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:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-05-2016, 11:56 AM   #31
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Interesting...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...ZFJ/story.html
spence is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 01:00 PM   #32
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
I hope they brought lots of magical underpants
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 01:28 PM   #33
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
And generators, Feds just cut power.
spence is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 04:31 PM   #34
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
[QUOTE=detbuch;1090046]
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post

It does seems strange that he would say that, especially after serving 22 years in the infantry where he would have sworn to support and defend the Constitution. Seems that he would, as a member of the armed forces, defend the right's constitutional protections rather than accusing it of "hiding" behind them.

But I think what he actually means, by "hiding," is the misuse of the Constitution. He said "its become the new Get out of Jail free card. Make up an interpretation and tell your friends and post it on the Internet and Bam its the Truth."

The irony of that view is that conservatives insisting on the original interpretation of the Constitution is a new norm. Maybe he's right. Making the original interpretation a "new" one actually is an attempt to correct the current "norm" built up over years which has confiscated most of the People's rights and powers under the Constitution and transferred them over to the Federal Government. The current progressive norm holds that the Federal Government truly does have the right and power, through its own destructive interpretations of the Constitution, to redefine the bill of rights, as well as the rest of the Constitution, so can say what the People can actually do within those rights. It actually gives itself the power and right to be the owner and giver of those rights as it defines them, rather than they being, under the original "norm," unalienable.

wdmso, apparently, adheres to the progressive "interpretation" of the Constitution, so would view "conservatives" original view as worthy of jail time. And, therefor, seeing the original view as a phony attempt to create a "get out of jail free card."

I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.. we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern, its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box


I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way

you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country?
wdmso is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 04:49 PM   #35
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
just for the record, I didn't write anything in that post... I suspect Detbuch will have fun replying to it
scottw is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 05:20 PM   #36
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
fascinating isn't it...I don't think anyone has been threatened or injured to date and I don't believe religion has been brought up by the protesters as a motivation yet some are quick to characterize these folks as religious fanatics and domestic terrorists...while the same people... after Major Hassan screamed alou akbar and shot, killed and maimed a considerable number of innocents and was subsequently found to have ties to a radical cleric, claimed there was no religious component, he simply had emotional issues and it was just a case of workplace violence
scottw is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 05:33 PM   #37
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.. we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern, its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box


I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way

you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country?
Woa, is this what reason looks like?
spence is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 10:19 PM   #38
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
just for the record, I didn't write anything in that post... I suspect Detbuch will have fun replying to it
No, it won't be fun. This constant reiterating what the Constitution was meant to be and what it has become is getting wearisome. Especially so when what I say is so misconstrued and made opaque by the mental blinders that so many have on the subject.

I understand the frame of mind through which wdmso reconstructs part of what I said and avoids the rest and most important part of it. I understand it very well. Most of the people I have known and lived with, have set ways of filtering information to fit what they already "know."

Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the rational (I would say reasonable, but don't want to upset Spence who also usually fails to grasp or avoids what we would consider reasonable, but rather sees through the same filter as wdmso) . . . having seen how he did not grasp or avoided what you rationally replied in your dialogue with him by filtering it through his preset frame of mind, I can see the "reason," as Spence would describe it, behind his reply to me.

I doubt that wdmso will be swayed by my reply, but I will give it a half-hearted try. He says:

"I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.."

Apparently, he believes that those past 50 years are the valid ones. Anything dating backward beyond those 50 years just ain't no good. And, I suppose, if he were to live another 50 years, the Constitution within that expanded time would also be seen by him as the one that counts.

His "time machine" comparison I don't quite get. The Constitution has not been buried with the intent that at some future date it would be opened and read, not to be considered an actual structure of government, but a relic for the amusement of some future generation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution has been on open display all those years and millions, maybe billions, of copies have been placed in text books, pamphlets, brochures, on internet sites, with the purpose, I'm guessing, that it be read, understood, and abided by. The same, actual one of over two hundred years ago is the one to which oaths of office are sworn to defend.

But if the "time machine" comparison is baffling, the notion that it is not to be taken literally ("like some read the Bible") is astounding. I understand that much of the Bible is considered metaphorical. But law? . . . understanding law as metaphor? . . . not taking law literally? What is the metaphor in laws against murder, or crossing against a red light, or not running a stop sign? What is law if it is not to be taken literally? A fairy tale?

