[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Gee Sky, maybe if you cheer hard enough jason will run his fingers through your hair while you cup his balls.
That was just fucking pathetic.[/quote]
Let’s get one thing straight here.
That thing you hold with tweezers when you take a piss is pathetic. As for someone running their fingers through my hair, well, bigflamer, maybe you are just jealous. Why else would you call yourself bigflamer?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Skystud wrote:
Bye the way, I talked to Nancy Pelosi tonight…
You stayed up to talk? You didn’t fall asleep right after? I kid! I joke![/quote]
Well, you know I work weird hours and she was so happy with winning and all. hahahahhah
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Well, since the Dem’s were voted in now, with really no clue how to make things better, we will be sitting here and a few years having this same conversation. Except it will be why the dem’s have screwed up or not done a thing to fix it.
And Yes, I support Bush for trying to do something. That is more than can be said for all the previous Democrat presidents.
[/quote]
Thanks to Bush, our country has more defects than a Hudson river trout. Where have you been. The dems have a plan. They want to raise the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years, make tuition tax deductable, move forward on stem cell research, beef up 911 security, ethics reform so lobbyist aren’t the one to write the laws, perscription drug reform and funding for veterans. Sounds like a plan to me.
If you spent one fifth the time reading about both parties, instead of believing everything the fox media tells you, you would see this.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Pookie, Thunder,
You guys need to slow down a bit. The judicial system is another branch of government, and it has a set of rules that it is supposed to follow as well.[/quote]
Yep, and when they don’t, that is what I am complaining about.
[quote]However, the final authority rests with the legislative branch. It isn’t fast, and it isn’t easy, but that is the way it was designed. Often, laws are written and stay on the books for so long that they get harder and harder to apply appropriately to current events.
In that situation, the courts still have to make a decision based on existing law. In reality, what may be required is enacting some more up to date and clear legislation so that the judicial system has less open space in which to get lost when making a decision.[/quote]
And here is where you miss it, yet again. Part of the judicial toolkit is not to decide the question at all if it isn’t a legal question. Nothing forces a court to make a decision on a question that is a political question. They have the ability to say that is it is a ‘non-jusiticiable’ question, i.e., the judiciary is not the appropriate branch to decide. Then the aggrieved party goes and calls their Congressman.
You want to know how it works? That is how it works. You have it exactly backwards.
No it isn’t, Vroom - and just because you keep blabbering that that is how it works doesn’t mean it is so. The legislature can counteract a judiciary’s ruling, no question - but a judiciary has no authority to supplant the legislature on matters of deciding policy.
This is just utterly stupid. Start from scractch with gay marriage:
Very few states support it, the vast majority don’t - so a majority does not support gay marriage.
Congress does not as a majority support gay marriage (setting aside their ability to pass a law regarding it anyway).
So it is clear - the majority of the American people, by way of acting or rather, not acting, through their legislatures, doesn’t support gay marriage.
The Supreme Court hypothetically rules that gay marriage is required under the Equal Protection Clause, even though the EP clause was never contemplated to extend to such a thing.
So despite the fact that Americans don’t want gay marriage and have expressed such by not enacting it via their legislatures, five lawyers on a bench in DC get to override the will of the electorate in one fell swoop by ripping a political question out of the political process - and the only way to counteract this is for the people to muster up the firepower to amend the Constitution?
This scenario looks fine to you - it has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the American system to keep pretending to know something about.
There is no such structure to support the idea that courts are supposed to be some super-legislature that enacts laws that we otherwise don’t want. Ridiculous.
Nope, still an idiot. You just don’t make any sense. There is no basis in history or political theory for your approach, yet you act like it is a no-brainer. The Founding Fathers had no interest in a judiciary that does what you seem to think it can, and even many modern progressives are not willing to go as far as you have.
And, of course, your enormous gaffe still looms - if judges have the ability to supplant their will for that of the laws passed (or not passed) by the legislature, what good does passing a law to counteract a judicial lawmaking do? The court is free to ignore it, modify it, etc. - so how is passing a law a solution to check the court?
What good is amending the Constitution if judges get to ignore the plain language of the amendment?
You haven’t said. Such a setup would be a sham democracy. Not only does your version of the “American system” not exist, it is not even desirable to have such a system.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
She’s a certified cunt.
All you need is solid San Francisco values and you get instant certification.
Just what is the certification process for that? [/quote]
[quote]Skystud wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Well, since the Dem’s were voted in now, with really no clue how to make things better, we will be sitting here and a few years having this same conversation. Except it will be why the dem’s have screwed up or not done a thing to fix it.
