One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Leaning Left
Thank God for Progressives
Page <<first <prev 6 of 9 next> last>>
Jan 28, 2016 08:26:12   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
archie bunker wrote:
I don't use talking points. I use my brain, and rational, common sense. Period.
Good day to you sir!


------------
While I very much appreciate someone who uses their, "... brain, and rational, common sense," I would say that these posts of yours were germinated from and are a parroting of, "right-wing talking points." There are many more. AB


"Let me start.
I am sorry for democrats being so addicted to a political party that tells them how to think, speak, and behave. I know it isn't my fault, but I have been married a good while now, so apologies come easy to me.

"That is the problem. We have an out of control Federal Government using other people's, working people's money to enrich themselves, and create giveaway programs to help them stay in power.

"The government can't give something to one person without taking it from another. That means that my labor is being stolen to benefit someone not of my choosing. That makes me a slave."

Now, Archie, you have a good day, too! :thumbup:

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 08:47:30   #
vernon
 
alabuck wrote:
----------

I take it you've never heard of 'hiring from within,' huh? Time in service? That kind of stuff? I never said the guy was being hired from the outside.

Glucon's no more a liar and a racist than the man in the moon. He may some far-fetched ideas, but a liar and a racist, he's not. Sorry, but that distinct dishonor is yours, for this instant. Remember, there are over 800 pages of what you've said to and about other people, in the archives of this website. Plus, they're very easy to access. So, anyone, who wants to, can read for themselves just what kind of liar and racist you are by reading what you've written in the past. Try as you might, you can't erase the facts about your past writings. They speak volumes about you and your attitudes towards.

Nasty? I haven't even gotten close to "nasty." "Nasty" is still on the back burner. But, if you'd like, I'll move it up to the front burner.

And, yes, you ARE a liar. I identified you as one a few exchanges back. Maybe you'd like to go and re-read that particular exchange to refresh your "selective forgetfulness."

As to your comment, "and i dont think anyone into political correctness should
should be reading from the scriptures to anyone but them selves." Please, show me, in Scripture, where showing love and kindness to one's neighbors and strangers and the destitute, isn't "politically correct" and is wrong to do. Where is it condemned?

As a follow-up to "political correctness" being wrong, I realize that there are some differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Catholic and Protestant Bibles, both, include 27 books in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have only 39 books in the Old Testament, however, while Catholic Bibles have 46. The seven books included in Catholic Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. Catholic Bibles also include sections in the Books of Esther and Daniel which are not found in Protestant Bibles. These additional books are called the "Deuterocanonical" books. The Catholic Church considers these books to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Am I wrong in my belief regarding this, Vern?

In spite of these differences, both share the Gosple of Matthew, from which I quoted. Given your unabashed propensity for demeaning minorities, and since you back-handeadly claim to be a Christian, a reminder of what God's Word says about treating the less fortunate, would be in order. Also, as Christians, it is our duty to call out those fellow believers who stray from following the Word. That, too, is Biblical.

Now, I'm not a Catholic. I'm a Protestant. But, I was married to a Catholic for over 20 years; we attended mass just about every week (either on Saturday evening or on Sunday mornings) and raised our children as Catholics. So, I guess my experiences and knowledge on the Bible(s) and theology would count for something.

Lastly, as you choose to believe that those on welfare enjoy being on welfare, let me challenge you to go into the "projects" closest to your home. Get just 10 people to answer their doors. Of those who open their door to you, ask them if they enjoy living where they are and if not, why then, are they still living there. Unless they shoot you first, thinking you're looking for some way to evict them, you'll be very surprised how much their answers will contradict your beliefs.

Of course, I realize that you'd never partake in such a drastic adventure as that. But, unless you're willing to actually spend time, seeing what others go through, just to get by, day after day, you'll never change your misguided attitude.
---------- br br I take it you've never heard of ... (show quote)



let me know when you get nasty we may as well really get after it .im not very good at it but ill try.
glucon is a communist pile of lying crap who never speaks civilly to anyone that disagrees with him.
you didnt say hiring from within,you left the impression he was just hired.i have heard of promoting not hiring from with in, but since you obivously dont work you wouldent know that

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 10:29:19   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
vernon wrote:
let me know when you get nasty we may as well really get after it .im not very good at it but ill try.
glucon is a communist pile of lying crap who never speaks civilly to anyone that disagrees with him.
you didnt say hiring from within,you left the impression he was just hired.i have heard of promoting not hiring from with in, but since you obivously dont work you wouldent know that


------------

From my interactions with glaucon, while he's a very opinionated person (aren't we all?), he fires back, in kind, when fired upon.