Well, yes, if wdmso understands law as progressives do, it is sort of a fairy tale. Or, maybe it's more like a poem, or literary work, or even more like a Bible, which can be re-interpreted by every new critic. Given new insights over time, many of which contradict each other (but that is the nature of metaphorical interpretation). Of course, progressives don't want common folks doing the interpreting. That would be mayhem. And would give the wrong people undeserved power. That is to be left up to the "experts." The brilliant ones like Pelosi, Reid, McCain, and Bush, and Kerry, and Bernie, and especially progressive judges steeped in the metaphorical interpretation of the Constitution as a secular bible of sorts which must be constantly reformed and reshaped with ever new interpretations which give the new parade of high priests of government a god-like power to tell the people how they must live in order to enter an earthly paradise.

But one wonders, if the Constitution is not to be taken literally, why should it be taken at all. And if it is constantly changing and reinterpreted, what, exactly are folks swearing to support and defend?


"we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern,"

You mean those high priests of government who know better how to run our lives than we do? Who govern in favor of some and against others? Who have no stable, unchanging code of government by which they must abide, but can control and prosecute by the changing tides of their personal whims and interpretations (so long as its within the past 50 years ). But wait, even within that time span the "laws" have changed many times, each time giving the Federal Government more control over the rest of us. The constant flow of new "interpretations" grow almost weekly. Which "Constitution" was it, again, that you swore to support and defend?

"its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box"

I get the strong impression they are speaking for themselves and those who agree with them. And I don't get the impression that they are demanding change, but rather, trying to maintain some stable, predictable system of law. And it seems to me that it is the Federal Government which is constantly demanding change with the barrel of a gun and hiding behind a meaningless so-called "Constitution" which it has re-interpreted so many times in so many ways that it is not the same document that was written, but a fictitious one which is diametrically opposed to the original. One which is constantly molded into a metaphorical bible which the high priests of government hide behind in order to rule us with ever expanding power.

"use the ballot box"

Filter this through the blind trust you have in elected officials, but have you not seen how many times in the recent past what proposals the People of various states have voted for have been overruled?

"I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way"

OK, you disagree with them. And they disagree with you.

"you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Will you support and defend the Constitution of the United States against a domestic enemy when it is the Federal Government?

"unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks"

It's the Constitution, not the sky, that is falling. And it is not because the POTUS speaks. It's because he and the whole progressive movement acts in ways that destroy it. It has nothing to do with Chicken little. And it is not just a theory, it is a fact.

"or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country? "

I don't know. That "great" thing is a campaign schtick by someone who doesn't talk much about the Constitution. Someone who might actually be as much a tyrant as Democrats are. Don't know for sure. But, I think the ideal on which this country was founded is freedom. Individual freedom. Freedom from oppressive, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, government. Greatness is a consequence of that, not a goal.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-05-2016 at 10:35 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 11:02 PM   #39
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 34,942
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
But, I think the ideal on which this country was founded is freedom. Individual freedom. Freedom from oppressive, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, government. Greatness is a consequence of that, not a goal.
This
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	kcl2.gif
Views:	480
Size:	245.5 KB
ID:	62125  

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline  
Old 01-05-2016, 11:08 PM   #40
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 34,942
Blog Entries: 1
BTW - the reasoning the Oregon folks are using, I don't know if I agree with or not, the fact that the family being sent back to jail after serving their prior sentence (this cannot be right??) is asking them not to do this in their favor. But I do get a kick out of this:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	protest-much.jpg
Views:	471
Size:	135.7 KB
ID:	62126  

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 02:59 AM   #41
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
right...ignore them and they will get cold and hungry and go home, the left completely ignores the injustice of a judge arbitrarily ordering to extend a sentence sending Americans to back jail....and for what?...what happened to "no justice no peace"?

the leftist protesters make it hard to ignore them and there are many more examples than those two....the left finds endless excuses to defend and sympathize with their actions....


I still find the concept of "hiding behind the Constitution" as a pejorative and interesting one...at this point the Constitution is more like a bunker

Last edited by scottw; 01-06-2016 at 04:52 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 05:18 AM   #42
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
No, it won't be fun. This constant reiterating what the Constitution was meant to be and what it has become is getting wearisome. Especially so when what I say is so misconstrued and made opaque by the mental blinders that so many have on the subject.

I understand the frame of mind through which wdmso reconstructs part of what I said and avoids the rest and most important part of it. I understand it very well. Most of the people I have known and lived with, have set ways of filtering information to fit what they already "know."

Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the rational (I would say reasonable, but don't want to upset Spence who also usually fails to grasp or avoids what we would consider reasonable, but rather sees through the same filter as wdmso) . . . having seen how he did not grasp or avoided what you rationally replied in your dialogue with him by filtering it through his preset frame of mind, I can see the "reason," as Spence would describe it, behind his reply to me.

