

So whatever lopsided belief system this is, they are WELCOME to practice it
on their own, their own form of Shariah Law they want to mandate through Govt,
and let others be free to choose to fund and follow a Constitution that RECOGNIZES
political beliefs like religions, that can NEITHER be established nor prohibited by GOVT.

 

[BlindBoo]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

In reality the vote was bipartisan on the 19th.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

The American Socialist Party fought for women's suffrage as well. Another of your enemies from history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

Since that is meaningless to anyone who understands the difference between conservatives and liberals, you are really making a fool of yourself.

You repeatedly prove that you're good at apeing and parroting, very poor at thinking.

So, even lying, you can't deny what I said.

Republicans did it.

Put you in your place again, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

Since that is meaningless to anyone who understands the difference between conservatives and liberals, you are really making a fool of yourself.

You repeatedly prove that you're good at apeing and parroting, very poor at thinking.

So, even lying, you can't deny what I said.

Republicans did it.

Put you in your place again, huh?

They weren't conservatives. YOU can't deny what I said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

In reality the vote was bipartisan on the 19th.

Wrong again.

In reality the Republicans fought the Democrat filibuster.


1. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment - Women 8217 s History - HISTORY.com

2. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

3. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution


We made that choice long ago, in 1789, when we ratified the Constitution. A document that outlawed the socialism called "modern liberalism".

Liberals have been trying to evade, misinterpret, and otherwise violate that document ever since.

And they've been able to ensconce a similarly minded thug in the White House.


9. " The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind?

Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it.

Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. "
From a speech delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on September 20, 2010 by Mike Pence,U.S. Representative
Indiana's Sixth Congressional District.
The title of the thread is"Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution"



Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment.
And the same applies to dictates by judges or justices.


Don't Liberals believe in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

Not hardly.

Where in the Constitution is the authority of Judicial Review given to the Supreme Court, and why does the Supreme Court so often decide issues on a 5-4 vote?

I'm sure such experts as Mike Pence and PoliticalChic have answers, and PC will respond with her own spin explaining the error of Marbury v. Madison, and how much better we would be if it were overruled by the Roberts Court.

Liberals however accept the ruling as common sense, as well as our adoption of a foreign law, that being the common law of England. Funny, the conservative element believes in the Natural Law, but few understand what the Common Law is based upon.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace."

Does that include the tradition of denying women the vote?

Republicans got women the right to vote.

Democrats used the filibuster against it.

Learn some history.

Learn the difference between conservatives and liberals. Those were CONSERVATIVES who fought against giving the women the vote.

The Progressives, led by Theodore Roosevelt at the time, were supporters of women's suffrage.

The Progressives you seek to demonize on a regular basis. Yes, those Progressives. Your enemies from our history.

Tap dance all you like.....Republicans forced Democrats to give women the vote.

In reality the vote was bipartisan on the 19th.

Wrong again.

In reality the Republicans fought the Democrat filibuster.


1. It was a Republican who introduced what became the 19th Amendment, women’s suffrage. On May 21, 1919, U.S. Representative James R. Mann (1856-1922), a Republican from Illinois and chairman of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the Susan Anthony Amendment granting women the right to vote. The measure passed the House 304-89—a full 42 votes above the required two-thirds majority. 19th Amendment - Women 8217 s History - HISTORY.com

2. The 1919 vote in the House of Representatives was possible because Republicans had retaken control of the House. Attempts to get it passed through Democrat-controlled Congresses had failed.

3. The Senate vote was approved only after a Democrat filibuster; and 82% of the Republican Senators voted for it….and 54% of the Democrats

You are so dishonest! The party of TR and the progressives is not the par;ty of today, nor was it progressive when its leadership lobbied against the Equal Rights Amendment.

Q. Why do you continue posting one of the Big Lies?

A. Because the Republican Party is no longer the Party of Lincoln, TR or IKE, and history isn't on her side [which is why she constantly works to revise it,].

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution


We made that choice long ago, in 1789, when we ratified the Constitution. A document that outlawed the socialism called "modern liberalism".

Liberals have been trying to evade, misinterpret, and otherwise violate that document ever since.

And they've been able to ensconce a similarly minded thug in the White House.


9. " The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind?

Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it.

Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. "
From a speech delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on September 20, 2010 by Mike Pence,U.S. Representative
Indiana's Sixth Congressional District.
The title of the thread is"Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution"



Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment.
And the same applies to dictates by judges or justices.


Don't Liberals believe in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

Not hardly.

Where in the Constitution is the authority of Judicial Review given to the Supreme Court, and why does the Supreme Court so often decide issues on a 5-4 vote?

I'm sure such experts as Mike Pence and PoliticalChic have answers, and PC will respond with her own spin explaining the error of Marbury v. Madison, and how much better we would be if it were overruled by the Roberts Court.

Liberals however accept the ruling as common sense, as well as our adoption of a foreign law, that being the common law of England. Funny, the conservative element believes in the Natural Law, but few understand what the Common Law is based upon.

1. The 'right' was stolen by John Marshall.
His aim was to increase the power of his court and of the executive branch.
Of course, the executive agreed with him.

It was not the aim of the Founders.


2. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2.Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities."
History of the Federal Judiciary

a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?

Yup: unconstitutional.