archie bunker wrote:
This is true. It seems to me that it has gotten a lot worse in the last several years. Can we blame it on technology, yeah, I think so. We have more access to more information than ever before. The problem is sorting out the truth from the outright lies, opinion, and spin.
To me it's like we, the voters are the kids caught up in an ugly divorce between two political parties.
And I feel like a step-child with red hair!
This is true. It seems to me that it has gotten a ... (
show quote)
I have one simple question I ask myself when faced with a difficult political decision: Is it constitutionally authorized? If the constitution says it's kosher, then it's good policy. If it's not expressly authorized in the constitution, it's not allowed and the politician pushing it should be hung from his heels and horsewhipped.
That's how I keep my political opinions on an even keel.
Larry the Legend wrote:
I have one simple question I ask myself when faced with a difficult political decision: Is it constitutionally authorized? If the constitution says it's kosher, then it's good policy. If it's not expressly authorized in the constitution, it's not allowed and the politician pushing it should be hung from his heels and horsewhipped.
That's how I keep my political opinions on an even keel.
Yeah, one doesn't have to read OPP often to know that it is full of constitutional scholars.
slatten49 wrote:
Yeah, one doesn't have to read OPP often to know that it is full of constitutional scholars.
The Constitution says what it says, and I can't see where it gives the SCOTUS the power to "interpret" the document that created SCOTUS.
slatten49 wrote:
Yeah, one doesn't have to read OPP often to know that it is full of constitutional scholars.
Mmm-hmm. Outhouse lawyers more like. Granted, there's a few good ones. Most of them talk like they've never even read past the first few lines.
archie bunker wrote:
The Constitution says what it says, and I can't see where it gives the SCOTUS the power to "interpret" the document that created SCOTUS.
Plain English any high school student could read and understand, yet they keep 'finding' all kinds of oddball 'rights' and 'powers' nobody else seems to be able to identify. Gay 'marriage' anyone? How about that old shtick, abortion? Good luck finding
that in there! I wonder if that woman sends her son a birthday card; I can see it now "Happy Birthday, son! I wanted you dead!".
Larry the Legend wrote:
Plain English any high school student could read and understand, yet they keep 'finding' all kinds of oddball 'rights' and 'powers' nobody else seems to be able to identify. Gay 'marriage' anyone? How about that old shtick, abortion? Good luck finding that in there! I wonder if that woman sends her son a birthday card; I can see it now "Happy Birthday, son! I wanted you dead!".
"Shall Not Be Infringed" seems pretty clear to me.
archie bunker wrote:
"Shall Not Be Infringed" seems pretty clear to me.
Yeah, but then they go and 'redefine' the phrase 'well regulated'. Back then, 'well regulated' meant 'in good working order' or 'serviceable'. But since then, the word 'regulated' has taken on a whole new life of its own, and the original intent is thrown out with the bathwater, because it fits the agenda, see? "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State..." Gotcha! Hence the big push for 'gun control'. Of course, there's no intention to just stop at
limiting the firearms available to the general public, as if that isn't bad enough, oh no, that is just one more step in the push for their 'gun free' utopia. The second amendment clearly refers to a well-armed populace that is able to wield the weapons of war when necessary, not some 'pussified' gun club.
Larry the Legend wrote:
Yeah, but then they go and 'redefine' the phrase 'well regulated'. Back then, 'well regulated' meant 'in good working order' or 'serviceable'. But since then, the word 'regulated' has taken on a whole new life of its own, and the original intent is thrown out with the bathwater, because it fits the agenda, see? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Gotcha! Hence the big push for 'gun control'. Of course, there's no intention to just stop at limiting the firearms available to the general public, as if that isn't bad enough, oh no, that is just one more step in the push for their 'gun free' utopia. The second amendment clearly refers to a well-armed populace that is able to wield the weapons of war when necessary, not some 'pussified' gun club.
Yeah, but then they go and 'redefine' the phrase '... (
show quote)
We're on the same page, Larry. Problem is, some folks want to turn a simple phrase, on a single page into a book.
Just ask some people a yes, or no question, and see what it turns in to.
archie bunker wrote:
We're on the same page, Larry. Problem is, some folks want to turn a simple phrase, on a single page into a book.
Just ask some people a yes, or no question, and see what it turns in to.
I call them 'wafflers'. They'll waffle on for hours about what the meaning of 'is' is (remember that?). You know it's BS, they know it's BS and yet they keep on keeping on. I get to a point I just can't take it anymore and have to move on or blow a gasket. Nobody, and I mean
nobody, is that thickheaded.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.