I doubt that wdmso will be swayed by my reply, but I will give it a half-hearted try. He says:

"I see the Constitution as it has been the past 50 years I have been on earth. not thru a the lens of a time machine or literal like some read the bible.."

Apparently, he believes that those past 50 years are the valid ones. Anything dating backward beyond those 50 years just ain't no good. And, I suppose, if he were to live another 50 years, the Constitution within that expanded time would also be seen by him as the one that counts.

His "time machine" comparison I don't quite get. The Constitution has not been buried with the intent that at some future date it would be opened and read, not to be considered an actual structure of government, but a relic for the amusement of some future generation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution has been on open display all those years and millions, maybe billions, of copies have been placed in text books, pamphlets, brochures, on internet sites, with the purpose, I'm guessing, that it be read, understood, and abided by. The same, actual one of over two hundred years ago is the one to which oaths of office are sworn to defend.

But if the "time machine" comparison is baffling, the notion that it is not to be taken literally ("like some read the Bible") is astounding. I understand that much of the Bible is considered metaphorical. But law? . . . understanding law as metaphor? . . . not taking law literally? What is the metaphor in laws against murder, or crossing against a red light, or not running a stop sign? What is law if it is not to be taken literally? A fairy tale?

Well, yes, if wdmso understands law as progressives do, it is sort of a fairy tale. Or, maybe it's more like a poem, or literary work, or even more like a Bible, which can be re-interpreted by every new critic. Given new insights over time, many of which contradict each other (but that is the nature of metaphorical interpretation). Of course, progressives don't want common folks doing the interpreting. That would be mayhem. And would give the wrong people undeserved power. That is to be left up to the "experts." The brilliant ones like Pelosi, Reid, McCain, and Bush, and Kerry, and Bernie, and especially progressive judges steeped in the metaphorical interpretation of the Constitution as a secular bible of sorts which must be constantly reformed and reshaped with ever new interpretations which give the new parade of high priests of government a god-like power to tell the people how they must live in order to enter an earthly paradise.

But one wonders, if the Constitution is not to be taken literally, why should it be taken at all. And if it is constantly changing and reinterpreted, what, exactly are folks swearing to support and defend?


"we have elected officials representatives who are elected to govern,"

You mean those high priests of government who know better how to run our lives than we do? Who govern in favor of some and against others? Who have no stable, unchanging code of government by which they must abide, but can control and prosecute by the changing tides of their personal whims and interpretations (so long as its within the past 50 years ). But wait, even within that time span the "laws" have changed many times, each time giving the Federal Government more control over the rest of us. The constant flow of new "interpretations" grow almost weekly. Which "Constitution" was it, again, that you swore to support and defend?

"its Not the Bundys or BLM job to speak for me Demand change with the barrel of a gun or a flaming bottle of gas while hiding behind the Constitution to justify their action . use the ballot box"

I get the strong impression they are speaking for themselves and those who agree with them. And I don't get the impression that they are demanding change, but rather, trying to maintain some stable, predictable system of law. And it seems to me that it is the Federal Government which is constantly demanding change with the barrel of a gun and hiding behind a meaningless so-called "Constitution" which it has re-interpreted so many times in so many ways that it is not the same document that was written, but a fictitious one which is diametrically opposed to the original. One which is constantly molded into a metaphorical bible which the high priests of government hide behind in order to rule us with ever expanding power.

"use the ballot box"

Filter this through the blind trust you have in elected officials, but have you not seen how many times in the recent past what proposals the People of various states have voted for have been overruled?

"I also see theses militias as threats to the USA not heros like some feel they are .. they showed up with gun's to attempt to escalate and provoke most protest dont start that way .. most do end that way"

OK, you disagree with them. And they disagree with you.

"you left one important part out about my service ,

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

Will you support and defend the Constitution of the United States against a domestic enemy when it is the Federal Government?

"unlike many I do not share in the Chicken little theory that the sky is falling every time the POTUS speaks"

It's the Constitution, not the sky, that is falling. And it is not because the POTUS speaks. It's because he and the whole progressive movement acts in ways that destroy it. It has nothing to do with Chicken little. And it is not just a theory, it is a fact.

"or that we need to make america great again ! PS when did we stop being a great country? "

I don't know. That "great" thing is a campaign schtick by someone who doesn't talk much about the Constitution. Someone who might actually be as much a tyrant as Democrats are. Don't know for sure. But, I think the ideal on which this country was founded is freedom. Individual freedom. Freedom from oppressive, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, government. Greatness is a consequence of that, not a goal.
Lets just agree to disagree ! but i find that doubtful with your opening statement " Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the(your) rational" Because ideas and thoughts contrary to yours are Wrong end of story .. because you think the sky is falling and have facts OK sure you do, and its Democrats are to blame ok .

