a professional environmentalists take on Hunter Biden laptop

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

A teacher giving a child a book determined by the state to be inappropriate is a class 3 felony in Floriduh under DeFascist.
You think any lawyer would recommend that teachers provide any books to children?
Classroom libraries have been one of the effective aids developed to increase literacy.

But I spout propaganda

Yes you do. Because you said that this was under your notion of part of an entire Republican agenda. Different states have different policies. States run by Republican agendas do not all have the same policies. But you generalize a specific example to falsely paint a picture of being an "entire" agenda.

Here you give a broad brush example of a specific which is supposed to categorize an overall picture. You paint a singular hypothetical that is supposed to cover the entire range of the Republican agenda in the domain of books in school libraries.

As far as I know, Florida does not, in general, felonize giving an inappropriate book to a child. But in a Florida Public School classroom, the material must be, “free of pornography” and “appropriate for the age level and group.” Public schools throughout the nation have traditionally done this sort of thing. Who decides that is determined by district school boards. Florida House Bill 1467 makes what materials are being used and what are being considered for purchase far more transparent to the public and allows more public input. A major objection to it from the left is that it is an "extreme, developmentally inappropriate, and often outright harmful level of parental control over access to information". So who's freedom are we talking about here? The Freedom of the citizens, or the power of the bureaucracy? The bill empowers the citizens over the "system."

Allowing the people to have a say is not fascist. Telling the people to shut up and take it is.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes you do. Because you said that this was under your notion of part of an entire Republican agenda. Different states have different policies. States run by Republican agendas do not all have the same policies. But you generalize a specific example to falsely paint a picture of being an "entire" agenda.

Here you give a broad brush example of a specific which is supposed to categorize an overall picture. You paint a singular hypothetical that is supposed to cover the entire range of the Republican agenda in the domain of books in school libraries.

As far as I know, Florida does not, in general, felonize giving an inappropriate book to a child. But in a Florida Public School classroom, the material must be, “free of pornography” and “appropriate for the age level and group.” Public schools throughout the nation have traditionally done this sort of thing. Who decides that is determined by district school boards. Florida House Bill 1467 makes what materials are being used and what are being considered for purchase far more transparent to the public and allows more public input. A major objection to it from the left is that it is an "extreme, developmentally inappropriate, and often outright harmful level of parental control over access to information". So who's freedom are we talking about here? The Freedom of the citizens, or the power of the bureaucracy? The bill empowers the citizens over the "system."

Allowing the people to have a say is not fascist. Telling the people to shut up and take it is.

It’s a class 3 felony for a teacher to give a “bad” book to a child, not a hypothesis.

ALEC currently has the same legislation in every Republican legislative body in the country.
Claiming it’s different in every one is baloney, the same people are funding and writing the bills nationwide.

Just what did Ron DeFascist tell Disney?
You think other weaker businesses didn’t see that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who draft and share model legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States

ALEC has produced model bills on a broad range of issues, such as reducing regulation and individual and corporate taxation, combating illegal immigration, loosening environmental regulations, tightening voter identification rules, weakening labor unions, and opposing gun control.[8][9][10][11] Some of these bills dominate legislative agendas in states

But they have No agenda lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It’s a class 3 felony for a teacher to give a “bad” book to a child, not a hypothesis.

In the context of your "Why does the entire Republican agenda involve stopping, limiting, or taking away something," it creates a hypothetical notion that it is part of the "entire" Republican agenda. And you give an abbreviated description that sounds so horrible. But it is not. Public schools have always had standards to be met. States mandate that your children must attend a school, and what must be taught. And what is not allowed. Not abiding by policy has always had severe punishments. Usually being fired or suspended. That is not particularly a Republican agenda. Nor does "the entire Republican agenda involve stopping, limiting, or taking away something". That's pure propaganda.

You think any lawyer would recommend that teachers provide any books to children?

A lawyer would recommend books that the school boards allow, and not recommend books that were against school policy. At least for schoolroom use. Outside of the school, acting as a private citizen, not a public school teacher, I expect that the teacher would have wider latitude.

Classroom libraries have been one of the effective aids developed to increase literacy.

And they still will be, even in Florida. The Bible would be an effective aid to increase literacy. I don't think Dems want to allow the Bible in public classroom libraries.

ALEC currently has the same legislation in every Republican legislative body in the country.

