More red state Idiocy

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

there’s no spin. your side is willing to ignore a huge number of mostly black deaths in cities from handguns, and focuses on the much less deadly ( though still important ) issue of mass shootings with assault rifles. you’re willing to sweep all those dead, poor, black americans under the rug, because talking about that issue doesn’t help democrats win elections

Researchers found 75% of Blacks, 72% of Asians, and 65% of Hispanics say gun laws should be stricter compared to only 45% of white people. The public is also divided on whether an increase in the number of Americans who own guns would result in more or less crime. Black and Hispanic people are more likely than white adults to say if more Americans owned guns there would be more crime. A majority of Black adults (58%) and about half of Hispanic adults (48%) say the same, compared with only a quarter of white adults.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but when you do post about gun violence, it’s always about mass showings and assault rifles. which is nothing compared to the carnage caused by handguns in cities by people who, i guess, deserve what they get because they live in high crime areas.

when you do choose to post about guns, you always go to “mass shootings”. why?

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, my goodness Jim you are amazing at reading in between the lines and creating your own narrative out of thin air. By the way I was talking about the validity of being able to arm civilians with weapons of war, in order to create a militia of equal fire power to what might come from foreign enemies, but you as usual wanted to take the discussion where you wanted it to go.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, my goodness Jim you are amazing at reading in between the lines and creating your own narrative out of thin air. By the way I was talking about the validity of being able to arm civilians with weapons of war, in order to create a militia of equal fire power to what might come from foreign enemies, but you as usual wanted to take the discussion where you wanted it to go.

"keep and bear" arms" Does this sound like the writers of the Constitution meant that the people should individually have cannons in their homes or battleships and tanks stored in their yards or even the latest fighter jets?

That would be a scary sight to see a hundred men coming at you as they each carried a howitzer and a tank on their shoulders to accompany their rifles. Even one such guy would be frightening.

It sounds more, as they explicitly said, as the right to own arms that you can carry such as an "assault rifle" or semi-automatic hand gun or some type of military looking knife.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"keep and bear" arms" Does this sound like the writers of the Constitution meant that the people should individually have cannons in their homes or battleships and tanks stored in their yards or even the latest fighter jets?

That would be a scary sight to see a hundred men coming at you as they each carried a howitzer and a tank on their shoulders to accompany their rifles. Even one such guy would be frightening.

It sounds more, as they explicitly said, as the right to own arms that you can carry such as an "assault rifle" or semi-automatic hand gun or some type of military looking knife.

So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit

You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position


1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]

2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]

3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]

4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]

5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]

The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”


Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit

I quoted their exact words "keep and bear". Keep (own) and "bear" (carry)--own arms that can be carried. I didn't make those words up. Either those words mean something, or they're superfluous, meaning nothing. Unless a Progressive interprets them to mean something other than what they mean.

You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position


1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]

When a judge interprets the constitutional text to mean something other than what it means, he/she is not acting as an "originalist" no matter what label is applied to him/her. If they claim to be an "originalist," but they interpret law as a Progressive at times, or always, then they are hypocrites, not originalists--at least in those times when they interpret outside the bounds of originalism.

2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]

If a judge invokes "intent," it has to be backed up by the framers' written intent. If it is merely the judge's opinion, that is not original interpretation. No matter how convenient it may be, it is Progressive in nature, not originalist.

3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]

It is meant to be a "difficult, time consuming task," otherwise it is subject to the same facile means of duping the people into a really good sounding quick fix, rather than the difficult, time consuming task of debate, presentation of evidence and facts, determining the intents, objectives, and possible outcomes. Hammering out a constitution was a difficult, time consuming task. Amending it should not be greatly less so. Otherwise, it is the more so subject to being as bad as the "bad law" that needs amending.

4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]

No, it is a binding contract whether the citizens agree or not. Just as any legal contract, it binds those under it whether they agree or not. If enough citizens wish to nullify the contract there is that difficult time consuming method described in number three.

5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]

If they make bad laws, they most likely are not applying originalism. And leaving it up to the courts to amend is bad law. The citizens must amend, not the courts. When the courts amend, they are acting as Progressives, not originalists.

The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”

It is difficult trending to impossible to get two or more different people to view events from the same perspective, and having the same information. In structured societies, the people must simply come to some agreement, then abide by it.

Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well if the law, the Constitution, the Second Amendment, places a limitation, such as "bear," then the arms that cannot be abridged must be capable of being carried by a human being.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, my goodness Jim you are amazing at reading in between the lines and creating your own narrative out of thin air. By the way I was talking about the validity of being able to arm civilians with weapons of war, in order to create a militia of equal fire power to what might come from foreign enemies, but you as usual wanted to take the discussion where you wanted it to go.

well, that’s pretty much what you said

if that’s not what you’re saying, then for the third time now, why do you always post about mass shootings wand never show any concern for handgun violence in cities? how many reasons are there, for why you’d ignore a huge problem and obsess over a much smaller
problem? the reason you gave, is that handgun violence really only effects people who live in high crime areas, not average americans.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you’re doing exactly what I said I originalist do make it up to fit what you want it to fit

You’re a few more examples of why is a lazy position


1. Originalism reduces the likelihood the judiciary will create law, a duty of the legislative branch. [History shows that originalist judges can be as activist as non-originalist judges]

2. Non-originalism leads to judges using their own personal values as opposed to the law. [Yet, originalist judges apply their personal opinions about the intent of the framers.]

3. Originalism allows voters to amend their Constitution when necessary to change the law. [An extremely difficult, time consuming task, that forces the population to suffer bad law for an extended time]

4. Originalism strengthens the Constitution as a binding contract. [Circular thinking. It’s a binding contract only if the citizens agree on the original intent.]

5. Originalism forces lawmakers to avoid creating bad laws, rather than leaving them to the courts to amend. [Good hypothesis; bad reality. It has done no such thing.]

The correct name for originalism is ”The Historian’s Fallacy” – “a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.”


Such as an arm is is an arm is a arm .. the only people contesting the meaning of armed are the 2a fanatics .any weapon any time or place with out restrictions or limitations.. and this new interpretation is less than 35 years old ? Go figure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you want judges making laws? that’s not why they exist. that’s why legislatures exist.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you want judges making laws? that’s not why they exist. that’s why legislatures exist.

Jim clearly you don’t understand that laws are not written to address every eventuality

So you love when the right uses obscure the 1873 Comstock Act — to try to prohibit most mailing of abortion medications or supplies,

So you want a judge to rule on what’s written ? It makes no sense

All judges. Originalist or not always include their interpretations of the law into their decisions.

To think otherwise is just absurd.

The problem arises when Judges only use their personal beliefs and perceptions as the main ingredient in their decisions.

And Partisan elections make that happen ,

partisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 13 States and for some judges in an additional 8 States. Nonpartisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 17 States and for some judges in an additional 3 States. One-half of the States hold elections for State supreme court judges. Seventeen States out of the 32 which have intermediate appellate courts elect judges to these courts.

Partisan elections for judges you should be more concerned with that most Americans don’t think that’s how it work

The race between Gustafson and Brown was the most expensive judicial election in the state’s history, with more than $1.5 million spent independently by interest groups. Conservative groups invested heavily to support Brown, who identified as a “constitutional conservative” and said that Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte asked him to run for the seat. Ads by both Brown and supportive groups attacked Gustafson as unethical and anti-business and sought to tie her to President Biden.

Buying judges or pleasing constituents is all that partisan election are good for …. The Law suffers

and look what states love doing it that way

Alabama
Illinois
Louisiana
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas (two courts)

[wdmso]

At least 9 GOP-led state legislatures want to restrict or criminalize drag shows


Yep that’s the real threat to America Youth !
Firearms recently became the number one cause of death for children in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.

But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous

Funny my examples of Red state idiocy is Government Driven and current events

Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?


And don’t forget get marjorie taylor greene on display at state of the union last night.

she made Jerry springer proud

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim clearly you don’t understand that laws are not written to address every eventuality

So you love when the right uses obscure the 1873 Comstock Act — to try to prohibit most mailing of abortion medications or supplies,

So you want a judge to rule on what’s written ? It makes no sense

All judges. Originalist or not always include their interpretations of the law into their decisions.

To think otherwise is just absurd.

The problem arises when Judges only use their personal beliefs and perceptions as the main ingredient in their decisions.

And Partisan elections make that happen ,

partisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 13 States and for some judges in an additional 8 States. Nonpartisan elections are held to select most or all judges in 17 States and for some judges in an additional 3 States. One-half of the States hold elections for State supreme court judges. Seventeen States out of the 32 which have intermediate appellate courts elect judges to these courts.

Partisan elections for judges you should be more concerned with that most Americans don’t think that’s how it work

The race between Gustafson and Brown was the most expensive judicial election in the state’s history, with more than $1.5 million spent independently by interest groups. Conservative groups invested heavily to support Brown, who identified as a “constitutional conservative” and said that Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte asked him to run for the seat. Ads by both Brown and supportive groups attacked Gustafson as unethical and anti-business and sought to tie her to President Biden.

Buying judges or pleasing constituents is all that partisan election are good for …. The Law suffers

and look what states love doing it that way

Alabama
Illinois
Louisiana
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas (two courts)

wayne clearly you never gut above an F in middle school
civics.

