Author Topic: Check this load of crap ... (Read 1736 times)

mietla · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2005, 01:13:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
No gun control law has ever been overturned as un-Constitutional.

Not one, not ever.

That might be a correct statement, but all that means that liberals in a Judiciary support the agenda of liberals in Congress.

Duh, what a surprise. Especially that the Judiciary is orders of magnitude more liberal than Congress. They consistently block obviously constitutional laws, so letting an un-constitutional law skate is not any different.

You see.. the Constitution is a "living" document. What used to be a unalienable right before, might not be any more. But do not fret my friend, there is a tons of new rights still to be discovered.

Sandman · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2005, 01:15:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
They consistently block obviously constitutional laws, so letting an un-constitutional law skate is not any different.

Thanks for that legal opinion, Mr. Barrister.

mietla · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2005, 01:19:52 PM »

No problem. I have many opinions to offer, just ask.

mietla · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2005, 01:27:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm okay with campaign finance reform

would you buy this one?

do you think Congress would buy that?

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2005, 01:33:21 PM »

I would buy it! lol

Congress is more likely to **** tiffany cufflinks before they do.

mietla · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2005, 01:37:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GtoRA2
I would buy it! lol

Congress is more likely to **** tiffany cufflinks before they do.

Of course.

And this is because that would be a real reform, not like this McCain-Feingold idiocy.

lazs2 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2005, 02:40:51 PM »

mt... your wife is wrong.... again.

lazs

mietla · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2005, 02:42:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
mt... your wife is wrong.... again.

lazs

Lazs, I salute you.

Sandman · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2005, 03:02:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
would you buy this one?

* No limit on a single contribution.
* No organization of any kind can contribute.
* All contibutions are from private citizens via a personal check (from a personal account of course).
* All contributions over $xxx (say $10,000) are traced to make sure that they really come from an individual, and not from a fake account seeded by some organizattion. No more John Huang with a brown bag full of cash.
* Only US citizens can contribute.
* All contributions are a public record and are available to anyone for the asking.

do you think Congress would buy that? [/B]

Hmmm... what this list really means is the elimination of special interest groups and lobbies.

I doubt Congress would go for it, and I'm not so sure they should.

I think citizens should have the right to remain anonymous. I also think contributions from non-citizens should not be allowed. As for organizations, make their donations public.

mietla · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2005, 03:12:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
I think citizens should have the right to remain anonymous.

well, just just killed the very notion of a reform. Any foreign and domestic enemy of the US stays invisible.

Quote

I also think contributions from non-citizens should not be allowed.

You just contradicted your first statement.

Quote

As for organizations, make their donations public.

not enough.

How do you justify organizations extorting money from the public (this way or another), and then funneling it to the politicians who support their agenda?

Need examples, ask.

Sandman · « **Reply #25 on:** March 25, 2005, 03:36:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla

You just contradicted your first statement.

I know.

There is no such thing as a black/white answer.

Your solution throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Seagoon · « **Reply #26 on:** March 25, 2005, 04:04:26 PM »

Howdy Sandman,

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm okay with campaign finance reform, but term limits?

Not so much.

Term limits is a nice way of saying voters are too stupid to recognize corrupt politicians.

Well lets just take one of the 11 up there, whom I personally familiar with from my time living in Northern VA and working for GoCos in D.C. - "Babs 'no ankles' Mikulski"

Ms. Mikulski was just elected to her fourth 6 year term in the US Senate. She is from the Great State of Maryland, a machine state controlled by the Democratic party. Every 6 years or so, when Barbara comes up for re-election, some poor shlub from the under-ranks of the Democratic party (even the Baltimore Sun has taken to calling them "token" opposition) is called upon to face the wrath of the Mikulski machine. They are despatched in short order given her massive campaign war chest, firmly established network in the party, and connections throughout the state. Quite simply, you could run a young Thomas Jefferson for the spot and "Babs" would eliminate him in no time.

Once the Democratic challenger is put in his/her place, she inevitably goes on to destroy what ever sacrificial victim the Republicans can offer up. As they have neither the voter base in the cities, the money, media support, the organization nor the name recognition. So we have Senator Babs essentially installed in the Senate for as long as her heart can continue to pump blood throughout her frame.

Even if she was a great senator, the idea of totally stifling the ability of even her own party to bring in new blood would be bad for the Republic, but as it is giving NARAL and the AFL-CIO a permanent seat in the US Senate (she has never disagreed with even the most extreme positions of both organizations) strikes me as contrary to all hope of deliberation or compromise. Hegemony doesn't strike me as particularly good for democracy on the whole.

But that's just my fallible human opinion.

- SEAGOON

midnight Target · « **Reply #27 on:** March 25, 2005, 04:25:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
Lazs, I salute you.

When you two finish your french kiss you might want to pick up a book.

The last mention of the Second amendment in the SC was in 1990... before that it was 1939. When exactly did they become so... "liberal?" Was it before or after Dred Scott?

weaselsan · « **Reply #28 on:** March 25, 2005, 05:44:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Thanks for that legal opinion, Mr. Barrister.

Wasn't an opinion, it was a fact. Example " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It couldn't be any clearer if you shoved it up their juditial behinds.

Sixpence · « **Reply #29 on:** March 25, 2005, 06:00:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mietla
would you buy this one?

* No limit on a single contribution.
* No organization of any kind can contribute.
* All contibutions are from private citizens via a personal check (from a personal account of course).
* All contributions over $xxx (say $10,000) are traced to make sure that they really come from an individual, and not from a fake account seeded by some organizattion. No more John Huang with a brown bag full of cash.
* Only US citizens can contribute.
* All contributions are a public record and are available to anyone for the asking.

do you think Congress would buy that? [/B]

lol, they would buy it, as soon as they figured out loopholes to make it moot