ALEC does not legislate. It recommends, influences, just as other nonprofits, like Planned Parenthood and the Health industries, etc. But the legislatures have to choose to adopt the various models, or parts of them, or versions that suit their constituency, and then create a bill to be voted on by the public. State legislators are not experts on every subject. Many are fairly stupid, actually. They get lots of advice from all manner of lobbyists and organizations. So the politicians pick and choose what they want to support (or are paid to support) or what they think can get them elected depending on the nature of their constituents. So, no, not every Republican state has the same laws, just as not all the Democrat states do either.

Claiming it’s different in every one is baloney, the same people are funding and writing the bills nationwide.

Not true. Not at the state level.

Just what did Ron DeFascist tell Disney?
You think other weaker businesses didn’t see that?

Actually, Disney had a fascist agreement with the State of Florida which gave Disney a sweet tax deal and Disney could basically regulate its own conduct in Disneyland. Desantis stopped that but not until June, by which time a new fascist deal can be hammered out.

And weaker companies didn't have that kind of fascist deal to risk. And, c'mon man, you don't think weaker companies fear their governments' intrusion into their viability if they don't tow the ruling political party's line? Look what's happening with the insertion of diversity, equality, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, Disney had a fascist agreement with the State of Florida which gave Disney a sweet tax deal and Disney could basically regulate its own conduct in Disneyland. Desantis stopped that but not until June, by which time a new fascist deal can be hammered out.

And weaker companies didn't have that kind of fascist deal to risk. And, c'mon man, you don't think weaker companies fear their governments' intrusion into their viability if they don't tow the ruling political party's line. Look what' happening with the insertion of diversity, equality, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.

So Disney’s deal was fascist, now fascism is providing services to your own business at your cost while the state doesn’t pay. DeFascist found out that his tantrum was going to cost Floridians a fortune and tucked his tail between his legs and ran.

Tell us “what' happening with the insertion of diversity, equality, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So Disney’s deal was fascist, now fascism is providing services to your own business at your cost while the state doesn’t pay. DeFascist found out that his tantrum was going to cost Floridians a fortune and tucked his tail between his legs and ran.

Yes it was a fascist merger between a corporation and the state. Florida gave special tax and governance privileges that made it possible for the Disney corporation to appropriate some of the authority of the government. For the good of the state and the people. Yes, fascism purports that the merger of the state and corporations can be made to promote the benefit of the people.

Tell us “what' happening with the insertion of diversity, equity, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.”

It is "what" is happening. A sort of fascistic merger between govt. with Corporations who are seeing what's coming in compliance to government mandates and getting ahead of the eventual curve.

From GovDocs:

"With laws related to diversity, equity and inclusion now cropping up at the federal level, employers may see additional compliance requirements.

And companies operating in locations across the U.S. should review local laws, ensure they align with company policies and procedures, and act accordingly."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is "what" is happening. A sort of fascistic merger between govt. with Corporations who are seeing what's coming in compliance to government mandates and getting ahead of the eventual curve.

From GovDocs:

"With laws related to diversity, equity and inclusion now cropping up at the federal level, employers may see additional compliance requirements.

And companies operating in locations across the U.S. should review local laws, ensure they align with company policies and procedures, and act accordingly."

So now it’s kinda sorta fascist and people might have to comply.
Just like they had to comply with all the other stuff.
Why they even let women be firemen and join the service, how horrible. Everything has gone downhill since they let them vote….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So now it’s kinda sorta fascist and people might have to comply.

Yes. Fascism hasn't been universally defined. There are varient definitions, but closely aligned.

Just like they had to comply with all the other stuff.

No. Not just like all.

Why they even let women be firemen and join the service, how horrible. Everything has gone downhill since they let them vote….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

firemen, or firepersons, or firefighters of whatever identities, and military personnel, are by far some form of government job, not strictly private corporation employees. And voting is a private, individual action, not a government or corporate action.

[wdmso]

Its fun to see all the conservatives parading Musk around on their shoulders thinking His twitter files are another smoking Gun

But the savior himself at his current Trial made a not so shocking comment . Suggesting what's been said here already that 280 character count minimum in a tweet leaves a lot information out

On Friday, Musk had testified he thinks it is possible to be “absolutely truthful” on Twitter. "But can you be comprehensive? Of course not.”

So keep believing his twitter releases are comprehensive you've been played again .

By King troll feeding you what you wanted to believe

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Actually, Disney had a fascist agreement with the State of Florida which gave Disney a sweet tax deal and Disney could basically regulate its own conduct in Disneyland. Desantis stopped that but not until June, by which time a new fascist deal can be hammered out.