As to the hiring situation, I made no reference to whether the new position was a promotion or not. I simply said that it was a job. You assumed it otherwise. In other words, you jumped to a conclusion. Based on preconceived notions and not on the facts provided.

And, yes, I'm not working. I'm retired after 30+ years as a federal employee.

Reply
 
 
Jan 28, 2016 18:28:04   #
vernon
 
alabuck wrote:
------------

From my interactions with glaucon, while he's a very opinionated person (aren't we all?), he fires back, in kind, when fired upon.

As to the hiring situation, I made no reference to whether the new position was a promotion or not. I simply said that it was a job. You assumed it otherwise. In other words, you jumped to a conclusion. Based on preconceived notions and not on the facts provided.

And, yes, I'm not working. I'm retired after 30+ years as a federal employee.
------------ br br From my interactions with glau... (show quote)





i retired in 1990 when my dad passed.someone had to go up and run this place ,my sister and brother wanted to sell it and i wasent about to let that happen.this property has been in our family since 1839 and i wasent about to let it go.so i bought it out and man in 2001 lady luck shined on me we hit oil.i wish my folks were still here to see what weve made of this place.

well it was ambiguous at best when you used hired.

as far as glucon, pick out what he said like you did me and youll see,besides kkh1 he is the most disrespected of anyone on opp.

oh, im not into spouting scriptures but since you have kindly, read 2
Thessalonians 3:10 and proverbs 28:19.

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 19:04:00   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
vernon wrote:
i retired in 1990 when my dad passed.someone had to go up and run this place ,my sister and brother wanted to sell it and i wasent about to let that happen.this property has been in our family since 1839 and i wasent about to let it go.so i bought it out and man in 2001 lady luck shined on me we hit oil.i wish my folks were still here to see what weve made of this place.

well it was ambiguous at best when you used hired.

as far as glucon, pick out what he said like you did me and youll see,besides kkh1 he is the most disrespected of anyone on opp.

oh, im not into spouting scriptures but since you have kindly, read 2
Thessalonians 3:10 and proverbs 28:19.
i retired in 1990 when my dad passed.someone had t... (show quote)


Vernon, in my opinion, this person is another far left, closed minded, cherry picking wanna be bully. He won't listen, doesn't care what you think unless you walk in lock step with the marxist/Alinsky plan. He tries to use guilt and shame to discredit anyone who disagrees with him. That is how the leftists roll. They don't care about rational thought, have no respect, or patience for anyone who thinks for themselves, instead of along the lines of political parties. I think that anyone who follows party lines without thinking rationally about it is a fool. That is what you are dealing with here. A fool.

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 19:31:38   #
vernon
 
archie bunker wrote:
Vernon, in my opinion, this person is another far left, closed minded, cherry picking wanna be bully. He won't listen, doesn't care what you think unless you walk in lock step with the marxist/Alinsky plan. He tries to use guilt and shame to discredit anyone who disagrees with him. That is how the leftists roll. They don't care about rational thought, have no respect, or patience for anyone who thinks for themselves, instead of along the lines of political parties. I think that anyone who follows party lines without thinking rationally about it is a fool. That is what you are dealing with here. A fool.
Vernon, in my opinion, this person is another far ... (show quote)


i cant argue that.
im coming through your town tomorrow.i heard there is a storm coming through.where do you think im going to hit snow?im sure flag is going to be bad.

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 19:54:02   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
vernon wrote:
i cant argue that.
im coming through your town tomorrow.i heard there is a storm coming through.where do you think im going to hit snow?im sure flag is going to be bad.


You may be OK all the way vernon! It is still 3 days out here. You might just miss it. Here, it will just be a pfffft anyway, so you should be alright!
Safe travels my friend!!

