American Officials: Whoops!

Hummm.............

Damocles said:
Another well thought out spectacular post it is so clear why you think that. You spelled it out so succinctly.

Come on, old dude, give us an argument not a bumpersticker.

I can say, "No, you are wrong!"

Or, "Boy your opinion stinks!"

To everybody's post, but that isn't what people come here for.

A little bird told me that a discussion of the issues was what people want, why don't you jump in and participate in a discussion.

BTW - Contradiction of itself is not a logical position. Give me a reason why my "philosophy" stinks, not contradictory assertions. That is what a discussion on the 'issues' is all about.

Tell me why a person who otherwise wouldn't vote who creates a larger percentage for a third party has "thrown away" their vote.
Click to expand...




Since ya are a 'veggie guy'...only one comes to mind a 'Chili Dog' without meat...man that stinks...farts are not cool from veggie guys...brocoli holds the top spot though......Kinda the veggie monks fav.............:cof1:
 
Last edited:
WC Grouch said:
Only if you believe that Gore was the better of two evils. I may not vote again. The chances of either party nominating a candidate who defends the Constitution are pretty slim.
Click to expand...
The stickum on that wicket is the fact that what everyone means by "defending the Constitution" is actually "agreeing with my interpretation of the Constitution."
 
Living Document?

OrnotBitwise said:
The stickum on that wicket is the fact that what everyone means by "defending the Constitution" is actually "agreeing with my interpretation of the Constitution."
Click to expand...

No interpretation needed. The Constitution is written in plain english and
the authors took "interpretation" into account. That's why they wrote the Federalist Papers.

Give the Federalist Papers a read. You just may discover that the "Land Of The Free" no longer is.
 
WC Grouch said:
No interpretation needed. The Constitution is written in plain english and
the authors took "interpretation" into account. That's why they wrote the Federalist Papers.

Give the Federalist Papers a read. You just may discover that the "Land Of The Free" no longer is.
Click to expand...
Have read . . . and many times. Sorry, but there is no such thing as a document so strictly worded as to be closed to interpretation. Frankly, I wouldn't want one such, even if it existed, to be enshrined as the Supreme Law of the Land.
 
Reading comprehension problem?

OrnotBitwise said:
Have read . . . and many times. Sorry, but there is no such thing as a document so strictly worded as to be closed to interpretation. Frankly, I wouldn't want one such, even if it existed, to be enshrined as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Click to expand...

Justice Thomas, for one, disagrees with you.
If a Constitution is open for interpretation it is no Constitution at all. You can amend the Constitution or you can even call for a Constitutional Convention and replace it with a new one. Interpretation is a 20th century crime no matter how you cut the cheese.
 
WC Grouch said:
Justice Thomas, for one, disagrees with you.
If a Constitution is open for interpretation it is no Constitution at all. You can amend the Constitution or you can even call for a Constitutional Convention and replace it with a new one. Interpretation is a 20th century crime no matter how you cut the cheese.
Click to expand...
Thomas is a rapist and a disgrace to his office. Hell, he's a disgrace to the entire nation, as far as I'm concerned. i want nothing to do with his poisonous opinions.

More to the point, any assertion that the constitution -- or any legal document -- is not open to interpretation is absurd on its face. Such assertions are made only by parties in power to squelch opposition to their positions. All of them -- whether conservative OR liberal -- are lying in their teeth whenever they make such an assertion.
 
Last edited:
Brilliant to the top of your sneakers!

OrnotBitwise said:
Thomas is a rapist and a disgrace to his office. Hell, he's a disgrace to the entire nation, as far as I'm concerned. i want nothing to do with his poisonous opinions.

More to the point, any assertion that the constitution -- or any legal document -- is not open to interpretation is absurd on its face. Such assertions are made only by parties in power to squelch opposition to their positions. All of them -- whether conservative OR liberal -- are lying in their teeth whenever they make such an assertion.
Click to expand...

Hello!
Thomas sided with the opposition to the party in power. The liberals on the court backed him up.
 
I don't really understand the argument against "interpretation." It is a poor choice of words. Interpret means to explain the meaning of. So long as there is judicial review the courts must "interpret" the document. In fact, many problems arise because people fail to interpret honestly/properly and use newer meanings for the words (as language evolves) rather than the original intended meaning. The problem is with altering or embelishing the intent of the words. At the intent is quite clear, read in context.

The notion that the court "interpretation" provides a significant check on power is ridiculous. The fatal flaw in a constitutionally limited government is that the state has set themselves up as their own judge. The court then steadily legitimizes state power grabs, pretending to be uninterested parties rather than agents of the state.
 
When has Thomas even been accused of rape?

Maybe what you want is a justice that will agree with your guilty until proven innocent positions to "interpret" the constitution.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Thomas is a rapist and a disgrace to his office. Hell, he's a disgrace to the entire nation, as far as I'm concerned. i want nothing to do with his poisonous opinions.

More to the point, any assertion that the constitution -- or any legal document -- is not open to interpretation is absurd on its face. Such assertions are made only by parties in power to squelch opposition to their positions. All of them -- whether conservative OR liberal -- are lying in their teeth whenever they make such an assertion.
Click to expand...
A rapist? Can you link us up? I don't remember anything about him raping anybody.

In fact the credibility of Anita Hill is seriously problematic and her accusation of harassment had no such addition as 'rape'. I think you are just making crap up.
 
Yeah, Clinton was accused of rape and sexual harassment. But, I guess that personal life stuff and benefit of the doubt only counts if you are in the right party.

Thomas is not perfect but he is the best justice we have, maybe in a long time.
 
Damocles said:
A rapist? Can you link us up? I don't remember anything about him raping anybody.

In fact the credibility of Anita Hill is seriously problematic and her accusation of harassment had no such addition as 'rape'. I think you are just making crap up.
Click to expand...

You're right on...she had no credibility. Anita Hill was an Affirmative Action activist
and Clarence Thomas opposed Affirmative Action and had criticized her Affirmative Action activism before he was nominated.
 
This is a very interesting thread.........

What be-puzzels me is where the hell is BAC on this issue...what does he think and feel about Thomas...really funny that not a peep from Mr.Blackascoal!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top