And weaker companies didn't have that kind of fascist deal to risk. And, c'mon man, you don't think weaker companies fear their governments' intrusion into their viability if they don't tow the ruling political party's line? Look what's happening with the insertion of diversity, equality, and inclusion training in all manner of businesses.

The Villages have the same agreement . But their considered conservative . so their to be ignored

the real fascists calling others Fascists classic

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

the real fascists calling others Fascists classic

This is ironic.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is ironic.

Isn't it ironic & transparently obvious to anyone that Right Wing Conservatives fear and ascribe to Progressives & Leftists the very Agenda that only Authoritarian Fascists ever seek to implement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Isn't it ironic & transparently obvious to anyone that Right Wing Conservatives fear and ascribe to Progressives & Leftists the very Agenda that only Authoritarian Fascists ever seek to implement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the most part, they are correct. The one thing, basically, that would prevent the centralization of American government into a fascistic single state instead of 50 different states is the Constitution. And if there is one thing that Progressives and leftist most want to achieve is the circumvention and/or the abolishment of the Constitution.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

For the most part, they are correct. The one thing, basically, that would prevent the centralization of American government into a fascistic single state instead of 50 different states is the Constitution. And if there is one thing that Progressives and leftist most want to achieve is the circumvention and/or the abolishment of the Constitution.

Sure
That’s why Dark money and ALEC exist because the oligarchy want to grow their power even more than it has for the last fifty years.

Like the Republican Party says:
If you're one of the top 1% and you want an enonomy that works for you, vote Republican. If the other 99% want to purchase their very own Congressman or Senator, see our Etsy page.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sure

Yes, "Sure" is the correct answer.

That’s why Dark money and ALEC exist because the oligarchy want to grow their power even more than it has for the last fifty years.

ALEC's mission is "limited government, free markets and federalism"--Federalism and limited government are antithetical to fascism.

Like the Republican Party says:
If you're one of the top 1% and you want an enonomy that works for you, vote Republican. If the other 99% want to purchase their very own Congressman or Senator, see our Etsy page.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Republican Party says many things. Some are true. And some, maybe many, Republicans are Progressive.

American constitutional government is a stone's throw from a form of fascism. Its main defenses against fascism are the limitation of government, the guaranty of individual liberty, and the sovereignty of its states. Without those defenses, even with relatively free markets, we can easily slide into a single, unitary state with unlimited power to do what it decides is the greatest good of the people. Fascism purports to do that through the power of the state in bed with and control of corporate power both working in unison to achieve the goal.

Progressives, from their beginnings in this country have professed that the Constitution is outdated, a hinderance to good government, and that government should be unshackled to do what is best for the people. They have twisted and contorted the Constitution through dubious and false "interpretations" to progressively gain more and more centralized power over governance of this nation. And if enough power is achieved, Progressives would either finally discard the Constitution, or write a new one that assures the power of a unitary state under Progressive ideology--or, maybe keep the old one and pretend they followed its precepts.

[wdmso]

leftist most want to achieve is the circumvention and/or the abolishment of the Constitution.

Glad to See you haven’t run out of your supplies of tinfoil
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

leftist most want to achieve is the circumvention and/or the abolishment of the Constitution.

Glad to See you haven’t run out of your supplies of tinfoil
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't mind giving you an occasion to be glad. The Progressives have stated many times throughout their history in this country that the Constitution was not, or no longer, useful, but that it was a hinderance. That is not tin foil, that is fact. Some have wanted it totally abolished, some want it mostly scrapped, they have always used "interpretation" to circumvent its meaning and purpose.

I don't know if that would make you glad, but it is verifiable. As Spence might say, for instance, check the archives on this forum. I spent considerable time and words verifying it. I don't want to . . . I am getting tired of . . going over things that have already been said, over and over. Check it out if you wish . . . or stay glad wrapped in tinfoil.

[Got Stripers]

Pete stop feeding the troll, your playing right into DeBarr’s hand.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't mind giving you an occasion to be glad. The Progressives have stated many times throughout their history in this country that the Constitution was not, or no longer, useful, but that it was a hinderance. That is not tin foil, that is fact. Some have wanted it totally abolished, some want it mostly scrapped, they have always used "interpretation" to circumvent its meaning and purpose.