And Yes, I support Bush for trying to do something. That is more than can be said for all the previous Democrat presidents.
Thanks to Bush, our country has more defects than a Hudson river trout. Where have you been. The dems have a plan. They want to raise the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years, make tuition tax deductable, move forward on stem cell research, beef up 911 security, ethics reform so lobbyist aren’t the one to write the laws, perscription drug reform and funding for veterans. Sounds like a plan to me.
If you spent one fifth the time reading about both parties, instead of believing everything the fox media tells you, you would see this.[/quote]
That’s a glorious plan! If only it were true! At least I have enough experience and perspective to believe less than half of what either party tells me they are “going” to do. Although, I’d like to see the plan for beefing up “9/11 Security”. The Democrats have fought every security measure that the administration has tried to put in place. I doubt that now they will decide ramp up efforts to protect Americans. That’s not their thing. They’d rather protect a theoretical civil liberty that actually protect your life.
TB covered it pretty well. I just want to comment on this part:
So you’re saying that if a proposed law is too unpopular to get votes, it’s ok to use the courts to enact it anyway?
Doesn’t that strike you as undemocratic? Sometimes, in a democracy, the majority disagrees with you. The way this works is that you agree to go with it. You can still campaign, lobby, advertise, etc; but using the courts to try and force the system is dangerous.
Like TB said, once the courts start reinterpreting the laws as they see fit, instead of as they were intended, the checks-and-balance part of the setup breaks down.
There’s a reason judges have to try and be impartial. There’s a reason why the Supreme Courts in both our countries consists of multiple judges - the hope that one or two bad judges can’t derail the whole process.
Judges are there to make sure the existing laws apply fairly. They are not there to reinterpret “unfair laws” according to their personal opinions.
Consider what happens if you get a Supreme Court that works your way, but is staffed entirely with activist conservatives who hold personal views opposite yours on nearly all issues.
Gay marriage is a good example. In Canada, the majority of people don’t oppose it. The groups who oppose it, mostly in the west, are outnumbered by those who don’t, in the east. There was a vote on the issue in the House of Commons and it passed with a small majority.
In the US, it appears that a majority of the population in a majority of the states is against it. In a democracy, the will of the people can be wrong (they elected Bush, didn’t they?) but it has to be respected. That’s the principle.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
pookie wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
On the bright side - The liberals performance over the next two years all but guarantees us that the Republicans will win the White House again in 2008.
Translation: The Republicans now have a scapegoat on which to blame all their past, present and future fuck-ups.
The rest is pretty funny, though.
If you do anything in life you are bound to screw-up. If you don’t do anything you are bound to never screw-up.
So the Republicans have tried things that don’t work.
What are the Dem’s going to do to fix Iraq? Pull the troops out and you have civil war and more terrorist hitting all western targets.
So please tell me what bright ideas do the Dem’s have to fix this?
So the slogan should be: “Vote Democrat, we won’t do anything so we will never screw-up!”
I’ve told you before, the situation in Iraq can not be fixed. It’s a mess. It can’t be won.
It’s like playing a chess game. When you play a string of good moves, you get a nice list of good options. When you play a string of bad moves, you’re running for shelter.
I can tell you’re a Bush supporter by letting him of the hook for the stupid, stupid, stupid mistakes he made, that people have warned him against.
But now you want the Democrats to fix the situation.
That’s not how it works. Da chimp had his chance. He’s incompetent. He fucked up.
It will take the grown ups decades to clean up his mess. Don’t expect a quick fix. If you do, you’ll be fooled by the next lying peace of shit and vote for the wrong guy AGAIN.
But that’s probably your intention all along.
That is too funny! So with Bush you want a quick fix in Iraq, but with the Dem’s “don’t expect a quick fix”. That is priceless!
Well, since the Dem’s were voted in now, with really no clue how to make things better, we will be sitting here and a few years having this same conversation. Except it will be why the dem’s have screwed up or not done a thing to fix it.
And Yes, I support Bush for trying to do something. That is more than can be said for all the previous Democrat presidents.
