Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-11-2017, 07:20 AM   #91
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
Paul is going to be very jealous .....
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2017, 08:20 AM   #92
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,572
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
"Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law. And shaping them into what appeared to be, once again, cultureless collectives dependent on and ruled by overlords."

Is their anything about Trump's plan in that statement? Are you denying there is an anti-Progressive movement occurring in Western countries?

Do you know what Trump's plan is?

I never mentioned a plan. I didn't speak of a plan. I didn't say anything about Trump's plan. You're the one who brought up "plan."

Seems you are in mistaken ^^^^


Now you're moving the goalpost. Your switching from "rights" (freedoms) to "laws."

How else are theses losses taken .. certainly not by the barrel of a gun

the goal post are the same .. all 3 are effected by laws


And you're demonstrating that you do not understand this nation's founding. You don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution and why it was written the way it was. It shows to me that when you took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, you didn't know what exactly you were swearing to defend.


And there it is in a nut shell ... so any freedoms That were lost were at the Hands of Men or women who like me it seems "do not understand this nation's founding. You and they don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you and them don't understand the purpose of the Constitution "

So based on all this if you had a Time machine what period in our history would satisfy your Views ... or a time when there was 100% consensus on your views of the bill of rights the Constitution or Declaration of Independence..

My guess is any time in history you would have the same argument as you do today and i would have the same counter argument and neither of us in my eye have the solution
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2017, 09:50 AM   #93
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
Paul is going to be very jealous .....
I feel left out.

Awfully cold this morning. My walk on the beach is going to be tough in a few minutes. Thinking maybe I should go to Turkey for the warm weather. I wonder if there is anyone who could get me discounted rates.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2017, 09:56 AM   #94
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,766
The thing that is most pathetic to me about the whole Flynn issue is that the Trump Administration knew for 3 weeks that Flynn met with the Russian Ambassador and did not say a word until the Washington Post broke the story. Looks like they were trying to sweep it under the rug
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
PaulS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2017, 12:26 PM   #95
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
"Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law. And shaping them into what appeared to be, once again, cultureless collectives dependent on and ruled by overlords."

Is their anything about Trump's plan in that statement? Are you denying there is an anti-Progressive movement occurring in Western countries?

Do you know what Trump's plan is?

I never mentioned a plan. I didn't speak of a plan. I didn't say anything about Trump's plan. You're the one who brought up "plan."

Seems you are in mistaken ^^^^

No, I am not mistaken. There is no mention of a plan by Trump in my statement. When I said his election was part of anti-globalism, against a Progressive globalism, I threw his election in as part of this movement in Western societies as a whole as demonstrated by the rest of the statement. I wasn't saying it was Trump's plan to be a part of the movement. Nor was I even inferring it. If I wanted to say it was his plan, I would have said it was his plan. That's why I said that I didn't mention a plan. That's why I didn't mention a Trump plan. The anti-globalist movement is not a plan. No centralized authority is directing it. It is a nearly simultaneous anti-globalist pushback in almost all Western countries.

Now you're moving the goalpost. Your switching from "rights" (freedoms) to "laws."

How else are theses losses taken .. certainly not by the barrel of a gun

the goal post are the same .. all 3 are effected by laws

Don't know what you're referring to here, but you asked me to give you a list of lost freedoms. I gave you a specific instance of one and how it was accomplished, and I listed several others in a general manner rather than a tedious case by case. Your response seems to have been merely that the world changes--that's the nature of things. So if its just the nature of things that we lose freedoms, why ask for a list? Certainly, from your attitude, you're not concerned by lost freedoms--it's just the nature of things--why get nostalgic about lost freedoms? (as I said, I wasn't being nostalgic. I was being factual)

And you're demonstrating that you do not understand this nation's founding. You don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution and why it was written the way it was. It shows to me that when you took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, you didn't know what exactly you were swearing to defend.


And there it is in a nut shell ... so any freedoms That were lost were at the Hands of Men or women who like me it seems "do not understand this nation's founding. You and they don't understand the Declaration of Independence. So you and them don't understand the purpose of the Constitution "

No, the freedoms were lost at the hands of men(mostly) and women who DID understand our founding and its documents. They knew exactly what they were doing. And they "interpreted" the Constitution in deceptive ways to make it appear that what they were doing was constitutional. It's just that many men and women, like you as you say, accepted their ploy as genuine. That the Constitution was being defended and supported while it was actually being sabotaged.

