One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: Loki
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 2050 next>>
Feb 20, 2017 10:23:48   #
pafret wrote:
Levin, Meckler uncover extreme left-right coalition against Convention of States
Posted by Convention of States Project on February 17, 2017

Groups from both the extreme left and the extreme right have come together to oppose a Convention of States. Usually they're fiercely opposed to each other, but in this case they have one thing in common: they like the status quo in Washington, D.C.
Click the video below to listen to Mark Levin and Mark Meckler discuss how these groups have fear-mongered their way into state legislatures across the country.

There is a follow up video after this one. Levin goes into one of his rages and starts screaming at the end of this video and through the next so turn your volume down.

There are significant changes required in our government, most notably term limits for Congressmen and Federal Judges including the Supremes. These changes will never be effected by the sitting Congress no matter what flavor it is. To correct the abuses, which have come to be customary, a convention of states (Article 5 convention) is needed to install new amendments. Hopefully this convention will address the necessary proof of eligibility to be President as well as eliminating automatic citizenship for children born to those who are in the country illegally.
Levin, Meckler uncover extreme left-right coalitio... (show quote)

There is no "automatic citizenship for children born to those in this country illegally." It is a convenient fiction that flies in the face of at least 2 SCOTUS decisions.
The First was Elk v Wilkins 1884, in which the court ruled that John Elk, an Indian, was NOT a citizen because he was born to parents who were not citizens.

The second was US v Wong Kim Ark 1898 in which SCOTUS ruled that Wong Kim Ark WAS a citizen, because while his parents were not citizens, they were domiciled here with the intention of becoming citizens. In other words, they were permanent LEGAL residents.

The author of the first section of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, stated that it's purpose was solely to guarantee full citizenship rights to slaves and their progeny. That it was not intended to apply to children born to non-citizens here illegally. Also, the 5th section of the Amendment provides for a legislative solution, a Constitutional Amendment is not necessary. Just a Congress with balls.
Feb 20, 2017 09:59:14   #
Alicia wrote:
Those like you would enjoy anyone who disagrees with you to "get out of politics." Just a reminder - this is the U.S.A and our Constitution dictates that every person has a right to their opinion. I'm sure you would enjoy joining Trump's crowd because you enjoy receiving propaganda (it hurts less than thinking). I am quite disappointed with your racist, biased ilk. Please take the time to read the Constitution. It just might open your eyes as to what America is all about. In addition, a number of corporations are moving their headquarters away from such biased states. The states wil come around when their decision finally hits them in their wallet.
*********************** br Those like you would en... (show quote)

So how many men who "self-identify" as women have you let use YOUR bathroom today, Alicia?
Feb 20, 2017 09:01:01   #
Alicia wrote:
Isn't it amazing that the three THUGS didn't have Muslim names? But then there are NO AMERICAN TERRORISTS, ARE THERE?

But they were all three black, which is no surprise.
Feb 20, 2017 06:34:35   #
PoppaGringo wrote:
FYI, the accompanying photo showed them to be Black. However, the photo didn't come through.

Don't give up, lpn, they might be Black Muslims from Alabama. They still set white girls on fire. (Or was that Mississippi?)
Happy now?
Feb 20, 2017 06:09:26   #
theotts wrote:
Ill bet when you were born the doctor slapped your mother.

When you were born the doctor wanted to shoot your father, but no one knew who he was.
Feb 20, 2017 06:05:42   #
PeterS wrote:
Gee Loki, what part of "Hillary lied" didn't you understand. Unless you have a problem of comprehension I would suggest you go back and read what I wrote. If you do have a problem with comprehension I said that Hillary lied but the actions of one politician aren't an excuse for the actions of another.

As for Trumps "misspeaks" they are constant and intentional and while you may find them innocent when his uses them to imply that Sweden just had a terrorist attack the day before he is doing so to build a false case for supporting a ban on Muslim immigration.

And I really suggest you read everything I write Loki before you going flying off the fuking handle. You are suppose to be the smartest conservative on this board but you wouldn't know it by reading your posts...
Gee Loki, what part of "Hillary lied" di... (show quote)

Speaking of lies, you just told a whopper.Trump did not ban Muslims. Show me one place in the EO where Muslim was mentioned. He banned everyone from seven countries only. Everyone. Not just Muslims.
I know how intimidating it is for you to look stuff up before you show your ass, but the seven countries on Trump's list contain about 13% of the world's Muslims.

I know how hard math is for you, but do try and keep up; 100% of the word's Muslims minus 13% from those 7 countries leaves 87 % free to come to this country whenever they wish. One more time, NO ONE from those countries is allowed in TEMPORARILY. It is not a Muslim ban, no matter how much you left wing dipsticks claim it is.
Rots of ruck with that Ninth Circuit decision. More than 80% of their rulings that have been heard by the SCOTUS have been reversed or vacated. They are the most poignant argument any one can make for term limits in the Federal Judiciary.