[/quote]
Yes. Of course. Roosevelt did nothing. Didnt’ defeat a very dangerous enemoy in a World War. Didn’t institutute important social programs that still exist…for the time being. Clinton did nothing either. Didn’t successfully reform welfare, like no conservative nor liberal did. Didn’t foster a TRULY healthy economy [instead of one that is only thriving if you look at some indices] and eradicate the deficit. Past Republican administrations have done good too. Just not THIS one. I respect learning-disabled nursery school kids who try really hard as well. I just wouldn’t elected one who is still eating paste as president. We’ll see what the Democrats can do in the next two years. They’ve got some really good, moderate centrists in office, so I’m mildly optimistic. Yet, if they DO end up achieving good things, you and other reactionaries will find some why of denying it and stating why it isn’t the case. Just like you blindly insist that Bush has been a good president because he’s ‘tried’ hard and a party not in power hasn’t articulated any policies of their own.
It’s not so much political ideology. I just find it amazing that anyone can look at what’s transpired and say that Bush is a good president. I have some very conservative friends who would never vote for Democrats under any circumstances. They’re convinced that however poor Republicans are, the Democrats policies will be worse. That is fine. But they don’t agree with President Bush’s decisions. [after all, he is hardly a conservative-he’s so departed from traditional conservative policies as to be unrecognizable]. But more importantly, they feel he’s executed them extremely poorly.
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Skystud wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Well, since the Dem’s were voted in now, with really no clue how to make things better, we will be sitting here and a few years having this same conversation. Except it will be why the dem’s have screwed up or not done a thing to fix it.
And Yes, I support Bush for trying to do something. That is more than can be said for all the previous Democrat presidents.
Thanks to Bush, our country has more defects than a Hudson river trout. Where have you been. The dems have a plan. They want to raise the minimum wage for the first time in 9 years, make tuition tax deductable, move forward on stem cell research, beef up 911 security, ethics reform so lobbyist aren’t the one to write the laws, perscription drug reform and funding for veterans. Sounds like a plan to me.
If you spent one fifth the time reading about both parties, instead of believing everything the fox media tells you, you would see this.
That’s a glorious plan! If only it were true! At least I have enough experience and perspective to believe less than half of what either party tells me they are “going” to do. Although, I’d like to see the plan for beefing up “9/11 Security”. The Democrats have fought every security measure that the administration has tried to put in place. I doubt that now they will decide ramp up efforts to protect Americans. That’s not their thing. They’d rather protect a theoretical civil liberty that actually protect your life.
[/quote]
Well, it remains to be seen. But they have SAID they will insitute the recommendations of the 911 comission. Which the CURRENT administration has inexplicably not done.
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
That’s a glorious plan! If only it were true! At least I have enough experience and perspective to believe less than half of what either party tells me they are “going” to do. Although, I’d like to see the plan for beefing up “9/11 Security”. The Democrats have fought every security measure that the administration has tried to put in place. I doubt that now they will decide ramp up efforts to protect Americans. That’s not their thing. They’d rather protect a theoretical civil liberty that actually protect your life.
[/quote]
Just because terrorists destroyed the towers, doesn’t give anybody to listen in on phone conversations. The french do that shit. If they spent more time looking to see who comes into this country they might get somewhere. Let’s see, they should be looking for Arab men at the airport and they should be guarding our border while looking for arab men. Not spending millions listening to me talk to my brother in philly about why the eagles still suck.
Other than that, I’m cool with it. Now, is that really your only gripe with this election result?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
That is too funny! So with Bush you want a quick fix in Iraq, but with the Dem’s “don’t expect a quick fix”. That is priceless!
[/quote]
I don’t think anyone said they wanted Bush to have a “quick fix” to Iraq. What is wanted is “A fix” to Iraq. Bush has made it perfectly clear that he has NO plan for Iraq past what he has already done. His plan now is to run out the clock like a close football game and let the next group of people clean up his mess.
You can’t really blame him though. He is only doing what he has been raised to do all his life. He really doesn’t know how to clean up his messes because he has never learned how to do it. His entire life has been a string of him being given opportunities, him fucking them up and then someone else coming behind him to clean up his mess. From his school life, to his military life, to his business life and to his political life, this has been his pattern. I’ve said this before and have continued to say this the entire time he has been in office. He has no real clue how to fix anything because he has never had to be held accountable for any of his screw-ups. He’s the Paris Hilton of the political set. All privilege and no accountability. The only difference is that Paris can’t fuck up the entire world when she doesn’t take responsibility for her actions.
While you are busy looking into the future, could you give us the lottery numbers for next week too? You, much like the rest of the doomsayers, think that everything is going to be worse now that the repubs are no longer in control. You don’t know that anymore than I do. All you have is the fact that the dems are in control (instead of who YOU want in control) so you are making the assumption that it will be worse. Sac up and give it a rest already, please. You sound like the people you made fun of during the last elections. As I recall, you told them to get over it already and move on. Take your own advice.