I don't know if that would make you glad, but it is verifiable. As Spence might say, for instance, check the archives on this forum. I spent considerable time and words verifying it. I don't want to . . . I am getting tired of . . going over things that have already been said, over and over. Check it out if you wish . . . or stay glad wrapped in tinfoil.

Most constitutional originlist are that way because I think It requires no critical thinking skills or objectivity it requires they just imagine what the founders were thinking in 1788.

Because they can’t accept American and it’s people don’t stand still
They evolve and that scares them

constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification,” and that that original meaning “is law” even today.

Imagine if the field of medicine or mathematics science or technology worked under the same logic

But hea now we have a court that’s all about going backwards

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Most constitutional originlist are that way because I think It requires no critical thinking skills or objectivity it requires they just imagine what the founders were thinking in 1788.

Because they can’t accept American and it’s people don’t stand still
They evolve and that scares them

constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification,” and that that original meaning “is law” even today.

Imagine if the field of medicine or mathematics science or technology worked under the same logic

But hea now we have a court that’s all about going backwards

That's some superior critical thinking you've exhibited. And very original as well. Never heard of those things. Shows my ignorance and my dearth of critical thought.

But it does seem I was sort of right, may just be luck, that Progressives (I assume you're a Progressive) think the Constitution is outdated and inadequate for "our time." Actually, they have often said that, and that it should be replaced by something better. No doubt, better means aligned with their far better ideology.

We probably should have had new constitutions several times already. I mean, things change. There were a lot of decades that passed from then to now. And things change, dramatically, more quickly as time expands. Maybe we should have a new one every five or ten years. Or maybe we should do away with one, and just let the federal government and its courts keep up with the changing times by passing new, appropriate legislation quickly as needed, and the courts could decide, if needed, if the laws are socially just.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Most constitutional originlist are that way because I think It requires no critical thinking skills or objectivity it requires they just imagine what the founders were thinking in 1788.

Because they can’t accept American and it’s people don’t stand still
They evolve and that scares them

constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification,” and that that original meaning “is law” even today.

Imagine if the field of medicine or mathematics science or technology worked under the same logic

But hea now we have a court that’s all about going backwards

wayne, if you’re ok with liberals deciding “what the constitution really means” when they’re in power,, that means conservatives get to do the same when they’re in power. Right? You’re ok with that? Not me.

Safer to stick with what the founders wanted, that’s the best guarantee that we the people get the protections that have been created for us. I’m don’t want Ihan Omar or that Santos jerk changing it to suit their sick desires.

If a big majority wants a specific change, there is a mechanism to do just that, which has been utilized many times. It’s called adding amendments.

What you call going backwards,,can also be called playing by the rules, instead of making them up as we go along.

The constitution is t frozen in time forever. Are you mit aware it can be amended? but we have to follow the rules in order to change it. that’s a good thing. in my opinion.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wayne, if you’re ok with liberals deciding “what the constitution really means” when they’re in power,, that means conservatives get to do the same when they’re in power. Right? You’re ok with that? Not me.

Safer to stick with what the founders wanted, that’s the best guarantee that we the people get the protections that have been created for us. I’m don’t want Ihan Omar or that Santos jerk changing it to suit their sick desires.

If a big majority wants a specific change, there is a mechanism to do just that, which has been utilized many times. It’s called adding amendments.

What you call going backwards,,can also be called playing by the rules, instead of making them up as we go along.

The constitution is t frozen in time forever. Are you mit aware it can be amended? but we have to follow the rules in order to change it. that’s a good thing. in my opinion.

That’s not how it works.
Let’s look at the 14th amendment, The plain text reading would be that anything characterized as an "insurrection or rebellion" would disqualify an official.
You think we should go with that, or is it the framers' intention reading which would be that obviously this was enacted in the wake of the Civil War, so the type of "insurrection or rebellion" the 14A's framers were referring to was something akin to the Confederacy's prosecution of the Civil War, which January 6 was not.
Legal scholarship really can't tell you anything useful to decide a case like this. We already know that this provision was enacted in response to the Civil War- the legislative history is going to be all about DQ'ing people who participated in it.
And you certainly aren't going to find any conclusive evidence of what they thought about "lesser" forms of insurrection or rebellion, because they weren't thinking about that. They were thinking about DQ'ing participants in the Civil War.

