Sarah Palin Resigns

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
233

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Most who can’t stand Palin don’t wish for her death. Anymore than twisted, venomous, and perverted Mick is representative of most conservatives.

I call the act of homosexuality twisted and perverted so therefore you say that I’m twisted and perverted…Another 20 something PC boy who has it ass backwards.

I am not talking about your belief system. I am talking about the venon and vitriol (and somteimes unsubtantiated bullshit) you spew on these forums. Or maybe I’m talking about another Mick entirely.

Since you attacked me with no reason on a thread that I wasn’t even taking part in…and you seem hell bent on taking this thread off course…why don’t you tell me about all of the alleged unsubstantiated bullshit…give me a few examples…or shut up PC boy.

You mean like whining for weeks about examples about how harmful and dangerous polygamy is in most situations? And then utterly failing to response because your foot is stuck in your mouth when I provide many? You’re not worth it. It’s your entire hateful posting style. You wouldn’t understand. I’m out to celebrate the 4th. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

I think I remember part of that, but as I recall you were the one who disappeared from the thread unable to come up with any good answers. But it figures you’d be pro polygamy PC boy. Have a nice 4th.

I was and am against polygamy you dumb shit. And provided a whole host of reasons why it is a detrimental and disastrous instiution with a host of resources for you to evaluate after numerous complaints and demands from you to do so. And once I did you had shit to say. You really are dumber than shitstains.

I think I owe you an apology js. I lumped you with some of the other pc college boys who think that they know everything because their professor just told them how the world works. No…that’s not you, you’re far worse. You’re not only a pc college boy you also have a GIGANTIC ego. What in the name of all that is holy would make you think that I actually remember our little confrontation on polygamy? You stupid little shit.

Now I want you to take a close look at whose name is on the receipt for that computer that your banging away on. Take a close look…right…daddy bought it for you. You know nothing of the real world…you know nothing of which you speak…and to top it off you’re a little ego driven piece of shit. What an incredibly bad…bad combination of things.

Now I suggest that you temporarily drop your personal vendetta against me and stay focused on the thread at hand. This might be the first time an adult told you what to do in your pampered life so I don’t expect you’ll take it well, but try to think of the other posters boy.
[/quote]

Lol. You’re sad. But you’re right on this one: any dialogue with you is a wasted effort. You’re incapable of having a discussion and simply run away and hide every time someone raises points you cannot refute and are incapable of discussing. You’ve shown this on numerous threads.

This is the last post I will direct to you on this thread, or maybe at all. But I bet you will respond (but without actually saying anything worthwhile). You’re too much of an insecure shit to let anyone else have the last word. Prove me wrong.

234

“…But no one can ever win an argument that government from D.C. is preferable to government from Helena, Richmond, Austin, Lansing, Montpelier, etc. Let me emphasize that again - NEVER EVER EVER…”

I’ll throw it back at you, Push…where did I ever say THAT?

I think we are in another one of those areas where we are arguing absolutes; and guess what? The “Federalist” and the “Anti-Federalist” had similar very spirited debates 200 plus years ago.

What there is no dispute on is that even James Madison himself knew that there was a place for both Federal and State Governments. And yes…many of us on this Forum have agreed.

Where we perhaps disagree is to what extent and degree Federal powers should extend.

What is so amazing about the Constitution, Madison’s original Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments is that 200 plus years later they STILL serve as an all-important “check and balance” delineating Federal and State powers.

No…we don’t “throw them out” (the Constitution and is Amendments)…but we question, and in some cases challenge, what we perceive as the over-extension of Federal Powers.

I would also argue that we can see just as much “Tyranny of the Majority” at the State and Local Level, (especially when it comes to protecting individual Rights and Freedoms). To not recognize that is to be ALMOST as misguided as someone who thinks that the Federal Government should have all the power.

I think Madison knew that there was a balance; and that balance should continually be discussed, debated and challenged.

Mufasa

235

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
CAN SARAH SAVE US?

That now becomes the $64,000 question. Barack has a pretty big wake of destruction.[/quote]

How will she save us? Building the world’s first $500 million super sports complex on sacred aborginal territory. Better make sure no one has title first. Raising sales tax? What other wonderfully fiscally conservative or progressive policies can she bring to the national stage?

As Republican Senator Linda Green puts it, “She has not been invested as governor. There is no vision, no plans, no improvement. It was just go out, tax and punish.” Just what the country needs to recover from Obama’s more questionable policies.

236

(Weren’t we discussing Palin? Oh well…!)

Mufasa

237

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(Weren’t we discussing Palin? Oh well…!)

Mufasa[/quote]

Supposedly…but not just Palin. Presumably the thread should be about her resignation, reasons for it, and potential plans for the future. But somehow we got derailed and started discussing the campaign and her past performance. I’m as guilty of it as anyone else.

Although I guess there is some overlap as past performance is relevant to her ability to function in any future leadership position.

238

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

The Federal Government, as much as you don’t like them, can’t pass ridiculous measures across the board because the country varies so much, and what makes sense in one place doesn’t in another. Their authority is limited on things that directly happen in your town and in your streets.

Then why’d they start a Civil War in 1861?

Because a slave owning society that subjugated a race of people not only seceded, they fired on a Federal fort to start the whole fuckin thing off.

There is no way (even you) can compare this.[/quote]

Its rare that a country allows a customs house (collecting tolls) like Fort Sumter on their sovereign territory.