You were getting your panties in a bunch earlier because you assumed that the dems want Bush to have a “quick fix” for Iraq, but you want the dems to have a “quick fix” for Bush’s screw up of Iraq and if they don’t, you want to reserve the right to piss and moan about them at a latter date. How hypocritical is that?
So you supported Bush for trying to do something and we have a colossal global mess because of it. I agree, that is more than what can be said for all the previous Democratic presidents. It’s also more than what can be said for all the previous Republican presidents as well. None of them has screwed up as bad as he has. How’s that support for Bush working out for you?
[quote]Skystud wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
That’s a glorious plan! If only it were true! At least I have enough experience and perspective to believe less than half of what either party tells me they are “going” to do. Although, I’d like to see the plan for beefing up “9/11 Security”. The Democrats have fought every security measure that the administration has tried to put in place. I doubt that now they will decide ramp up efforts to protect Americans. That’s not their thing. They’d rather protect a theoretical civil liberty that actually protect your life.
Just because terrorists destroyed the towers, doesn’t give anybody to listen in on phone conversations. The french do that shit. If they spent more time looking to see who comes into this country they might get somewhere. Let’s see, they should be looking for Arab men at the airport and they should be guarding our border while looking for arab men. Not spending millions listening to me talk to my brother in philly about why the eagles still suck.
Other than that, I’m cool with it. Now, is that really your only gripe with this election result?
[/quote]
I hope you are not serious. No one is listening to you talk to you brother in Philly. They are listeing to phone calls made to phone numbers found on terrorist cell phones or on a terrorists person, etc. Let’s be real.
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
The terrorists and the american commmunist party are towing the democratic party line. Castro and Chavez are supporting the democrats in this election. Boy I wish our country was like Cuba!
Why don’t people see it as a red flag when Al Queda tells you to vote Democrat? Or when Castro and Chavez do? Do Americans really think these people have OUR best interests at heart?
Anyone? Hello?[/quote]
If that is true they see it as a way to slow down this administrations foreign policy. Outside the U.S. we are known as the greatest threat to world pecae. Obviously you aren’t going to hear that from the mainstream media.
But slowing it down won’t stop it and niether will the democrats. They will just do smaller scale stuff like bombing pharmacuetical factories and stuff. The insanity will never end with either of the major parties in power.
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Skystud wrote:
I hope you are not serious. No one is listening to you talk to you brother in Philly. They are listeing to phone calls made to phone numbers found on terrorist cell phones or on a terrorists person, etc. Let’s be real. [/quote]
Okay then why haven’t they installed the explosive chip in every phone?
Yup, for what they spend on worthless military equipment, they could install an explosive chip in every cell phone. When they listen in they can gain valuable information and at the same time blow the fuckers up. I’m kidding of course, but is that where the Republicans were taking us?
[quote]Skystud wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Skystud wrote:
I hope you are not serious. No one is listening to you talk to you brother in Philly. They are listeing to phone calls made to phone numbers found on terrorist cell phones or on a terrorists person, etc. Let’s be real.
Okay then why haven’t they installed the explosive chip in every phone?
Yup, for what they spend on worthless military equipment, they could install an explosive chip in every cell phone. When they listen in they can gain valuable information and at the same time blow the fuckers up. I’m kidding of course, but is that where the Republicans were taking us?[/quote]
I don’t…wait…WHAT? What the fuck are you TALKING about?
“Respect for religion must be reestablished. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of public officials must be curtailed. Assistance to foreign lands must be stopped or we shall bankrupt ourselves. The people should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence.” - Cicero, 60 B.C.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“Respect for religion must be reestablished. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of public officials must be curtailed. Assistance to foreign lands must be stopped or we shall bankrupt ourselves. The people should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence.” - Cicero, 60 B.C.
[/quote]
Hackhunter, this was -surprisingly- a solid post.
Now if you get rid of your alter ego, we might become friends one day again.
I love this photo.
ha ahahhahahhahahaha
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“Respect for religion must be reestablished. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of public officials must be curtailed. Assistance to foreign lands must be stopped or we shall bankrupt ourselves. The people should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence.” - Cicero, 60 B.C.
[/quote]
You are such a horses ass. The American Express card in your wallet represents a bygone civilization. Not the present one.
Go back to work, another car just drove up to the drive through window.