I do not think the sky is falling I do feel Conservatives only look back in Time ( time machine reference ) and Democrats tend to look forward . The Country is a living breathing thing it needs to evolve and the Constitution needs to evolve with it via the Laws of the land .. Its just the way I see it ..

Last edited by wdmso; 01-06-2016 at 05:43 AM..
wdmso is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 07:52 AM   #43
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post

I do feel Conservatives only look back in Time ( time machine reference ) and Democrats tend to look forward . ..
that would explain the two geriatric lunatic democrat presidential candidates who appear trapped in the 1960's
scottw is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 09:54 AM   #44
ecduzitgood
time to go
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
that would explain the two geriatric lunatic democrat presidential candidates who appear trapped in the 1960's
Remember when (RINO) John McCain ran they said he was too old and out of touch yet both of their candidates will be as old and older than McCain was.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
ecduzitgood is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 10:29 AM   #45
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
) . The Country is a living breathing thing it needs to evolve and the Constitution needs to evolve with it via the Laws of the land ..
So according to you, the President (or Congress) gets to decide what the constitution means, in light of the times we live in?

That should scare the sh*t out of you.

If we want to change the Constitution, there is a mechanism to do that. That's why we have amendments.

According to your logic, a president can do away with free speech in light of the times? So if we have a black Presidnet, you'r eok with him making it a crime to say the n-word?

The only way to guarantee those freedoms, is to make them absolute, and not subject to the interpretation of whoever happens to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Otherwise thos efreedoms aren't guaranteed (as intended when America was founded) but rather they are something for POTUS to give and take away as he sees fit.

No, thanks.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 11:46 AM   #46
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
So according to you, the President (or Congress) gets to decide what the constitution means, in light of the times we live in?

That should scare the sh*t out of you.

If we want to change the Constitution, there is a mechanism to do that. That's why we have amendments.

According to your logic, a president can do away with free speech in light of the times? So if we have a black Presidnet, you'r eok with him making it a crime to say the n-word?

The only way to guarantee those freedoms, is to make them absolute, and not subject to the interpretation of whoever happens to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Otherwise thos efreedoms aren't guaranteed (as intended when America was founded) but rather they are something for POTUS to give and take away as he sees fit.

No, thanks.
Here! Here!
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 11:47 AM   #47
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
Lets just agree to disagree ! but i find that doubtful with your opening statement " Having seen how wdmso did not grasp, or purposely avoided, the(your) rational" Because ideas and thoughts contrary to yours are Wrong end of story

Why would you agree to disagree if you didn't think the thoughts and ideas with whom you were disagreeing with are Wrong?

.. because you think the sky is falling and have facts OK sure you do, and its Democrats are to blame ok .

I specifically said that the sky was not falling. I said that the Constitution was what was "falling." And that does not mean that I think the US as a political entity will no longer exist if the Constitution is defunct. It means that the structure of its government will be different--a structure which totally contradicts the Constitution and reverses the relationship of the People to government. Which, by the way, is one of the rational discussions you seem to want to avoid. It would be interesting if you did engage in that discussion. You are bright enough to, maybe, convince me to see things differently and agree rather than disagree. And, yes, the Progressive's are to blame. Of course, they don't think of it as blame, but see it as a credit.

I do not think the sky is falling I do feel Conservatives only look back in Time ( time machine reference ) and Democrats tend to look forward .

Well, actually time machines do look forward to the future which is why they are meant to be opened then. But that's neither here nor there. Just a slightly loose use of metaphor.

Constitutionalists do not "only" look back in time. But as far as they do, understanding history is a fundamental key to living well in the present. There's that overused and often misunderstood idea that "those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." And looking forward does require some firm footing in the present, which is a result of the past. I suppose that's why you're less extreme about your version of which direction the Democrats look--the Conservatives, you say, ONLY look back in time, but Democrats TEND to look forward.

And the Constitution as was originally written was done so in full awareness of history and time and the future. That is why it was written to specifically delineate where political power lay and where it was limited. But NOT specifically burden enumerated powers with massive codification of law. Its intent and structure was to assure that ultimate power would not lay in the hands of some ruling class, but in the hands of the people. And that, even there, majorities of the people could not trample, by their common opinion, the basic or "unalienable" rights of the minorities.


The Country is a living breathing thing it needs to evolve and the Constitution needs to evolve with it via the Laws of the land .. Its just the way I see it ..
Do you see it that way because you thought it up on your own? Or are you accepting a progressive mantra because it sounds good, makes "sense," seems rational or reasonable?