Reply
 
 
Jan 28, 2016 20:23:19   #
vernon
 
archie bunker wrote:
You may be OK all the way vernon! It is still 3 days out here. You might just miss it. Here, it will just be a pfffft anyway, so you should be alright!
Safe travels my friend!!


thanks.

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 22:22:30   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
archie bunker wrote:
Vernon, in my opinion, this person is another far left, closed minded, cherry picking wanna be bully. He won't listen, doesn't care what you think unless you walk in lock step with the marxist/Alinsky plan. He tries to use guilt and shame to discredit anyone who disagrees with him. That is how the leftists roll. They don't care about rational thought, have no respect, or patience for anyone who thinks for themselves, instead of along the lines of political parties. I think that anyone who follows party lines without thinking rationally about it is a fool. That is what you are dealing with here. A fool.
Vernon, in my opinion, this person is another far ... (show quote)

-----------------

So, when a conservative gets a taste of their own medicine, they run, crying to another conservative. In between sobs, the hurt conservative says, "The mean liberal is mistreating me by using the same language and tactics that I used against him. Everything I say, he uses against me! He uses shame and guilt against me. It hurts my feelings! It's not fair!" You two are hilarious!!!

Every one of the the leftist characteristics you attribute to me, I've had used against myself by conservatives who won't or can't present any rational thought behind their expounding of their party mantra; including what you posted above. It's the same made-up crap I've heard from you guys since time immemorial as well as ad nausium. It's no more applicative to me now as it was a then. Really, can't you come up with something new and different to insult me and my fellow liberals with?

I've always been willing and ready to an open and honest dialogue about the political differences between conservatives and liberals. Unfortunately, only a very few conserves can maintain their composure when I show them where and why their wrong in their beliefs. Their immediate reaction is a fake claim to take offense and accuse me of being closed-minded. Really!? I'm not seeing any indications that they, or you two, are trying to see anything from my point of view. But, you immediately expect me to acknowledge your position as more valid than mine. And, when I don't, you start attacking with your typical insults and belittling remarks. As such, why shouldn't I reciprocate with similar comments? After all, that's the only kind of conversation that conserves seem to want to have with anyone who dares contradict them.



For someone who says, "I think that anyone who follows party lines without thinking rationally about it is a fool," it should be pointed out to you that you're doing an extremely fine job of doing the very same thing. What's the old saying, "It takes one to know one?" It's very obvious that you're just as much a fool as you say I am. Thanks for the good laugh, Arch!!

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 23:11:06   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
alabuck wrote:
-----------------

So, when a conservative gets a taste of their own medicine, they run, crying to another conservative. In between sobs, the hurt conservative says, "The mean liberal is mistreating me by using the same language and tactics that I used against him. Everything I say, he uses against me! He uses shame and guilt against me. It hurts my feelings! It's not fair!" You two are hilarious!!!

Every one of the the leftist characteristics you attribute to me, I've had used against myself by conservatives who won't or can't present any rational thought behind their expounding of their party mantra; including what you posted above. It's the same made-up crap I've heard from you guys since time immemorial as well as ad nausium. It's no more applicative to me now as it was a then. Really, can't you come up with something new and different to insult me and my fellow liberals with?

I've always been willing and ready to an open and honest dialogue about the political differences between conservatives and liberals. Unfortunately, only a very few conserves can maintain their composure when I show them where and why their wrong in their beliefs. Their immediate reaction is a fake claim to take offense and accuse me of being closed-minded. Really!? I'm not seeing any indications that they, or you two, are trying to see anything from my point of view. But, you immediately expect me to acknowledge your position as more valid than mine. And, when I don't, you start attacking with your typical insults and belittling remarks. As such, why shouldn't I reciprocate with similar comments? After all, that's the only kind of conversation that conserves seem to want to have with anyone who dares contradict them.



For someone who says, "I think that anyone who follows party lines without thinking rationally about it is a fool," it should be pointed out to you that you're doing an extremely fine job of doing the very same thing. What's the old saying, "It takes one to know one?" It's very obvious that you're just as much a fool as you say I am. Thanks for the good laugh, Arch!!
----------------- br br So, when a conservative g... (show quote)


Blah, blah, blah alabuck. I go to work every day to help pay your pension. You should thank me instead of sticking up for deadbeats who won't. You're welcome!