Disagreeing with your ignorant rants is not "flying off the fuking handle," dipstick.
I never said I was the smartest conservative on OPP. I'm just smarter than you, which is not exactly a vote of confidence.
Feb 20, 2017 03:59:55   #
teaman wrote:
Another example of pure scum!! Sex blogger, gamer, Trump-haters among self-appointed experts in determining truth!!

In this article, several sources are mentioned that I would not consider fake news. Some are there simply because they may have, once or twice, published an article that was not checked out properly. To me, fake news sites are those that are openly biased about something and deliberately slant or invent news, not someone who has made a couple of mistakes.
Feb 20, 2017 03:49:09   #
Ricko wrote:
Weasel-Trump's reply should be money forthcoming upon elimination of sanctuary cities in
California and your assistance in rounding up criminal aliens in hiding there. Once you have taken legal
action to abolish the sanctuary cities you will receive 1 million in assistance for every criminal alien which you
are able to capture and turn over to ICE. We are not interested in non-criminal illegal aliens as they do not pose any threat to our people at this time. Get to work !! America First!!!
Weasel-Trump's reply should be money forthcoming u... (show quote)

There is no such thing as a non-criminal illegal alien. If there were, they would not be called illegal. By the act of being here illegally, they are guilty of at LEAST a serious misdemeanor.
Feb 20, 2017 01:41:09   #
PeterS wrote:
Don't worry about the explanation Frosty. Loki likes to use a "false equivalency" in his debates in order to disqualify the argument. 1) Obama simply misspoke. Trump was intentionally trying to get us to believe something that wasn't true 2) This argument is about Trump not anyone else. What other politicians have done doesn't excuse Trump for what he does. In Loki's example Hillary did intend to lie. So is that an excuse for Trump to lie too? Of course not. The real problem with Trump is that he has trouble getting through a paragraph without some type of lie or gross exaggeration.

There is enough bad in this world without making it up too. Sadly, those on the right, like Loki, don't seem to understand that nor will it do any good to explain it to them...
Don't worry about the explanation Frosty. Loki lik... (show quote)

Hillary did not intend to say she "landed under sniper fire? Mind telling us what the hell she DID intend to say, slick? She did not intend to lie about her treatment of classified material? I suppose she did not intend to sign a statement required of all State Department employees that said she had been briefed and trained on the handling of classified material? Obama "misspoke?" Is that kind of like "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" In this case, it depends on what your definition of 57 states is? Obama lies and it's a "misspeak," Trump misspeaks and it's a lie?
Don't worry, it will be a while before your family is deported.
Feb 20, 2017 01:27:28   #
jimahrens wrote:
It appears in California there is a fracture developing in the liberal base. I can't point to the exact cause yet but it is happening. Would like to know if anyone else has noticed this.

Maybe we can call it the Liberal Hobbit Dancer Fault Line. Who knows? Could even be we will have the "BIG ONE." 10.1 on the political Richter Scale.
Feb 20, 2017 01:24:24   #
Chameleon12 wrote:
I found this kind of ironic considering the election.

The People’s Votes Matter – Except When They Don’t
Kerri Kupec

To celebrate the recent birthday of the 14th Amendment, let’s play a little end-of-term Supreme Court bingo. Which justice would you pick as author of the following “state’s rights” position?

“Through the structure of its government, and the character of those who exercise government authority, a State defines itself as a sovereign.”

I’ll give you a hint: her name begins with Ruth and ends with Ginsburg.

Yes, it’s true. The same “lawyers,” to use Chief Justice John Roberts’ word, that obliterated the civil rights of millions of Americans in the Obergefell v. Hodges marriage decision, championed, just three days later, ballot initiatives enacted “by the people.” Those justices interpreted the word “legislature” in an Arizona law to confer upon the people the power to remove redistricting authority from their elected representatives and, via direct vote, create their own commission to draw new voting lines.

In both the Arizona and U.S. constitutions, “legislature” is pretty clearly just that – the legislature. But the same justices who in the marriage decision ignored the people picked up the populist torch in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Nevermind that they ignored the Election Clause, because, after all, as Ginsburg wrote, “our fundamental instrument of government derives its authority from ‘We the People.’”

“Deference to state lawmaking allows local policies more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society, permits innovation and experimentation, enables greater citizen involvement in democratic processes, and makes government more responsive by putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry.”

Yep. That’s Ginsburg again. It’s amazing how a weekend opened her eyes to the primacy of the people. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent, “One would think the Court is a great defender of direct democracy in the States.”

Because, as we know, on June 26, Americans were bluntly told that is not, in fact, the case. On that day, five justices categorically disenfranchised the voice of the people in 31 states, stretching from California to Virginia, who had, over the last decade and a half, exercised their constitutionally protected right to go to the polls and affirm marriage as a man-woman union.

The most recent state to do so was North Carolina, where, in 2012, 62 percent of Tar Heels – the same number as Ireland’s recent popular vote to redefine marriage – affirmed marriage as a one man, one woman union. In fact, in only three states – Maine, Maryland, and Washington – did the redefinition of marriage happen as a result of the direct vote of the people.