Think again about a country being a living breathing thing. Can a country live and breathe on its own? Is it an actual organic being? Or is it a concept, an agreed to or forced union of actual, real, organic beings who do the living and breathing. And do they do so in unison? If a country were an actual living and breathing thing comprised of a multitude of separately living and breathing parts which breathed at different rates and lived in different ways (that diversity mantra so favored by progressives) it would be a very sick and dysfunctional thing. It would crumble and die a natural death.

That is why a country needs a rule of law which applies equally to all. And a free country (a free state as guaranteed in the Second Amendment) requires that those who minister the law do not do so as dictators, but as servants who stay within the bounds the People have prescribed for them. And the country, as such, must only evolve in the manner as the People make it so. And if all the People can evolve freely, than the People must account for that by abiding by a common precept, a rule of law which prescribes and permits that diverse evolution.

If the country evolves, not by the free actions and interactions of the People, but by edicts of a ruling class which go beyond the restrictions which guarantee a free State, then evolution is by edict, by fiat, by dictation which evolves the State from freedom to despotism.

And in the same manner, the Constitution is not living and breathing. It is a concept, an idea, a structure for a free State. It is a basic foundation for such a State. And when that structure in ways that transfer the rights and powers reserved for the People to the State, the State is less and less a free one. And, as transfers of power and rights occur, it becomes more and more a dictatorship.

There is built into the Constitution, a means to look to the future for change, there is an amendment process. It is intentionally difficult to amend, but that is a safeguard not a hindrance.

You could engage in that discussion, which I think would be instructive, especially if all of us did. Or you can just see it the way you do.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-06-2016 at 11:52 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 11:52 AM   #48
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Jim, playing devils advocate here and I haven't read all the posts so I may be taking something out of context.

If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?

Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not? However, you can't go to them and say "We're thinking of passing this law, is it legal?"

Last edited by PaulS; 01-06-2016 at 11:55 AM.. Reason: Had to capitalize the C in Constitution before I get accused of hating the Constitution.
PaulS is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 01:39 PM   #49
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Jim, playing devils advocate here and I haven't read all the posts so I may be taking something out of context.

If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?

Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not? However, you can't go to them and say "We're thinking of passing this law, is it legal?"
A very fair, thoughtful post (no sarcasm, I mean it).

"If you and I (or the Pres. and Congress) have a different interpretation of the Constitution, what happens?"

They negotiate, pass laws, and those laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court to see if they are constitutional.

"Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not?"

Yes.

But the POTUS shouldn't do something that's blatantly unconstitutional, such as forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs to further one party's agenda.

I would imagine that all Presidents have done things that some folks feel are unconstitutional. Sometimes it's a judgement call, it's not always obvious. Maybe it's rarely obvious.

But it's terrifying to me, that anyone would suggest that we just pretend it says something other than what it says, depending on the times. If we evolve over time, and we want to change the constitution to reflect that, we can amend it - it's not carved in stone. But if a POTUS or Congress can't get the support for an amendment, I don't want them ignoring the parts of the Constitution they don't happen to like. I feel Obama does this regularly. But I admit it's hard for me to be objective because I cannot stand anything about him.

Happy New Year Paul!
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 03:39 PM   #50
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
They negotiate, pass laws, and those laws are subject to review by the Supreme Court to see if they are constitutional.I agree but I'm still trying to figure out the whole executive action/order thing. I'm prob. 99% against the Pres. having the right to impose something by executive action and it seems like it is one of those things when your guy is Pres, you like it and when the other guy is Pres. you don't like it.

"Isn't it ultimately up to the SC to decide if something is legal via the Constitution or not?"

Yes.

But the POTUS shouldn't do something that's blatantly unconstitutional, such as forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs to further one party's agenda.

I would imagine that all Presidents have done things that some folks feel are unconstitutional. Sometimes it's a judgement call, it's not always obvious. Maybe it's rarely obvious.
I think my response to this is a broad statment basically the same as above. If my guy is in, I prob. don't think an executive action/order is unconstitutional. If my guy isn't in, I prob. think it is unconstitutional.

Thanks and have a great 2016!
PaulS is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 03:50 PM   #51
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Do you see it that way because you thought it up on your own? Or are you accepting a progressive mantra because it sounds good, makes "sense," seems rational or reasonable?

Think again about a country being a living breathing thing. Can a country live and breathe on its own? Is it an actual organic being? Or is it a concept, an agreed to or forced union of actual, real, organic beings who do the living and breathing. And do they do so in unison? If a country were an actual living and breathing thing comprised of a multitude of separately living and breathing parts which breathed at different rates and lived in different ways (that diversity mantra so favored by progressives) it would be a very sick and dysfunctional thing. It would crumble and die a natural death.

