Author Topic: Are You a Republican? (Read 2318 times)

rifleman61 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 27, 2006, 05:39:02 PM »

From the traffic that no one understands the "Ist" or for that fact anything else about how the Constitution came to be. It did not come from a vacuum.
It is late and I must go to bed
I shall explain it to you later.

What I can tell "Dukkillr" is that you do not know what the "Ist" says, but that's not out of the ordinary most other people do not either. It does not say what you think it says.
One thing I will close with is this. We live in a Representative Republic chosen by democratic method that is gauranteed by the Constitution; as a matter of fact there is no other form of government contemplated that is legal. Using democratic method the practice of "politics", which is compromise in the practical sense, is a key and highly prised quality. What you must remember is that politics being compromise at best means that your elected leaders will inevitably disappoint you sooner than later, even the best of them.

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

FWiedner · « **Reply #31 on:** January 27, 2006, 06:09:04 PM »

Quote

...a Representative Republic chosen by democratic method that is gauranteed by the Constitution;

The Constitution guarantees and can guarantee nothing.

Our nation was intended to be a Constitutional Republic. That is, a nation founded on a principle of representative democracy and governed according to constitutional law.

IMO, what we actually have is a parlimentary democracy governed by executive and judicial fiat.

The law cannot guarantee what those charged with defending the law will not enforce.

:shock:

rifleman61 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 28, 2006, 02:59:05 AM »

Just clicked in this moment to "...the American view..."
What do I think of it?
Not much
Will talk later

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

dukkillr · « **Reply #33 on:** January 28, 2006, 06:16:51 AM »

Quote

What I can tell "Dukkillr" is that you do not know what the "Ist" says, but that's not out of the ordinary most other people do not either. It does not say what you think it says.

May i ask where you got your con law education?

rifleman61 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 29, 2006, 12:18:30 PM »

I shall tell You; that is my word to You.
But, first you must tell me what part of Kansas you are from; I am sincerely interested.
I was born in Coffeyville and raised in Topeka.
I live in New England now and that is an "Oddysey" worthy of a book, perhaps not a large book since I am not "fanous" ,Thank the good Lord, but a book nonetheless.
Look for a posting; it will not be a rant I promise You that and all who shall read it. I find that in "ranting" the only thing achieved is that your vocal chords get raw and hoarse, and usually people walk away not wanting to listen. Let us exchange hands acorss the "ether" so to speak and say one to another "brother". I think that we shall find in each other a "hale fellow well met" and perhaps not that much different, once one gets past the "woof", [that's what dogs and 12 years old boys do when sorting things out] .

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull
S

rifleman61 · « **Reply #35 on:** January 29, 2006, 12:46:52 PM »

Yes you may
What is a "con" if I may be so bold as to ask?
Please be forward here I shall not take offence
I shall tell you all, but first you must tell me what part of Kansas you are from. I was born in Coffeyville and raised in Topeka, after an Oddysey worthy of a book, perhaps a small one since I am not "famous", thank the good Lord, but a book nonetheless, I settled in New England. Please look for my postings; they shall not be rants; that is my word to you and any who shll read them. The problem with a rant is that it makes your vocal chords raw and hoarse and other people will walk away not interested. Let us extends our hands across the ether, so to speak and say one to another "brother". We shall find in each other a "hale fellow well met" and perhaps in the end not that much different, after the "woof"
[a game that 12 years old boys and dogs play when sorting things out].

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull
PS I typed this again as my fat fingers probably transmit correctly the first

dukkillr · « **Reply #36 on:** January 29, 2006, 05:09:35 PM »

Con Law = Constitutional Law

Since my knowledge of the Constitution and the law derived from it is clearly inferior to yours I was wondering where I should have studied.

Dano Bofano · « **Reply #37 on:** January 30, 2006, 03:26:31 AM »

Dukkillr,
You still have not quoted the Constitution where it says that no religion is to be adopted or imposed by the government.

dukkillr · « **Reply #38 on:** January 30, 2006, 04:36:25 AM »

Quote

Amendment I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And, like anything in con law, it's the court cases interpreting this clause that gives light to current law. Start with Everson v Board of Education but realize that since then there has been a mess of seemingly conflicting cases. Most of them deal with prayer in school which is not at issue here. What is clear is that there is not to be any religion imposed on the people. You could also read the early writtings of Jefferson and Madison if you'd like some "founders intent".

rifleman61 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 30, 2006, 03:29:51 PM »

