RE: The Living Constitution

RE: The Living Constitution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/2/2010 10:14:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/04/save-the-light-bulb/ Not really the link I would have gone with, Tazzy. Maybe this one instead? http://harman.house.gov/2007/01/Dec-6.shtml Now the thing is, I think the cfl's are pretty damn cool. I use them all over the place. We have an inconvenient switch in the garage, and just leave that light on all the time. The odd power outage aside, we got nearly three years of constant use out of one there. The upstairs hall, the porch lights, the other lights in the garage, bedside lamps and some overheads. Now the fixtures designed for decorator bulbs are a bit trickier, and then we have some other places in the house. The top of the stairs. The light over the kitchen sink. The already mentioned downstairs bathroom where I might be looking for bits of broken glass in a nasty cut. I want light in those places when I flip a switch, clear and strong light, and I don't want to wait for something less than that. In the winter, I like the extra degree or two of heat I get in my office when I turn the three 60's all the way up on the dimmer, and the dimmer is fine to reduce energy usage in the hot months. For a government that is supposed to have limited rights, granted to it by the people, this just strikes me as an awfully personal sort of intrusion. Perhaps this is overly snarky sounding (and if so I apologise) but when was the last time gov't agents entered your house,much less your bathroom,to ensure compliance?

luckydawg -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/2/2010 10:48:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic For a government that is supposed to have limited rights, granted to it by the people, this just strikes me as an awfully personal sort of intrusion. Forgive me for banging this drum yet again...but lets be clear- The Presidents Bush and Obama have asserted their right to have you or any other American citizen summarily shot without so much as a trial or even public charge. Yet it is the restriction on lightbulbs that strikes you as an "awfully personal sort of intrusion"?? It is really funny that you have to LIE so often Animus. It's like you know your arguments can not actually be defended. The article says nothing about Bush. It in fact says Obama is taking an extroidanary step. It specifically says Bush did NOT do that. Go read the article, its just one page. You tell a LIE to try to make Republicans ashamed. It's really kind of funny.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/2/2010 10:52:57 PM)
Bit of a stretch, Mike, but not snarky enough to apologize for. Besides, it would be much easier to just track electrical usage, than to conduct searches. I will have a few boxes of 100 watt bulbs tucked away by the end of next year, and I won't give them any more thought than I give the switchblade knife in the camping gear, or the taser in the toybox.

slvemike4u -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/2/2010 11:11:20 PM)
Well one can never be too careful when it comes to apologies.....better to offer one than to offend a friend.....life is much simpler that way.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 2:18:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Tazzy, you are hearing it incorrectly. Conservatives generally want changes only made by the process outlined in the Constitution. Not by Judges or politicians decreeing. I know you are smart enough to see the difference. Following the Constitutional process or extra constitutional decrees. ~semi FR... coming in late and didn't read past this note~ The problem with this idea is that the US Government was actually designed with 3 branches for a REASON... a reason that is pretty well outlined in the Constitution. Our government is a system of checks and balances -- and it makes sense that when one body cannot manage to make sufficient progress to deal with the shifts that will sustain a healthy culture and nation, one of the 'balancing' branches needs to step in and take action. The purpose of the Judicial branch, in part, is the assurance that the laws that are being put into existence by the Congressional and/or Executive branches are supported by the Constitution. At times, this is GOING to mean "legislating from the bench". It is also going to mean that there will be shifts and changes brought about by the composition of that body. In the same way, when the Judicial branch acts in a manner that is perceived by the representatives of the People (the Congressional branch) as being inappropriate, laws are enacted to limit those Judicial actions. When neither Court nor Congress are moving forward in a direction that the Executive branch sees as compulsory to the well-being of the country as a whole, it is, in fact, the RESPONSIBILITY of that branch to act by Executive Order to do what is needed to continue the healthy progress of the Nation. For myself, when I support the Constitution, I have to admit that I have a rather... limited... scope of what I am concerned with. I feel that any act that abridges our freedom and puts more power in the hands of fewer people, to the detriment of the people, needs to be ended. In particular, when our Government begins enacting policies that emulate those behaviors that brought our forefathers to this country to seek relief, and which initiated the Revolution, I do raise a ruckus. Laws that would abridge our freedoms of speech, religion, congregation, and the right to pursue happiness as we see it (whether that is with a same-sex partner, multiple partners, owning a company, truly OWNING a home, bearing or adopting children -- or NOT --), and laws that legislate morality (which, for many, abridge our freedoms to pursue happiness) are, to me, places where I think we should stick to the spirit of the Constitution. Yes, I already KNOW that I'm naive, and politically unsophisticated. shrugs Then again, I don't ask the government to protect me from my own stupidity, so I think it's only fair that they keep their noses out of my private business JMTC. Calla

Real0ne -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 3:21:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic War is hell, Animu, and I didn't see a sunset clause in the light bulb ban. well look at from the brite side you got to vote on it anyway! Yes. I am completely ok with our government killing people. Go start a thread, if you like. doesnt surprise me, whats your address again?