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 11:29:47   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
archie bunker wrote:
Blah, blah, blah alabuck. I go to work every day to help pay your pension. You should thank me instead of sticking up for deadbeats who won't. You're welcome!


-----------

Archie, neither YOU nor anyone else on this thread, pays ANYTHING toward my pension. Unless you live in the service area of the TVA, you have NOTHING to do with my pension. MY pension originates from the rate-payers of TVA electricity and NOT from taxes paid to the Federal government.

See, Arch, you're just as guilty of being a "know-it-all" as you say I am. Sir, when it comes to me, you lack a whole lot knowing a little bit. Don't you ever get tired from jumping to all of your wrong conclusions. It's obvious, from your comment about you paying into my pension, that your brain isn't firing on both cylinders. You exhaust me and all I'm doing is reading and typing!

Allow me to "edumacate" you. The TVA was established in 1933 and is a wholly-owned corporation of the Federal government. It receives ZERO funds (tax revenue) from the government for its power programs as those programs of the corporation are entirely self-sufficient. Check the Federal budget yourself. You'll NOT see a line where TVA Power Programs get any Federal monies.

Our Retirement System is set up to be totally separate from the corporation and any other federal, state or local oversight entitities. It is unique unto itself. TVA pays an annual amount, determined by the TVA Retirement System Board, into the Retirement System. Through investments, the System earns an average of 6-7%, even through our recent economic disaster. So, as you, living in Texas, or wherever you are, if don't get your electricity from TVA, or one of its power distributors, YOU pay NOTHING towards my pension, either directly or indirectly. See what I mean, Vern?

That said, if you'd like to send me a check to help defray the costs of my U-Verse (Internet) bill, any and all donations would be gratefully accepted. :thumbup:

Reply
 
 
Jan 29, 2016 19:24:25   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
alabuck wrote:
-----------

Archie, neither YOU nor anyone else on this thread, pays ANYTHING toward my pension. Unless you live in the service area of the TVA, you have NOTHING to do with my pension. MY pension originates from the rate-payers of TVA electricity and NOT from taxes paid to the Federal government.

See, Arch, you're just as guilty of being a "know-it-all" as you say I am. Sir, when it comes to me, you lack a whole lot knowing a little bit. Don't you ever get tired from jumping to all of your wrong conclusions. It's obvious, from your comment about you paying into my pension, that your brain isn't firing on both cylinders. You exhaust me and all I'm doing is reading and typing!

Allow me to "edumacate" you. The TVA was established in 1933 and is a wholly-owned corporation of the Federal government. It receives ZERO funds (tax revenue) from the government for its power programs as those programs of the corporation are entirely self-sufficient. Check the Federal budget yourself. You'll NOT see a line where TVA Power Programs get any Federal monies.

Our Retirement System is set up to be totally separate from the corporation and any other federal, state or local oversight entitities. It is unique unto itself. TVA pays an annual amount, determined by the TVA Retirement System Board, into the Retirement System. Through investments, the System earns an average of 6-7%, even through our recent economic disaster. So, as you, living in Texas, or wherever you are, if don't get your electricity from TVA, or one of its power distributors, YOU pay NOTHING towards my pension, either directly or indirectly. See what I mean, Vern?

That said, if you'd like to send me a check to help defray the costs of my U-Verse (Internet) bill, any and all donations would be gratefully accepted. :thumbup:
----------- br br Archie, neither YOU nor anyone ... (show quote)


I stand corrected.

This is just another example of how the federal government has been working outside of the Constitution for over 100 years.

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 21:15:13   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
archie bunker wrote:
I stand corrected.

This is just another example of how the federal government has been working outside of the Constitution for over 100 years.


----------

Funny, the SCOTUS hasn't declared any of this unconstitutional. Typical conservative response. If you can't win by playing within the rules, change the rules. You're a trip.

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 21:36:56   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
alabuck wrote:
----------

Funny, the SCOTUS hasn't declared any of this unconstitutional. Typical conservative response. If you can't win by playing within the rules, change the rules. You're a trip.


I'm a trip? Can you cite from the text of the Constitution, where it gives SCOTUS the power, or authority to 'interpret' the very document that created SCOTUS?
I'm waiting.