"Con" law, okay I understand now.
I have much trouble with the way American English is spoken today; I generally find it inferior as I am not much given to acronyms. That is not intended to be a personal "ad hominem".
I shall not say that your knowledge is in anyways inferior; I shall just say that my knowledge is different from yours.
1. Jefferson is not an author of the Constitution, the seminal document written by the Committee Style did not use his name. As a matter of fact he was out of the country, thankfully; he was ambassador to France.
2. Divining "original intent" is really no more difficult than reading the plain language text of the document and reading nothing more and nothing less than what is in print in front of you, and understanding only those words.
3. I consider my understanding of the document as equal to that of any of the leading lights in Senate and Representatives today and quite probably better. I do not consider any 'judge" as being my equal with the possible exceptions of Rhenquist [rest in peace], Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and hopefully Alitto[?sp?] the others on sitting "en benc" are absolutely not my equal, nor for that fact do I consider them the equal of the meanest and lowest ditch digger one would happen to find laboring honestly for his bread.
4. I am not an "intellectual" I despise intellectuals, all of them as a class. Intellectuals live in closets and know nothing of the world except for the shadows they see on the floor or wall behind them, and the occasional flashes of their own "brilliance".
5. I am quite ready to debate anyone and everyone who will honestly and thoughtfully engage and not enter into emotional tirades or aim sracastic cynical double "entendre" barbs.
6. I profoundly respect skepticism for it is honest. I have nothing but the deepest of disdain for the cynical. Cynicism is a lie trying to pass for skepticism; generally we all trap ourselves in cynicism at one time or another, because it's easy. Cynical argument is circular and always closes on itself and is subtly deceptive.
7. Please tell me about the "early writings" of Jefferson as I am really interested? What Books did he write? I seem to remember that Thomas Jefferson wrote only one book: "Notes on the State of Virginia". Jefferson was a terribly shy man and something of a passive aggressive bully [ we call that today, " a coward"]. He went to court to stop the publication of that book and lost the court case, thankfully. And, I seem to know that Madison as far as I know, except for his correspondence with Jefferson, never wroter anything more than "The Federalist Papers", which thankfully is illuminating for original intent of the Constitution. I might be wrong on these things, so I would really like to be brought up current. Please help me here if you can?
8. I shall make a posting, in the near future on the "Ist". It is from a collection of work on the Constitution that I have been engaged in for quite sometime.

Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull

nomosendero · « **Reply #40 on:** January 30, 2006, 05:16:49 PM »

I am surprised that dukkillr posted the 1st Amendment, as it can be read &
understood by elem. school students & anyone who has studied the intent of the founders. The Amendment is easy to read.
(1)It is NOT the job of Congress to ESTABLISH a religion, that was important because the founders did not want a Church Of England Situation.
Sooo, the founders did not want a State Sponsored or Demanded Religion.
(2)And in addition to no State Religion, they made sure you could
exercise or practice the religion of your choice or practice none. That's
why you can be a Christian here or a Muslim, Hindu or believe in the
Cookie Monster or just a plain atheist. But it is without question to any honest History Student that this nation is based on Christian principles & most of the founders were so led & no leaning on the writings of some of the more Liberal of that time can change that.
(3)And the last part, freedom of speech or Assembly & the freedom to
petition the Gov. is easy to understand also & a State religion would stiffle
this.

The word Separation, Church & State are not there & I don't need wacko
Liberal Judges to explain this to me.

The statement that Dukkillr made speaks volumes & explains his "different" view in this matter. "it's the court cases interpreting this clause that gives light to current law".

Gives light to current law, huh!!! In other word's like AL Gore, you feel that the US Constitution is a "living document"!!! So with "current law"
we have to wait for the Judges to tell us how to read the documents.
Funny how people (other than a few elites) don't know until hundreds of years later the meaning these writings.

dukkillr · « **Reply #41 on:** January 30, 2006, 06:39:28 PM »

right, i guess if the discussion is about the law as you see it... there is no reason to have this discussion... everyone can study and come to decide what they think the law should be...

i'm discussing what the law is... as it is enforced in this country... i'm not dealing in what i think it should be or what my interpretation would lead it to be...

to each their own... i suppose.

nomosendero · « **Reply #42 on:** January 31, 2006, 09:23:04 AM »

No, actually as anyone with common sense can read it.

Dukkillr said "everyone can study & come to decide what they think the
the law should be". Oh, I see, so that means that all of us can read this
& come to a different conclusion. This would have to include the Judges
as they are not the Super Race which also means that each Judge now
& each Judge in the future can have a different view, which would render
the Constitution worthless.

So what the "law is" as you say the ruling of the day by your own admission yet again & of course the Liberal belief is there are no absolutes so this fits.

Liberals love activists & conservatives love strict constructionist judges.
Better times are coming. :grin:

FWiedner · « **Reply #43 on:** January 31, 2006, 09:46:12 AM »

There is no definable difference between a liberal activist judge and a conservative constuctionist judge.

Either one simply perverts the Constitution to their desired interpretation and political philosophy and then regards that as sufficient basis to make further decisions to effect law.

Both are legislating from the bench. Neither addresses either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution as originally written.

Both judicial philosophies deliberately avoid the documented original intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution, with the specific goal of misrepresenting the law to The People.