Legislatures exist to write laws.

what’s absurd to me, is that any supreme court judge could say with a straight face, that the right to protection against illegal search and seizure, applies to a woman’s right to abortion.

that’s judicial activism. Which you were always in favor of, i til conservatives took a majority.

Well wayne, what’s good for the goose…

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

At least 9 GOP-led state legislatures want to restrict or criminalize drag shows


Yep that’s the real threat to America Youth !
Firearms recently became the number one cause of death for children in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.

But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous

Funny my examples of Red state idiocy is Government Driven and current events

Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?


And don’t forget get marjorie taylor greene on display at state of the union last night.

she made Jerry springer proud

do any of those states want to ban all drag shows? or only for kids?

i’m against total bans. i’m fine with banning kids from them.

“that’s the real threat to american youth.”

no, the real threat to american youth is lousy parents, and the internet, and fentanyl, and gang violence for youth in cities. the liberal plan for those risks, is to ignore them.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

At least 9 GOP-led state legislatures want to restrict or criminalize drag shows


Yep that’s the real threat to America Youth !
Firearms recently became the number one cause of death for children in the United States, surpassing motor vehicle deaths and those caused by other injuries.

But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous

Funny my examples of Red state idiocy is Government Driven and current events

Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?


And don’t forget get marjorie taylor greene on display at state of the union last night.

she made Jerry springer proud

"But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous"

Right. The real danger we should focus on, is bathrooms that allow girls but not boys.

"Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?"

You want current blue state lunacy? California giving us Kamala Harris. Democrats saying its disqualifying that Santos lied, but no big deal that Warren, Biden, Schiff, Blumenthal lie. Telling Americans that cops are the problem in the city. Voting against giving medical care to babies bornin alive. All lunacy. All current.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"But those Drag queens are down right Dangerous"

Right. The real danger we should focus on, is bathrooms that allow girls but not boys.

"Blue State examples are unelected people’s views. And old news ?"

You want current blue state lunacy? California giving us Kamala Harris. Democrats saying its disqualifying that Santos lied, but no big deal that Warren, Biden, Schiff, Blumenthal lie. Telling Americans that cops are the problem in the city. Voting against giving medical care to babies bornin alive. All lunacy. All current.

Poor #^&#^&#^&#^&tim
You suck up every single right wing trope.

Luckily the rest of Americans aren’t as psychotic as you, contrary to Sarah Sanders faceplant last night.

That’s why while Joe Biden was wiping the floor with Republican tears in his State of the Union Address, Pennsylvania Democrats took back state House control with three special election wins.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Poor #^&#^&#^&#^&tim
You suck up every single right wing trope.

Luckily the rest of Americans aren’t as psychotic as you, contrary to Sarah Sanders faceplant last night.

That’s why while Joe Biden was wiping the floor with Republican tears in his State of the Union Address, Pennsylvania Democrats took back state House control with three special election wins.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah Biden really tore it up last night i’m sure. that explains why he’s polling so well.

Look at the state and federal elected positions currentlybhelp by each party Pete. guess who holds a light edge?

what did i say that was a trope, and not true?

oh and he handled the balloon brilliantly. He really got the better of china on that. keeping it a secret from the governors of the states it was flying over…just brilliant leadership.

[The Dad Fisherman]

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You should have been called on for your knowledge of how to successfully take down a high altitude spy ballon and insure it drops into the shallows, that’s so funny. Navy is recovery debris, as opposed to the three ballon’s Trump let fly freely over US during his watch. Biden unlike Trump let the experts dictate when and where to take it down, to insure its in our waters and not burning up on land or killing civilians. We all thank you for your expertise

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Dad another arm chair general. Meanwhile I bet you agree with Republicans now say we’re doing “too much” for Ukraine.

an NBC News poll last week showed 63 percent of Republicans opposed “providing more funding and weapons to Ukraine,

And perhaps most notably, it features an emerging willingness to give Russia some of the Ukrainian territory it seeks.

Typical conservatives more upset over a Chinese balloon that wasn’t shot down quickly enough for them more upset at their President. Then the Chinese who sent it .. and their love for Putin , and who can forget their willingness to re elect Trump who actually tried to overthrow the Government…. Cowards

FYI the the waters not that deep and you people can’t even produce a factual meme LOL

[The Dad Fisherman]

Look at these two bozos get triggered over a meme….priceless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Look at these two bozos get triggered over a meme….priceless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you ever post about anything other than ukraine, did you know that means you’re rooting for putin?

i

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

yeah Biden really tore it up last night i’m sure. that explains why he’s polling so well.

Look at the state and federal elected positions currentlybhelp by each party Pete. guess who holds a light edge?

what did i say that was a trope, and not true?

oh and he handled the balloon brilliantly. He really got the better of china on that. keeping it a secret from the governors of the states it was flying over…just brilliant leadership.

