Leftist & RINOs vs The Tea Party

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
I'm not confusing anything. You are. The founders took care in the language the used. They did not use these words interchangably. They chose different words for a reason. The reason is the rights of individuals are not granted. The powers of the state are and when the violate the rights of individuals, they are unjust.
Click to expand...

I’ll simply argue that though the founders used particular words to establish linguistic purity in the Constitution it only shows that they renounced broader definitions for the sake of constitutional purity. However that doesn’t negate the fact that powers granted are right of powers as long as they’re granted by the Constitution. Many words have more than one definition and often more than one definition is applicable relative to subject or issue.

Again, you stand accused of fucking nit-picking irrelevancy and purposeful confusion of a non-issue.
 
Classic Liberal said:
I’ll simply argue that though the founders used particular words to establish linguistic purity in the Constitution it only shows that they renounced broader definitions for the sake of constitutional purity. However that doesn’t negate the fact that powers granted are right of powers as long as they’re granted by the Constitution. Many words have more than one definition and often more than one definition is applicable relative to subject or issue.

Again, you stand accused of fucking nit-picking irrelevancy and purposeful confusion of a non-issue.
Click to expand...

And you stand accused of being a statist douchebag.

States don't have any "right" to ignore or deny the civil rights of individuals. That is where we started. And though you have become confused and gone off topic the federal courts should have power of review over laws that violate individual rights.
 
republicans all though my youth refuses to help Cali seal its borders to try and prevent the flow of immigrants into the state.

they said it was a cali problem and refused to give cali money to help deal with it.

Now they want to throw trillions at it ?

gee what happened?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
And you stand accused of being a statist douchebag.
Click to expand...

You don’t know squat numb-nuts. I’m the biggest advocate here for LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

States don't have any "right" to ignore or deny the civil rights of individuals. That is where we started. And though you have become confused and gone off topic the federal courts should have power of review over laws that violate individual rights.
Click to expand...

You need to review your reading skills asshole! Nowhere can you find where I advocated States ignorance of civil rights nor claimed they could. I’ve also stated that federal courts judicial review of State’s law is the recourse to overturning unconstitutional State laws. I’ve bemoaned the federal courts judicial review of federal law and called it ”no recourse for federal law.

You speak with forked tongue and your reading comprehension sucks!!!!!
 
evince said:
republicans all though my youth refuses to help Cali seal its borders to try and prevent the flow of immigrants into the state.

they said it was a cali problem and refused to give cali money to help deal with it.

Now they want to throw trillions at it ?

gee what happened?
Click to expand...

What a fucking idiot!!!!!
 
Classic Liberal said:
You don’t know squat numb-nuts. I’m the biggest advocate here for LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

You need to review your reading skills asshole! Nowhere can you find where I advocated States ignorance of civil rights nor claimed they could. I’ve also stated that federal courts judicial review of State’s law is the recourse to overturning unconstitutional State laws. I’ve bemoaned the federal courts judicial review of federal law and called it ”no recourse for federal law.

You speak with forked tongue and your reading comprehension sucks!!!!!
Click to expand...

You need to pay attention, Goober. The discussion turned to whether states should be checked by the federal courts. You took up the "States' rights" argument. That is not an argument for limited government. It is an argument for unlimited but more localized government.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You need to pay attention, Goober. The discussion turned to whether states should be checked by the federal courts. You took up the "States' rights" argument. That is not an argument for limited government. It is an argument for unlimited but more localized government.
Click to expand...

That is impossible.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You need to pay attention, Goober. The discussion turned to whether states should be checked by the federal courts. You took up the "States' rights" argument. That is not an argument for limited government. It is an argument for unlimited but more localized government.
Click to expand...

Again numb-nuts not only are your reading skills suspicious, but your political understanding is impeccably irrational, uninformed and just plain stupid. Supporting the ”States Rights Of Powers" in no way mutually excludes judicial review by the federal courts. As a matter of PURE FACT my argument with you advocates and list “federal judicial review” as the recourse to States posible violations of the National Constitution.

Get a fucking clue moron!!!!!
 
Classic Liberal said:
Again numb-nuts not only are your reading skills suspicious, but your political understanding is impeccably irrational, uninformed and just plain stupid. Supporting the ”States Rights Of Powers" in no way mutually excludes judicial review by the federal courts. As a matter of PURE FACT my argument with you advocates and list “federal judicial review” as the recourse to States posible violations of the National Constitution.

Get a fucking clue moron!!!!!
Click to expand...

Again, we were discussing federal judicial review of state laws. You took exception with my comments within that context. If you did not mean to take exception based on that context then your point was unclear. But then that is common for you as you just rant, throw out buzzwords and don't appear to have any understanding of what you are talking about.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Again, we were discussing federal judicial review of state laws. You took exception with my comments within that context. If you did not mean to take exception based on that context then your point was unclear. But then that is common for you as you just rant, throw out buzzwords and don't appear to have any understanding of what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Like I said Numb-Nuts, your reading skills are highly suspicious. Get a fucking clue!
 
Classic Liberal said:
Like I said Numb-Nuts, your reading skills are highly suspicious. Get a fucking clue!
Click to expand...

No, my reading skills are just fine. You on the other hand have a severe problem in following the discussion. I suggest you review starting from this post.

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It is and they have. The "Tea Party" was taken over by big government social conservatives almost immediately.
Click to expand...

Read Silly Rabbit's, Rose's and your responses over the next 20 posts. Especially read Silly Rabbit's response in #78 and your post #80 where you effusively agreed with Silly Rabbit. Then there is your response to Rose in #84 where you answered "why choose state over federal courts?"

I don't know if you are just stupid or if you are a troll, but it's pretty clear you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
 
the entire right wing voting block are fucking evil idiots.

the sooner they all die the better off this country will be.

I hope them long happy healthy lives but will still be happy when they are dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top