"But on the issue of taxation he was totally uncompromising. The Republican Party was about to more than double the average tariff rate (from 15 percent to over 32 percent), and then increase it again to 47 percent. The Morrill Tariff passed the House of Representatives in the 1859 session, before Lincolnâ??s nomination and before any serious movement toward secession. In the First Inaugural Lincoln clearly stated that it was his obligation as president to “collect the duties and imposts,” but beyond that “there will be no invasion of any state.” He was telling the South: "We are going to economically plunder you by doubling and tripling the tariff rate (the main source of federal revenue at the time), and if you refuse to collect the higher tariffs, as the South Carolinians did with the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” there will be an invasion. That is, there will be mass killing, mayhem, and total war.

Why was the tariff so important â?? even more important than the issue of slavery in the eyes of Abraham Lincoln? Because tariff revenues comprised about 90 percent of federal revenue, and if the Southern states seceded they would no longer pay the federal tariff. All the grandiose plans of building a transcontinental railroad with taxpayer subsidies and creating a continental empire would be destroyed, and along with them the political career of Abraham Lincoln and, possibly, the Republican Party itself. The union was “saved” geographically but destroyed philosophically by the waging of total war on the civilian population of the South, a war in which nearly one half of the adult white male population was either killed or mutilated."

239

I still believe that there will be a LOT more to this story as the weeks and months pass.

Mufasa

240

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< No…we don’t “throw them out” (the Constitution and is Amendments)…but we question, and in some cases challenge, what we perceive as the over-extension of Federal Powers. >>>[/quote]

His point is they’ve already been thrown out in practice and rather than persist in the charade that we are a nation of constitutional law as defined in those documents, why don’t we just be honest and make it official.

241

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
<<< No…we don’t “throw them out” (the Constitution and is Amendments)…but we question, and in some cases challenge, what we perceive as the over-extension of Federal Powers. >>>

His point is they’ve already been thrown out in practice and rather than persist in the charade that we are a nation of constitutional law as defined in those documents, why don’t we just be honest and make it official.[/quote]

For those who believe this, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Mufasa

249

I propose that we make a new national sport called ‘Sarah Palin Bashing’.

253

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
<<< No…we don’t “throw them out” (the Constitution and is Amendments)…but we question, and in some cases challenge, what we perceive as the over-extension of Federal Powers. >>>

His point is they’ve already been thrown out in practice and rather than persist in the charade that we are a nation of constitutional law as defined in those documents, why don’t we just be honest and make it official.

For those who believe this, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Mufasa

OK, Muf, I’ll give you 79 years of history to cite some examples of where the federal government has stayed in its constitutional cage and faithfully adhered to the 10th Amendment which incidentally should be just as powerful if not more so as any of the previous nine. Start with the year 1930 and reel off example after example. Ready. Set. Go.[/quote]

Push:

Let’s not get into a “who is worse/who’s abused the Constitution more” game.

There is as much, if not more, history of Local and State Governments denying Citizens of even basic, fundamental, inalienable and constitutional rights; from “Jim Crow” laws denying voting and access to basic public services; to rapes, killings and terrorism of citizens via an “unofficial” militia (the Ku Klux Klan); to the denial of adequate housing, education…the list goes on and on…

For every Fed abuse you name, there are AT LEAST as many on the State and Local level. (If not more).

So forgive me if I hear the DixieCrat cry of “States Rights!” and don’t start waving flags and wishing it was 1780 again.

Mufasa

258

Also, except for our couple of resident anarchists, who has ever argued that A federal government is by definition evil? Nobody has said either that lower level governments are not every bit as corrupt as the feds.

The trouble is, the ever swelling central government has the extended ability to render local governments beholden to and manipulated by itself in ways that are not possible the other way around.

In the case of the issues with race, they had the legitimate power and duty to deinstitutionalize racism. They had neither the power nor the ability to take that next step and force equal treatment on non criminal levels. It has predictably accomplished the opposite of what I believe may have been good intentions by some originally.

259

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
<<< No…we don’t “throw them out” (the Constitution and is Amendments)…but we question, and in some cases challenge, what we perceive as the over-extension of Federal Powers. >>>

His point is they’ve already been thrown out in practice and rather than persist in the charade that we are a nation of constitutional law as defined in those documents, why don’t we just be honest and make it official.

For those who believe this, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Mufasa

OK, Muf, I’ll give you 79 years of history to cite some examples of where the federal government has stayed in its constitutional cage and faithfully adhered to the 10th Amendment which incidentally should be just as powerful if not more so as any of the previous nine. Start with the year 1930 and reel off example after example. Ready. Set. Go.

Push:

Let’s not get into a “who is worse/who’s abused the Constitution more” game.

There is as much, if not more, history of Local and State Governments denying Citizens of even basic, fundamental, inalienable and constitutional rights; from “Jim Crow” laws denying voting and access to basic public services; to rapes, killings and terrorism of citizens via an “unofficial” militia (the Ku Klux Klan); to the denial of adequate housing, education…the list goes on and on…

For every Fed abuse you name, there are AT LEAST as many on the State and Local level. (If not more).

So forgive me if I hear the DixieCrat cry of “States Rights!” and don’t start waving flags and wishing it was 1780 again.

Mufasa

Then go ahead and tear up the Constitution and start over with a new one more to your liking. But don’t bend, twist, warp, add to, delete, and morph the existing one to fit your notions however righteous they may be. Because if YOU can do it to accomplish your goals then your “enemies” can do likewise to accomplish theirs. And then you have chaos.

[/quote]

Again…I have NO desire to “tear it up” and start over. NOR do I take it lightly when others wish to Amend it with their own agendas.

Mufasa