:evil:

dukkillr · « **Reply #44 on:** January 31, 2006, 10:36:12 AM »

wow, i couldn't agree more... the world must be spinning off it's axis.

nomosendero · « **Reply #45 on:** January 31, 2006, 03:11:33 PM »

Wow man, what a concept!!!

But then again we know that Big Bangers would never allow the Earth to
spin of of it's axis, now don't we? :-D :-D :-D :-D

nomosendero · « **Reply #46 on:** January 31, 2006, 03:29:17 PM »

FWiedner
No definable difference,huh? Now that is funny. No, we can't trust conservatives at face value, our founders taught us not to do thatwith any politican but everyone including you know for sure that Liberal Judges are a far more serious threat than Conservatives, this is a joke.

Please refresh my memory
What Supreme Court Ruling did a majority of Strict Constructionist hand
down that perverts the Constitution? No mickey mouse lower courts, we
have been talking about the Supreme Court. There is bound to be 1 or 2 since the Libs. have given us many.

bubba · « **Reply #47 on:** January 31, 2006, 03:43:08 PM »

It is threads like this that make me glad I am registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote for the person who more closely feels how I do to work for me. I do not need a label to vote and be educated on the issues.

nomosendero · « **Reply #48 on:** January 31, 2006, 04:01:35 PM »

I have no party affliation, but I know which one I dislike the most, I am
an Anti-Socialist, therefore, I cannot vote Democrap.
I would love to see a 3rd party that really put Americans first, but sadly, I don't see it happening.

nw_hunter · « **Reply #49 on:** January 31, 2006, 04:50:37 PM »

I've never heard so much dribble!! I think the topic was "Are you a Republican? I am a registered Rep, but don't see myself voting for another one in the near future. (At the Federal level) The law makers , or I should say........law breakers, all feed from the same trough. I'll stay home next Pres. election, or vote for the Constitutionalist party". They are the only third party that makes sense to me!

nomosendero · « **Reply #50 on:** February 03, 2006, 05:27:56 PM »

nw_hunter

Maybe some folks like yourself can get the Constitutionalist party up &
running across the country. I would love to see that!

Welcome to Graybeard!!

dukkillr · « **Reply #51 on:** February 09, 2006, 11:08:13 AM »

Quote

REPUBLICANS SUCK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wonderful. It's logical, informed, mature, and persuasive all at once... I don't know about you but I'm convinced.

JoeG52 · « **Reply #52 on:** February 09, 2006, 12:13:26 PM »

You took the words right out of my mouth dukkillr.

nomosendero · « **Reply #53 on:** February 09, 2006, 05:10:45 PM »

Spoken with the intelligence & class of Jimmy Carter. :-D

threejax · « **Reply #54 on:** February 10, 2006, 10:59:08 AM »

Funny you would mention Jimmy Carter, probably the best president of the last 50 years.

dukkillr · « **Reply #55 on:** February 10, 2006, 11:30:28 AM »

Nothing does more to hurt the liberal cause than idiotic one liners with no substance or logic included... This, of course, isn't limited to liberal agendas, it just seems that they are more problematic here right now...

nomosendero · « **Reply #56 on:** February 10, 2006, 01:13:15 PM »

threejax
I mention Jimmy Carter because he has ZERO CLASS. It is the act of a
low life & very trashy to stand over a dead woman at a funeral & instead
of honoring her, he takes shots at the President, in this context he did not
have to worry about a rebuttal. It was also very cowardly, but that fits
because he is a Coward. That is why the Iatolla (probably not spelled right & don't care) was able to wrap Carter around his little finger & that
is why he gave away the Canal, cut our Military & intelligence capabilities
& never showed ANY courage as President. Now he wants us to suck up to
Hamas & says Fidel is actually an allright guy. He was the most ineffective President of modern times & maybe in history. Standing beside Bill Clinton this week, he made Clinton look like he had a little class, I didn't
know anyone could do that!!!
You have probably noticed that I call NATIONAL Democrat POLITICANS Socialist Democraps because to me they are. I have no plans of changing that, & I would tell them to their face if I could. Their views concerning gun rights, property rights, taxation & the Constitution itself is all I need to see. But, I am not interested in calling Democrats or people who vote Democrat names or titles even though they vote for these people. They are citizens just like me & their opinion is just as important as mine.
So, I really don't want to say that Democrats suck or something like that,
I hope that I am more clear now.

dukkillr, I agree with you concerning the one liners, but I hope they continue, because like you, I think it will hurt the Liberal cause.

threejax · « **Reply #57 on:** February 10, 2006, 01:21:46 PM »

Give jimmy a break man he's got feelings too. You people are too serious.

Nightrain52 · « **Reply #58 on:** February 10, 2006, 02:09:22 PM »

OOOHHHHHHH-my head still hurts. :-D

:-D

:shock: :music: :toast: :gulp:

nomosendero · « **Reply #59 on:** February 10, 2006, 03:40:50 PM »

Like the song goes: Feelings, nothing more than feelings