So based on all this if you had a Time machine what period in our history would satisfy your Views ... or a time when there was 100% consensus on your views of the bill of rights the Constitution or Declaration of Independence..


It's not a question of mere views. Law, if it is to be applied to more than one person, cannot merely be a point of view. The Constitution, as law, applies limitations on, mostly federal, government's power to abridge or deny the people's freedoms/rights by enumerating the areas only in which it is allowed to do so. It leaves criminal statutory law up to states and localities where the citizens have power to decide by majority rule.

The Constitution provides the only way to change its structural limitations on government--amendment. That is not affected by time. It is always to be so. Though the Constitution can be changed, it is to be done by formal amendment, not by judicial whim to suit a judge's notion of changing times

My guess is any time in history you would have the same argument as you do today and i would have the same counter argument and neither of us in my eye have the solution
Law is not up to you nor I to change. Different arguments whether affected by time or personal whim cannot change law. Law is formal. And it must be changed in a formal manner.

As I said, if you think mere time or point of view can change the Constitution, you don't understand it. If you don't think the Constitution should any longer be applied, that's a different story. That would be the Progressive argument. Understandably, the structure of the Constitution makes the Progressive idea of government impossible to apply, so, if it cannot be done by amendment, unless there is some kind of revolt by enough people to forcefully eliminate the Constitution, then change must be done by deception or "interpretation."

As I said, since you and I have shown that we do not agree on what constitutional "interpretation" is, we can't agree on what freedoms have been lost.

And it doesn't seem by your responses, that lost freedoms are of any concern to you. Mentioning them is mere nostalgia--the blanket of the fearful.

Last edited by detbuch; 03-11-2017 at 12:39 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2017, 05:17 PM   #96
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 1,572
[QUOTE=detbuch;1118553]Law is not up to you nor I to change. Different arguments whether affected by time or personal whim cannot change law. Law is formal. And it must be changed in a formal manner.

As I said, if you think mere time or point of view can change the Constitution, you don't understand it. If you don't think the Constitution should any longer be applied, that's a different story. That would be the Progressive argument. Understandably, the structure of the Constitution makes the Progressive idea of government impossible to apply, so, if it cannot be done by amendment, unless there is some kind of revolt by enough people to forcefully eliminate the Constitution, then change must be done by deception or "interpretation."

As I said, since you and I have shown that we do not agree on what constitutional "interpretation" is, we can't agree on what freedoms have been lost.

But isn't that the problem "the interpretation of data" if we had the same "interpretation" why even take about it?

And it doesn't seem by your responses, that lost freedoms are of any concern to you. Mentioning them is mere nostalgia--the blanket of the fearful. My concern is to you all losses Taken have been nefarious ... when I in fact see the March of time and the modern age and technology our founders had great vision but it was impossible for them to provide a document that would address every scenario presented in todays world [/QUOTE


The constitution is not a size fit all document

The Constitution of the United States is a living document because it was written to be adapted by future generations. If it had not been written with such intentions, the government would be unable to ratify new amendments since this in itself is a change.


so well have to agree to disagree
wdmso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2017, 10:08 PM   #97
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,821
[QUOTE=wdmso;1118564 But isn't that the problem "the interpretation of data" if we had the same "interpretation" why even take about it?


detbuch: If there are different interpretations of data, are all interpretations correct? If you're saying the Constitution is data, which is a big stretch, but if we consider it data, and we use that data as a measure for deciding a case, and different judges read the data in different ways to come to different conclusions, is the data being used correctly by all the judges? Let's say we call a ruler data (a sort of measurement Constitution), and the length of a stick is to be decided. And when the ruler is applied to the stick the number on the ruler at the end point of measurement is 12. If 5 judges interpret that to mean the stick is 15 inches long and 4 judges interpret it to mean the stick is 12 inches long, are the majority of judges correct?

wdmso: My concern is to you all losses Taken have been nefarious ... when I in fact see the March of time and the modern age and technology our founders had great vision but it was impossible for them to provide a document that would address every scenario presented in todays world

detbuch: There may have been some good losses. But there have been many bad ones. Whether a loss is good or bad is not the relevant point for me. How it was done is what is important. The nefariousness is not in the loss, but in the process. If the loss is done in the proper constitutional manner, so be it. If it is done unconstitutionally, it is nefarious.