That is why a country needs a rule of law which applies equally to all. And a free country (a free state as guaranteed in the Second Amendment) requires that those who minister the law do not do so as dictators, but as servants who stay within the bounds the People have prescribed for them. And the country, as such, must only evolve in the manner as the People make it so. And if all the People can evolve freely, than the People must account for that by abiding by a common precept, a rule of law which prescribes and permits that diverse evolution.

If the country evolves, not by the free actions and interactions of the People, but by edicts of a ruling class which go beyond the restrictions which guarantee a free State, then evolution is by edict, by fiat, by dictation which evolves the State from freedom to despotism.

And in the same manner, the Constitution is not living and breathing. It is a concept, an idea, a structure for a free State. It is a basic foundation for such a State. And when that structure in ways that transfer the rights and powers reserved for the People to the State, the State is less and less a free one. And, as transfers of power and rights occur, it becomes more and more a dictatorship.

There is built into the Constitution, a means to look to the future for change, there is an amendment process. It is intentionally difficult to amend, but that is a safeguard not a hindrance.

You could engage in that discussion, which I think would be instructive, especially if all of us did. Or you can just see it the way you do.
I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
wdmso is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 04:25 PM   #52
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'd say it lasted just about until the ink was dry.
spence is offline  
Old 01-06-2016, 05:55 PM   #53
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It may not be perfect to all but it is perfect for all . Brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline  
Old 01-07-2016, 12:16 AM   #54
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony

Perfect harmony as a creation of human endeavor is probably impossible. On the other hand, it occurs whenever someone says it does. It is either an unattainable agreement on everything by everybody, or suppositionally existing by personal opinion. Your asking a trick question which can be answered either always, never, or sometimes. Pick the answer that suits you. In any regard, the question is irrelevant if you desire what we in America call freedom. Or what we used to call it.

The political beauty of our constitutional structure is partly that it does not strive to reach or ensure a social or political perfect harmony. Rather, it assumes that such a thing would be possible only by a tyrannically enforced absolute equality. Only an absolute dictatorship could even approach such a "harmony." Actually, it has been posited that the best form of government IS benevolent dictatorship. That is, intentionally to some degree and inadvertently to a great degree, the trajectory of our progressive Administrative State form of government. It is that suppositional perfect harmony of freedom and political powers which exists because the ruling class says it does.

And the other part of our constitutional structure which completes its political beauty is that it strives, rather than a perfect, a more perfect harmony ensured by guarantying individual equality before the law, rather than trying to coerce an impossible absolute equality in which everyone loses individuality and becomes an indistinguishable drone in the societal hive.

Perhaps, examples of actually, rather than suppositionally, lasting societies in perfect harmony between government and citizen would be bee hives or ant colonies. Human's are purported to have evolved beyond the monotony of insect perfection which makes advances, betterment, undesirable, if not impossible. We do have examples of human attempts at such societies. Promised utopias which only tend to revert humankind back to more insect like existence. Evolution, in that circumstance ends, even human evolution, which then reverts to devolution. And the evolved human mind and spirit either rejects such stultifying utopias, or ultimately accepts the comforting, predictable, form of slavery.


was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It has been happening incrementally, getting some traction in the latter 18 hundreds. Picking up pace from there. Booming in the FDR administration. Then incrementally wavering but almost always proceeding in "taking effect" until the latter 20th century when the pace picked up again. And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised.

If your vision, what you "see," is limited to the cocoon of your adult life span, you may not "see" much difference. Some for sure. But not necessarily, for you, that significant. But if you can widen the lens of your vision to include recorded American history, the change is massive. You would notice, whether you agreed with it or not, a near total inversion of original constitutional intent. Progressives absolutely agree with that inversion. They have said so--confidently at first, then more secretly, and now are beginning to lose some of the shackles of fear that Americans would disapprove of what they actually believe about the Constitution, individual freedom, and unalienable rights. But their "narrative" still has to be couched in Orwellian language where a form of slavery is said to be freedom, or with slogans from the far left similar to Nebe's saying that "freedom is the buzzword of fools." We have slowly been conditioned to accept, bit by bit, not really noticeable in generational time spans, that "too much" freedom is not a good thing. And this is reflected not only in the increased power of the President, but even worse, in the divergence of the Supreme Court's expansion of its judicial philosophy from its first applications of judicial review to the current judicial philosophies of loose rather than strict construction which have evolved to the extent that judicial interpretation need not be bound by the Constitution, but can reflect a judges personal social views.