Real0ne -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 3:29:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex how about the President asserting that he has the right to imprison American citizens without trial? I hear you. Fucking Roosevelt. lets not forget lincoln. (Habeous Corpus) Psst,there was a state of rebellion (and an actual shooting war) taking place in the country.Granted the Supreme Court eventually ruled Lincoln in error...but by that time the need for his actions were reduced. well there is way more to that story than you are aware of. They did not repeal the "known by congress" to be completely unlawful 14th amendment, 1967 congressional record. They did nothing to repeal the martial law declaration either. People think just because we dont have amoured cars out in the street its not in effect. wrong. How about the lieber code? kennedy was another dictator

rulemylife -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 3:59:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic For a government that is supposed to have limited rights, granted to it by the people, this just strikes me as an awfully personal sort of intrusion. Perhaps this is overly snarky sounding (and if so I apologise) but when was the last time gov't agents entered your house,much less your bathroom,to ensure compliance? Mike, the problem is you are not going to have the choice anymore. You will no longer be able to buy incandescent bulbs. I have always hated fluorescent lighting, and while the manufacturers of CFL bulbs have tried to make them less harsh it is still not the same. I have spent far too much time in hotel rooms, with all the major chains using these for the last few years, and it has never been something I could get used to. So I've cleared space in my garage and I'm planning on buying a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs. [:D]

AnimusRex -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 5:19:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic For a government that is supposed to have limited rights, granted to it by the people, this just strikes me as an awfully personal sort of intrusion. Forgive me for banging this drum yet again...but lets be clear- The Presidents Bush and Obama have asserted their right to have you or any other American citizen summarily shot without so much as a trial or even public charge. Yet it is the restriction on lightbulbs that strikes you as an "awfully personal sort of intrusion"?? It is really funny that you have to LIE so often Animus. It's like you know your arguments can not actually be defended. The article says nothing about Bush. It in fact says Obama is taking an extroidanary step. It specifically says Bush did NOT do that. Go read the article, its just one page. You tell a LIE to try to make Republicans ashamed. It's really kind of funny. Hey, I will give you one- you are right, it is Obama who has asserted the right to summarily kill any American citizen; it was Bush who asserted the right to summarily imprison and torture any American Citizen. Sorry if you felt ashamed prematurely.

luckydawg -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 6:25:12 PM)
Your not giving anything chump. you were caught lying. Still are. But you hate Bush more than anything. So you have to lie to make your points.

TheHeretic -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 6:41:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I am completely ok with our government killing people. Go start a thread, if you like. doesnt surprise me, whats your address again? You have it backwards, Real. You are my canary. I don't worry until they kill you.

AnimusRex -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 7:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Your not giving anything chump. you were caught lying. Still are. But you hate Bush more than anything. So you have to lie to make your points. Which part of that post is a lie? Point it out, I will retract it.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 7:51:44 PM)
"It just so happens that your Constitution here is only MOSTLY dead." --Miracle Max

Real0ne -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/3/2010 8:07:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex Hey, I will give you one- you are right, it is Obama who has asserted the right to summarily kill any American citizen; it was Bush who asserted the right to summarily imprison and torture any American Citizen. Sorry if you felt ashamed prematurely. People really do need to wake up ya know and start getting a grip on how law works. Many people think the articles of confederation are dead and gone just discarded by the wayside when the new constitution of the was created, well I have news for ya all. If that were true and those laws no longer had standing then the states could not exist as they would have no foundation in law. Therefore it follows the laws of the articles of confederation are still in force. (state sovereignty is proof of that) In as much as being imprisioned and shot or assasinated, well get used it. You are declared an enemy of state because you are traading with the international bankers in violation of the constitution therefore you are and enemy of the state. http://gr-doty.com/LOWGP/lieber.htm there is the lieber code thank you Mr Lincon that gives them the authority to do exactly what they said they can do. Welcome to the desert of the real. I showed you all the fbi brochure, if you are trading with the enemy in law you are at war with the united states. that is one deep ass rabbit hole btw

pogo4pres -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/4/2010 5:47:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery "It just so happens that your Constitution here is only MOSTLY dead." --Miracle Max "And you know what mostly dead means don't you.... It means a little bit ALIVE!! Saracastically, Some Knucklehead in NJ

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Living Constitution (12/4/2010 5:57:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Tazzy, you are hearing it incorrectly. Conservatives generally want changes only made by the process outlined in the Constitution. Not by Judges or politicians decreeing. I know you are smart enough to see the difference. Following the Constitutional process or extra constitutional decrees. UH, The Supreme Court is charged, by the Constitution, to resolve questions which are not covered by the Constitution. That is their job. Tough shit that you don't like it, but that's what the CONSTITUTION says. That is the FUNCTION of the SCOTUS, to resolve Constitutional questions. And that is the way that I want it. Fuck you if you don't want to follow MY Constitution.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875