This is one of the reasons why Originalism doesn't work the way its proponents claim. A LOT of interpretation issues just involve situations where one canon points one way and another canon points another way. And you have to pick.
And someone won’t like it.
That’s the way it works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

That’s not how it works.
Let’s look at the 14th amendment, The plain text reading would be that anything characterized as an "insurrection or rebellion" would disqualify an official.
You think we should go with that, or is it the framers' intention reading which would be that obviously this was enacted in the wake of the Civil War, so the type of "insurrection or rebellion" the 14A's framers were referring to was something akin to the Confederacy's prosecution of the Civil War, which January 6 was not.
Legal scholarship really can't tell you anything useful to decide a case like this. We already know that this provision was enacted in response to the Civil War- the legislative history is going to be all about DQ'ing people who participated in it.
And you certainly aren't going to find any conclusive evidence of what they thought about "lesser" forms of insurrection or rebellion, because they weren't thinking about that. They were thinking about DQ'ing participants in the Civil War.

This is one of the reasons why Originalism doesn't work the way its proponents claim. A LOT of interpretation issues just involve situations where one canon points one way and another canon points another way. And you have to pick.
And someone won’t like it.
That’s the way it works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A textual originalist would not have the problem that you represent. He would not base the proper interpretation on "anything characterized" as an "insurrection or rebellion". He would refer to the definition of those words that existed at the time the amendment was written. One of the tricks that Progressives use to twist and torture the Constitution in order to justify the passing of something that is actually unconstitutional is to use current shades of words that were not contemplated at the time the Amendment was created. This is also one of the reasons why they claim that the Constitution is too difficult to interpret.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

A textual originalist would not have the problem that you represent. He would not base the proper interpretation on "anything characterized" as an "insurrection or rebellion". He would refer to the definition of those words that existed at the time the amendment was written. One of the tricks that Progressives use to twist and torture the Constitution in order to justify the passing of something that is actually unconstitutional is to use current shades of words that were not contemplated at the time the Amendment was created. This is also one of the reasons why they claim that the Constitution is too difficult to interpret.

So anyone who participated would be disqualified.

That illustrates the fundamental problem with originalism. Either the theory produces unacceptable results that subvert the constitutional principles it purports to uphold, or history loses relevance because abstract principles are applied to contemporary circumstances unknown at the time the relevant provisions were ratified. Either way, originalism doesn’t work.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So anyone who participated would be disqualified.

Why?

That illustrates the fundamental problem with originalism.

further illustration is needed. What follows is too sketchy, abstract, vague, and subjective

Either the theory produces unacceptable results that subvert the constitutional principles it purports to uphold, or history loses relevance because abstract principles are applied to contemporary circumstances unknown at the time the relevant provisions were ratified. Either way, originalism doesn’t work.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How would using the words "insurrection" and "rebellion" as they were defined at the time the amendment was written produce unacceptable results? If the results are unacceptable, then the words shouldn't be used in charging the defendant since they would not fit the constitutional language necessary to make the charge. If you want to make a case within the bounds of constitutional law, then you have to use the language of the Constitution. Otherwise, you will subvert the Constitution, and create your own version of law, thereby rewriting the Constitution without proper amendment.

To put it simply, if the words used to make your charge don't comport with the definition of those words in the Constitution, then your charge is unconstitutional.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How would using the words "insurrection" and "rebellion" as they were defined at the time the amendment was written produce unacceptable results? If the results are unacceptable, then the words shouldn't be used in charging the defendant since they would not fit the constitutional language necessary to make the charge. If you want to make a case within the bounds of constitutional law, then you have to use the language of the Constitution. Otherwise, you will subvert the Constitution, and create your own version of law, thereby rewriting the Constitution without proper amendment.

To put it simply, if the words used to make your charge don't comport with the definition of those words in the Constitution, then your charge is unconstitutional.

I don’t find it unacceptable and think it fits the definition of insurrection at that time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don’t find it unacceptable and think it fits the definition of insurrection at that time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So then, originalism works?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So then, originalism works?

They should be charged with insurrection and not be eligible to hold office in this country.

Originalism only works when judges like the result otherwise they do what Alito did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

They should be charged with insurrection and not be eligible to hold office in this country.

Originalism only works when judges like the result otherwise they do what Alito did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said originalism doesn't work. Now you say it works for you if you like the result. Sounds like you're a stable genius. And a genius like you should be able to explain how, as you said "it fits the definition of insurrection at that time." What was the definition at that time"?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You said originalism doesn't work. Now you say it works for you if you like the result. Sounds like you're a stable genius. And a genius like you should be able to explain how, as you said "it fits the definition of insurrection at that time." What was the definition at that time"?

I’m content to leave it at that….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device