The Constitution was not meant to address every scenario, but to address which Branch or which level of government from federal to local, if any, had the power to regulate classes of scenarios. The founders certainly knew that technology and knowledge would advance new ideas and products. That's why they didn't try to specify scenarios but instead mentioned very broad classes of scenarios--regulation of interstate commerce for instance. This would encompass all manner of new things that could be involved in interstate commerce. If any type of scenario doesn't fit within the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution, then the federal government has no power to regulate it. And if some new type of scenario arises, that does not fall within enumerated powers but the people and their representatives believe that government should have the power to regulate it, the Constitution can be amended to include an enumeration giving some branch of government power to do so. I don't know of any such new scenario having arisen. For instance, the Founders probably didn't know that jet airliners would be invented. But the broad areas covered by the enumerations easily allow jets as well as all other inventions to either be regulated by the federal government or left alone for the people or the states to regulate or not.

wdmso: The constitution is not a size fit all document

detbuch: Yes and no. Some sizes (most) are to be left to states and to the people. The size created by the constitutional enumeration of powers all fit federal government regulation.

wdmso: The Constitution of the United States is a living document because it was written to be adapted by future generations. If it had not been written with such intentions, the government would be unable to ratify new amendments since this in itself is a change.

detbuch: We have an old wooden spoon that has been handed down by a couple of generations. It is used for different purposes and to stir new and different stews and soups than it did when it was new. Is it a living spoon?

The "living document" schtick was an invention of the early Progressives like Woodrow Wilson who considered the Constitution to be an outdated impediment to their notion of government which was one that needed to be unshackled from restricted enumerations of power. Government, for the Progressives, was to be a central power able to do anything it considered good for all citizens without being limited to a few specific categories. It was too difficult to amend the Constitution, so it had to be given a new breath of "life" simply by interpreting it in any way necessary to suit its needs.

The Progressives didn't fear unlimited government because they thought history had come to a good place in time where enlightened men ruled the day. And, besides, Americanism, the American character, would not allow despotic authoritarians. American authoritarians would only do good, not evil. If you want to swallow that bilge, no one (except a nefarious authoritarian) can stop you. I think that Progressive notion is idiotic. History has never arrived at the good place Progressives imagined. Human nature has not changed. We still have wars and dictators and evil despots. We will always have power seekers, and they will eventually be found at top levels of government. American or otherwise.

The nature of living things is they eventually die. It is only those inanimate abstractions such as ideas that don't actually die because they were never alive. They can exist forever. They can be forgotten. They can be remembered again by following generations after having been forgotten

If a document were somehow "living," then it will die. If it is an abstract idea formed by words, it can exist and be used as long as generations choose to. If it is to survive through change, then some words have to be changed--amended. If generations do in its name what the document does not allow, without changing its words, then the document no longer exists except as a picture on the wall. Neither alive nor dead. Just defunct.

wdmso: so well have to agree to disagree[/QUOTE]

Why can we not agree?

Last edited by detbuch; 03-11-2017 at 10:48 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2017, 05:19 AM   #98
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 5,619
ever notice that only liberal/progressives are allowed to change stuff in our "living and breathing society" and in any way that they see fit to accomplish the task...legally/illegally/by contorting the process/through lies and deception....and once they changes things...those things may never be unchanged(no longer living and breathing but forever set in stone)..even through legal means or through due process/popular vote.... or else there will be marches/protests/rioting/violence/civil unrest etc...

this is much of why we cannot agree...the left demands and enjoys one set of rules(essentially lack of any strict adherence, evolving day to day depending on need, living and breathing morality, facts and truths) for themselves, while demanding and whining the right play by a strict set rules and restrictions

what is frustrating for the left about Trump is his remarkable ability to use every tactic that the left has used over time and turn it to his own advantage... to the left and media's great dismay and frustration....he plays them all like a fiddle and probably laughs himself to sleep each night dreaming about his next tweet and how it will send them all into a frenzy and off to their computer keyboards, news casts and talk shows to pound and sound out their next irrational thought

Last edited by scottw; 03-12-2017 at 07:04 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright 2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com