The wholesale change in the Constitution, which you say you don't suggest, has happened. But if you "see it" from your little time span, it doesn't seem so great.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-07-2016 at 12:40 AM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-07-2016, 05:45 AM   #55
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
It has been happening incrementally, getting some traction in the latter 18 hundreds. Picking up pace from there. Booming in the FDR administration. Then incrementally wavering but almost always proceeding in "taking effect" until the latter 20th century when the pace picked up again. And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised.

If your vision, what you "see," is limited to the cocoon of your adult life span, you may not "see" much difference. Some for sure. But not necessarily, for you, that significant. But if you can widen the lens of your vision to include recorded American history, the change is massive. You would notice, whether you agreed with it or not, a near total inversion of original constitutional intent. Progressives absolutely agree with that inversion. They have said so--confidently at first, then more secretly, and now are beginning to lose some of the shackles of fear that Americans would disapprove of what they actually believe about the Constitution, individual freedom, and unalienable rights. But their "narrative" still has to be couched in Orwellian language where a form of slavery is said to be freedom, or with slogans from the far left similar to Nebe's saying that "freedom is the buzzword of fools." We have slowly been conditioned to accept, bit by bit, not really noticeable in generational time spans, that "too much" freedom is not a good thing. And this is reflected not only in the increased power of the President, but even worse, in the divergence of the Supreme Court's expansion of its judicial philosophy from its first applications of judicial review to the current judicial philosophies of loose rather than strict construction which have evolved to the extent that judicial interpretation need not be bound by the Constitution, but can reflect a judges personal social views.

The wholesale change in the Constitution, which you say you don't suggest, has happened. But if you "see it" from your little time span, it doesn't seem so great.



ah so now the point emerges

"And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised."


You seem to be stuck on the partisan argument it's the progressives Fault as if Republicans have never held office

Then all I can suggest go back to September 17, 1787 when it was signed to your utopia America.. Change is inevitable its 2016 But I would say I Have the same freedoms as my father had and his father had his father I cant speak beyond that
But I would say they all had the same conversation about the Constitution some time during their Lives .. with wars and race and immigration these conversations come with Change Conversation with Armed Men like in Oregon is a Hostage negotiation hiding behind the Constitutional right of protest
wdmso is offline  
Old 01-07-2016, 08:08 AM   #56
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 34,942
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
I commend your passion on the topic so what time in our history has the Constitution and the political powers and freedoms of Americans been in perfect harmony was the 18 hundreds 1960 70s or 50 s 80 90s or is it only been the last 8 years at these changes have been taking effect. I'm far from suggesting wholesale change of the Constitution I just don't understand where you guys get the idea that that's what's happening
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It has slowly and steadily eroded from its initial writings as has the interpretations. Some of that erosion has been good, some has been bad. But the core tenets are freedom and liberty, intertwined, for the citizenry. There was a rather monumental dustup over bits of the Constitution and some interpretations significantly drifted at point.

But it has changed and people are not as free today as 50, 100, 150 170 years ago. So while their are far more people in Freedom (beyond superb) the individual freedom is comparatively reduced.

It is necessary to have the conversation.

I am biased having spent time in places where freedom and liberty is stifled.


Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I'd say it lasted just about until the ink was dry.
Probably, but that is a bug, not a feature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman View Post
It may not be perfect to all but it is perfect for all . Brilliant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline  
Old 01-07-2016, 10:09 AM   #57
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
I think my response to this is a broad statment basically the same as above. If my guy is in, I prob. don't think an executive action/order is unconstitutional. If my guy isn't in, I prob. think it is unconstitutional.

Thanks and have a great 2016!
Agreed, I probbaly wouldn't be complaining as much if Bush used executive order to do something I agreed with. Human nature, I guess.

Have a great 2016 too, Paul.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 01-07-2016, 10:52 AM   #58
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
ah so now the point emerges

"And it is trying to race toward some supposed finish line. The "fundamental transformation of America" that Obama promised."

The "point" has not just now emerged. If that is how you read what I said and have been saying, you entirely miss the point. The fundamental transformation that Obama promised is pointless without understanding what the prize for winning is. The "fundamental transformation" was promised and the process was started over a hundred years ago. Obama's personal version of that promise may have shades of difference from the first founders of the Progressive movement, but the ultimate goal is to discard original constitutional government and replace it with what is called an administrative State. That is not some delusion roaming in my head. It is historical fact. Its been discussed in depth by some of us on this forum. Maybe you didn't read the posts. Maybe you did and found them unconvincing. But history happens whether you believe it or not.