Just seven years ago, the same Arizonans who Justice Ginsburg said have “ultimate sovereignty” went to the ballot box and affirmed marriage as a man-woman union in a state constitutional amendment with a 56-percent vote. It was about the same percentage of this same population that in 2000 voted for the constitutional amendment, Proposition 106, that created the redistricting commission that Ginsburg is defending. To take a phrase from Justice Thomas, it’s “faux federalism” at its finest.

Next term, the Supreme Court will hear Evenwell v. Abbot, a voting case addressing the “one-person, one vote” principle. Undoubtedly, voter ID laws will prove to be a divisive issue in the upcoming GOP primaries and the 2016 presidential election. Remember the chads of Bush v. Gore fame? Clearly, there’s something to all of this.

It’s simple: in America, and to Americans, votes matter. Voting in a free society satisfies one of the most fundamental human cravings – to be heard. And, in our nation – this great republic experiment – votes are the way that those who have been entrusted to run this nation – the people – actually make decisions and exercise their power.

In one sweeping court decision, that authority was rendered illusory, and every American was stripped of the authority to address for themselves the most pressing social issues of the day. The same people celebrating the obliteration of those votes were the same people lauding the voice of the Irish last month. Somehow, those 1.2 million Irish votes were valid, while the tens of millions of votes from their neighbor across the pond were not.

As Justice Thomas noted in the AIRC case, when it came to state marriage amendments, the “cheers for direct democracy were conspicuously absent” as the court struck down the marriage laws passed by the very ballot initiative process that the justices now heralded.

Indeed, Justice Thomas explained that the 5-4 marriage decision reflected “the antithesis of deference to state lawmaking through direct democracy.” In his Obergefell dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia echoed his colleague: “[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.” Perhaps Justice Scalia was recalling his branch’s attempts at cultural change in years past: Buck v. Bell, anyone?

The bottom line is that this isn’t just a “state’s rights” issue; it’s an “every American’s freedom” issue. The Constitution is silent about marriage; it’s clear about voting.

Justice Ginsburg acknowledged the people’s longstanding role in democratically addressing thorny social questions, saying that “[the] Court has long recognized the role of the States as laboratories for devising solutions to difficult legal problems.” What she didn’t mention, however, was that judges can step in and shut down those labs when the results don’t suit their own views.

Once unelected judges remove an authority that lawfully belongs to the people, we are headed down a dangerous path – a path that leads to a regime where the judiciary doesn’t just pick whose voice matters, but ultimately, where no voice matters other than its own.
I found this kind of ironic considering the electi... (show quote)

This is one more example of why we need term limits on the Federal Judiciary.
Feb 20, 2017 01:14:05   #
Progressive One wrote:
I'll let you get a pass just because i don't feel like your fagg ass man-love spat, tit for tat routine...i'm kool on you...........

In other words, you find it offensive when someone deliberately acts like you.
Feb 20, 2017 01:11:07   #
revbej wrote:
I am very concerned about the non-disclosure statement that Mr. Trump requires anyone in his circle to sign and abide by. Does anyone have access to the content of it? As a private citizen and CEO of his own corporation that is his prerogative. But our loyalty should first be to God on the spiritual side of the equation, not any person.

On the other side (political), all promise to:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of _______________, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

How can one pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and at the same time all a non-disclosure statement to restrict the freedom of speech citizens have? How can the Cabinet function properly if all have signed a non-disclosure statement regarding their experience in Mr. Trump's presence or organization? How can federal employees be constrained in their freedom of speech? The balance of power between the three branches of government were intentional to assure accountability between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial activities. To do that, everyone needs to be in the discussion, AND there needs to be honesty as they work to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I truly don't understand how nondisclosure documents fit with the Constitution, with Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or any Professional Code of Ethics.

Thanks in advance for reasonable responses. This is not a GOP or DEM issue, it's an issue of protecting our democracy (which is really by Thomas Jefferson defined as a constitutional republic)
Washington, Hamilton and others worked hard to craft a government that would not allow a President to be a Despot.

I am very concerned about the non-disclosure state... (show quote)

Leaks can be damaging. I believe that is the intent of the "non-disclosure agreement," which only seems to be required of his transition team.
Feb 20, 2017 01:03:22   #
Alicia wrote:
I agree with you. He won't make it past one or two years. Isn't it strange that all of his "chosen" have a line going from them to the same place - Russia. I do wonder when you "patriots" will grow up and begin actually thinking rather than livig on your gut feelings.

You seem to have managed to live your entire life sans thinking.
Feb 20, 2017 01:01:10   #
Progressive One wrote:
you sound like a bitch someone dumped after she gave up some lousy pussy...........a really critical motherfker........
you sound like a bitch someone dumped after she ga... (show quote)

You sound like a pussy grabber yourself, you hypocritical motherfker. At least Trump thought he was having a private conversation. But then, Trump isn't a ghetto possum.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 2050 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.