Reply
Jan 30, 2016 00:50:51   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
archie bunker wrote:
I'm a trip? Can you cite from the text of the Constitution, where it gives SCOTUS the power, or authority to 'interpret' the very document that created SCOTUS?
I'm waiting.

----------
Sorry to make you wait. My son was injured at his work, today. He messed-up his left rotator cup and twisted his ankle. From the X-ray, he may have dislocated his left clavicle,too. I just got back from his house. Hence my tardiness in responding the you. My apologies.

To answer your question, in the United States, "'judicial review' is the ability of a court to examine and decide if a statute, treaty or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define a power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

"Two landmark decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court served to confirm the inferred constitutional authority for judicial review in the United States: In 1796, Hylton v. United States was the first case decided by the Supreme Court involving a direct challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress, the Carriage Act of 1794 which imposed a "carriage tax". The Court engaged in the process of judicial review by examining the plaintiff's claim that the carriage tax was unconstitutional. After review, the Supreme Court decided the Carriage Act was not unconstitutional. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority for judicial review to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision, Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution. As of 2014, the SCOTUS has upheld 176 acts of the US Congress as unConstitutional.

"Before the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the power of judicial review had been exercised in a number of states. In the years from 1776 to 1787, state courts in at least seven of the thirteen states had engaged in judicial review and had invalidated state statutes because they violated the state constitution or other higher law. These state courts treated state constitutions as statements of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. These courts reasoned that because their state constitution was the fundamental law of the state, they must apply the state constitution rather than an act of the legislature that was inconsistent with the state constitution.

"These state court cases involving judicial review were reported in the press and produced public discussion and comment. At least seven of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, including Alexander Hamilton and Edmund Randolph, had personal experience with judicial review because they had been lawyers or judges in these state court cases involving judicial review. Other delegates referred to some of these state court cases during the debates at the Constitutional Convention. The concept of judicial review therefore was familiar to the framers and to the public before the Constitutional Convention.

"The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an IMPLIED POWER, derived from Article III and Article VI.

"The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:
'The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'

"The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

"The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says '[t]his Constitution' is the 'supreme law of the land.' The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are "made in pursuance" of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases "arising under this Constitution." As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution."

You might, also, be interested in reading what Alexander Hamiltom thought of the SCOTUS and it's ability toward "judicial review."
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of."
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78"

And, if I may add, the "interpretation" of any written word is essential in applying the author's meaning(s) of the word(s) to a mental understanding by reader. Without "interpretation" the words are as meaningless as any other grouping of characters, written on whatever.

How do you interpret the Bible? In it, it's written to, "Love your neighbor." Does that mean that you go over to your neighbor's house and kiss and make out and have sex with your neighbor? Or, do you simply treat them as you'd like them to treat you? It's all in how one interprets the word, "love."

How do you interpret the directions on a bottle of a mixture that reads, "Shake well before using?" Do you shake the bottle or do you put the bottle down and shake your own body? Either way, you've done what was written on the bottle. But, how did you "interpret" the meaning of the directions, the words?

It's very obvious you're scrapping the bottom of your barrel to try to trap me. Give it up, Archie. It ain't happening. Your arguments have no basis in the reasoning you claim to use. If you did use reasoning, you would've already seen the falacy of your question.

The Constitution is a written document. It's made up of words. The words are grouped into sentences and paragraphs. The structure and alignment of the sentences are so one can interpret their collective meanings. Your argument isn't against the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Your argument is based in the fact that the SCOTUS isn't interpreting the Constitution as you want it to. Again, if you can't win by playing within the rules, you want to change the rules.

FYI - Political Science, with an emphasis in Constitutional law, was one of my minors in college. Admittedly, much of what I posted, here, I copied from the Wikipedia. I used quotes around the paragraphs that I copied. I used Wikepedia because I wanted to demonstrate to you how easy it is to find out the answer to your question regarding the SCOTUS and its ability to "interpret" the Constitution. Besides, I'm not going to go through all my old notes from college when Wikipedia is just a click away and it says, essentially the same thing that are in my notes. You should try it sometime; research, that is.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Leaning Left
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.