You seem to be stuck on the partisan argument it's the progressives Fault as if Republicans have never held office

The divide is not between Progressives and Republicans. The first Progressive President, Theodore Roosevelt, was a Republican. Many Republicans, including those who are considered the "establishment" in the party are progressively oriented. Most are not as fully so as Democrat politicians are, but enough so that they are at least quasi-Progressive.

The distinction would be between Progressivism and a constitutionally oriented Conservatism.


Then all I can suggest go back to September 17, 1787 when it was signed to your utopia America..

Those who founded this nation where under no illusion that utopia is possible. Their political philosophy was grounded in human nature and nature as a whole--including all its warts and dystopian tendencies. The Progressives, on the other hand, believe that nature, and human nature, can be molded to fit some social perfection.

Change is inevitable its 2016 But I would say I Have the same freedoms as my father had and his father had his father I cant speak beyond that

No, as JohnR said, you don't. First, understand the difference between intrinsic, fundamental (or unalienable as the founders called them) freedoms and freedom granted by government. In the first, government cannot abridge those freedoms. In the second, government allows them (and can disallow or abridge them when it has an occasion or desire to do so).

You do not have, at this time, the same freedom to speak without government punishment, as your father had. You do not have at this time, the same leeway to practice your religion (or atheism) that your father had. You do not have the same freedom to do what you wish with your property (property of all sorts, material or intellectual) as your father had. And many, many more freedoms that you don't have that your father had, and even less than generations had before your father. This doesn't mean that you, personally, are "suffering" from this diminishment of freedom. But it does mean that, if the occasion arose that you, personally, broke some new tenet the government has created regarding those freedoms, that you can be prosecuted for trespassing what is no longer the unalienable right the original Constitution guaranteed, but what is now a right only, and in-so-far, as the government allows.

To put it simply, there are, in a Progressive form of government, no unalienable rights. All rights are prescribed by government.

Does that mean your life will be miserable, or seem shackled, in that form of government. Not necessarily. The utopian aim of such government is to make your life more equitably possible. It would be foolish for such a government not to allow you latitude to live some semblance of personal ownership. But that form of government will continue to need a reason to exist. Governments which maintain a base in individual freedom are far more self-sustainable, even with inevitable change. But the more that government assumes the responsibility over your life, the greater it will have the need to overcome the inevitable natural conflicts, especially with inevitable change. It will constantly be at war with natural instincts to own ones life, and will have to constantly convince you that it is making your life sustainable due to its efforts because you are not capable of doing so yourself. So, the more it will have to cement its ownership of your life. The progressive idea is that the government ownership will always be, what it considers, benevolent. Of course, once government owns you, the new owners may not be so benevolent. When you trade Constitutionalism for Progressivism, you lose your guarantees to rights and freedoms. You are at the mercy of government which is founded on "expert" central bureaucrats, not on your own choices and abilities.


But I would say they all had the same conversation about the Constitution some time during their Lives .. with wars and race and immigration these conversations come with Change Conversation with Armed Men like in Oregon is a Hostage negotiation hiding behind the Constitutional right of protest
If rights are unalienable, the conversation would normally be about how to protect them from government abridgement. Since unalienable rights cannot be more so, the only direction a "conversation" can go is to make them less so. Conversations about how to keep nibbling at the edge of those rights, are conversations about how to make them less unalienable, and more under government supervision. That has been the irreversible trend of Progressive conversation. And, without a historical perspective, and without the understanding that rights which are given can be taken away, the inevitable future is the complete supervision of all rights by government. If that is your preference, a conversation about that is welcomed by me. If you so wish to converse.

And one does not "hide" behind constitutionally guaranteed rights if he practices them. On the contrary, he/she, is sustaining their existence. A sort of use it or lose it.

Last edited by detbuch; 01-07-2016 at 04:01 PM..
detbuch is offline  
Old 01-08-2016, 11:54 AM   #59
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post
BTW - the reasoning the Oregon folks are using, I don't know if I agree with or not, the fact that the family being sent back to jail after serving their prior sentence (this cannot be right??) is asking them not to do this in their favor. But I do get a kick out of this:
Just a few good old boys never meaning no harm...

The government closed its offices in Oregon days before the armed takeover due to fears of violence


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...mepage%2Fstory
spence is offline  
Old 02-22-2016, 09:29 AM   #60
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 17,119
The Federal government acts like a bully, they should expect resistance


http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2016...trol-proposal/

interesting article
I'm glad there are people who fight back against things that are not right

The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.

1984 was a warning, not a guidebook!

It's time more people spoke up with the truth. Every time we let a leftist lie go uncorrected, the commies get stronger.
Slipknot is offline  
 

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 12:15 PM.


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