I watched Sarah Huckabee Sanders response to the SOTU.

That is some seriously deranged unhinged stuff going on there.

It’s getting smaller with each election because Republican states are predominantly poorer, have less access to healthcare, lower high school graduation rates & less economic growth.

Every single one of the tropes you post are arguably false at best and typically misinformation.

As far as your fear of balloons, he blocked its comms, took it down for the military to study, and ensured it didn't threaten American lives. Trump let three balloons float over the US without intervention. Of course, he had tens of millions of reasons to ignore them 💵💰💵💰
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Look at these two bozos get triggered over a meme….priceless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who triggered just calling you out for what for what you represent .

The king of the drive by unwilling to take a position . No one’s surprised
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

He really got the better of china on that. keeping it a secret from the governors of the states it was flying over

Jim you’re the most uninformed gullible person here.

Did you star in the movie don’t look up?

Because that’s all it took to see the balloon.

Another conservative who never heard of a satellite

Ps Jim your party loves Putin. He don’t like drag queens either.. Don’t be fooled
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

He really got the better of china on that. keeping it a secret from the governors of the states it was flying over

Jim you’re the most uninformed gullible person here.

Did you star in the movie don’t look up?

Because that’s all it took to see the balloon.

Another conservative who never heard of a satellite

Ps Jim your party loves Putin. He don’t like drag queens either.. Don’t be fooled
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but the federal government knew where it was, before it got there. it wasn’t a stealth bomber. but they didn’t tell
the governors of the states it was about to pass through, that it was coming. .

that’s effective leadership. dripping with strength.
i’m sure he strikes fear i to the heart of the chinese.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but the federal government knew where it was, before it got there. it wasn’t a stealth bomber. but they didn’t tell
the governors of the states it was about to pass through, that it was coming. .

that’s effective leadership. dripping with strength.
i’m sure he strikes fear i to the heart of the chinese.

Jim, do you ever read anything? It was reported by civilians once it crossed over the border. Another fake scandal to get outraged about. How’s your BP?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The king of the drive by unwilling to take a position . No one’s surprised
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why bother, you misinterpret anything I say and TELL me what my position is anyways, along with a sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy added. Just look at your response above.

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer

Nothing Unhinged about that response

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, do you ever read anything? It was reported by civilians once it crossed over the border. Another fake scandal to get outraged about. How’s your BP?

spence, did you read my post? Why didn’t the dm feds tell the governors it was coming? you proves my point, you didn’t challenge it. the governor of montana was ticked that he learned about it from his citizens, rather then hearing a out it from the administration.

maybe bidens plan to defeat china is to get them
all to die laughing.

you supported what i said. you didn’t counter it. i appreciate the assist, even though your own post went a mile over your own head.

He did do fine at the SOTU and Marjorie Taylor Greene shows the country again what an unserious jerk she is

here’s a question…did biden “create” all those jobs? or were most of them simply restored once covid began to dissipate, which began before he took office? is he being a little dishonest there?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

spence, did you read my post? Why didn’t the dm feds tell the governors it was coming? you proves my point, you didn’t challenge it. the governor of montana was ticked that he learned about it from his citizens, rather then hearing a out it from the administration.

maybe bidens plan to defeat china is to get them
all to die laughing.

you supported what i said. you didn’t counter it. i appreciate the assist, even though your own post went a mile over your own head.

He did do fine at the SOTU and Marjorie Taylor Greene shows the country again what an unserious jerk she is

here’s a question…did biden “create” all those jobs? or were most of them simply restored once covid began to dissipate, which began before he took office? is he being a little dishonest there?

You really are the Fox echo chamber, do some research and go back before Clinton and look at jobs each created during their entire four years, Biden blows them away in just two years. So if your contention is correct one or all of those guys would have created all those jobs and guess what they didn’t.

Are these governors so detached they or their staff don’t watch the news, the ballon track was in the news daily.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Why bother, you misinterpret anything I say and TELL me what my position is anyways, along with a. Just look at your response above.

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer

Nothing Unhinged about that response

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy

That fits your post to a T .

You should change your name to the Vagueness Dad

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer

Just like Jim you think this song is about you…. Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Why bother, you misinterpret anything I say and TELL me what my position is anyways, along with a sprinkling of assumption and innuendo……..and of course your usual dose of deranged lunacy added. Just look at your response above.

Biden+Balloon=Russian Sympathizer

Nothing Unhinged about that response

Shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I’d agree with you on that point, because when you don’t say anything, it’s hard to interpret what you meant. But since that meme spoke to you and triggered you to want to post it, Wayne figured it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, well you know the meming.

[The Dad Fisherman]

I’ve said plenty, but, like I said, see my above post. Trump broke a lot of brains here, and unless you’re shrieking to the skies above about him, anything else is treated as white noise.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device