Elbert Guillory (D-LA) flips Republican. [W:316]

[Empirica]

Its my fault, you say?! :wassat1:

I thought you people blamed Bush for everything! :blink:

I'm fairly certain that Bush didn't post anything in this thread.

Since when did a little thing like the obvious ever stop you people?! :blink:

 

[Tucker Case]

Since when did a little thing like the obvious ever stop you people?! :blink:

Why do you have such low regard for small-government conservatives?

 

[Empirica]

On the upper righthand side of the page (you'll have to scroll up), you'll see a link that says "My Profile". Click on that. Then, after you click on that, you'll see another pair of links that say "Find latest posts" and "Find latest started threads". Look at those. They are your examples.

I followed your instructions to the tee but could find no examples of your claim that I'm controlled by the MSM_

In fact, I found that much of what I post is quite contradictory to what MSM wants us to believe or simply not reported by MSM because of being considered taboo to the strict standards of Political Correctness_

It seems very obvious that many consider me to be a little off the grid with very controversial views_

But I suspect there are many out there who secretly agree with much of what I say, but afraid to admit it_

The social stigma attached to nonconformity of popular opinion is simply too much for most people to deal with_

 

[Tucker Case]

I followed your instructions to the tee but could find no examples of your claim that I'm controlled by the MSM_

Because you are looking at them through the haze of the brainwashing the MSM has given you. Very sad.

Hint: Taking "extreme" views on the MSM idea of what the "issues" are does not negate teh fact that you think the "issues" are the one's you've been told to believe are the "issues".

 

[Empirica]

Why do you have such low regard for small-government conservatives?

I have very high regards for "small-government conservatives" and acknowledge them whenever I find one_

If you are indeed one of these people, then I would imagine you're also opposed to socialist policies_

Considering that more socialism requires more bureaucracy therefore more government__Big Government!

 

[Tucker Case]

If you are indeed one of these people, then I would imagine you're also opposed to socialist policies_

Federally? Absolutely. I don't really give a **** if New York passes socialist policies, though. I don't live there.

 

[Empirica]

Because you are looking at them through the haze of the brainwashing the MSM has given you. Very sad.

Hint: Taking "extreme" views on the MSM idea of what the "issues" are does not negate teh fact that you think the "issues" are the one's you've been told to believe are the "issues".

I suppose we'll never know cuz you seem to avoid discussing those issues as though they were inconsequential_

You apparently (and justifiably) believe the Federal Government is responsible for most of our problems_

You fail to recognize that issues are the litmus test used to determine who how and why the FG is responsible_

 

[Tucker Case]

You apparently (and justifiably) believe the Federal Government is responsible for most of our problems_

People are responsible for most of "our" problems. They give the federal government their power. Both political parties do it, they just do it for different reasons. they think the "issues" matter because that is what they were told to believe. Pure idiocy.

See, that's the main drawback of democratic forms of government (like the representative democracy that we live in): they are decided by the majority of the people, and unfortunately, the majority of the people are ****ing idiots. (to paraphrase Carlin, think of how stupid the average person is, and now consider the fact that 50% of the people are even dumber than that)

I support a dual-confederacy because it decreases the total number of idiots who have an influence on the laws which affect any given individual's life. The laws and representatives that will have a direct effect on said individual's life will still ultimately be decided by the idiots, sure, but there will be fewer of them, thus making it possible (albeit not very likely) that an intelligent individual can convince enough of the idiots that a law is stupid and prevent some stupid laws from passing.

 

[Somerville]

I think both Empirica and Tucker Case are often wrong on the merits of government - not always, but most of the time - but this totally off-topic conversation between the two has been rather illuminating as it has brought into focus the way in which some Americans are True Believers and others have taken the time to study and understand why they think in a particular way about our society.

 

[Masada]

People are responsible for most of "our" problems. They give the federal government their power. Both political parties do it, they just do it for different reasons. they think the "issues" matter because that is what they were told to believe. Pure idiocy.

See, that's the main drawback of democratic forms of government (like the representative democracy that we live in): they are decided by the majority of the people, and unfortunately, the majority of the people are ****ing idiots. (to paraphrase Carlin, think of how stupid the average person is, and now consider the fact that 50% of the people are even dumber than that)

I support a dual-confederacy because it decreases the total number of idiots who have an influence on the laws which affect any given individual's life. The laws and representatives that will have a direct effect on said individual's life will still ultimately be decided by the idiots, sure, but there will be fewer of them, thus making it possible (albeit not very likely) that an intelligent individual can convince enough of the idiots that a law is stupid and prevent some stupid laws from passing.

I disagree here. We don't give the federal government all the power they possess. Just because we elected them, didn't mean we elected them to go to Washington to spy on us for example. We didn't elect them to then force us all to buy something just for the simple fact we're citizens. We didn't elect them so they could sue other states who are merely trying to enforce immigration laws. We didn't elect them the power to smuggle guns into Mexico in a secret operation that wound up killing Americans. We didn't elect them the power to conduct insider trading schemes. We didn't give them these powers simply by electing them.

Are we to blame? Partially, but not entirely. We did not grant the government authority to abuse it's authority or operate outside the confines of our Constitution. Yet, they frequently operate outside the confines of the Constitution and abuse their authority. Voters are not responsible for that, they are.

 

[Empirica]

Federally? Absolutely. I don't really give a **** if New York passes socialist policies, though. I don't live there.

ie, 50 small independent nations, united only by their continental proximity_

Does this suggest you might have supported the Confederacy's bid to secede from the Union?

Anyway, I do agree that the Feds have un-constitutionally usurped much of the states' power_

But, I do believe the states should remain bound by our Constitution to ensure national unity_

Although there should be severe penalties in place for judicial activist appointed to the SCOTUS_

 

[Tucker Case]

I disagree here. We don't give the federal government all the power they possess. Just because we elected them, didn't mean we elected them to go to Washington to spy on us for example. We didn't elect them to then force us all to buy something just for the simple fact we're citizens. We didn't elect them so they could sue other states who are merely trying to enforce immigration laws. We didn't elect them the power to smuggle guns into Mexico in a secret operation that wound up killing Americans. We didn't elect them the power to conduct insider trading schemes. We didn't give them these powers simply by electing them.

Are we to blame? Partially, but not entirely. We did not grant the government authority to abuse it's authority or operate outside the confines of our Constitution. Yet, they frequently operate outside the confines of the Constitution and abuse their authority. Voters are not responsible for that, they are.

But we did give the government that power. By sitting back and allowing it to happen when it suited our personal agendas, we've allowed them to have authority that they should never have had.

 

[Tucker Case]

ie, 50 small independent nations, united only by their continental proximity_

Not at all. There would be economic unions, common defense unions, citizenship unions, you know, along the lines of the enumerated powers, in the strictest of senses.

Does this suggest you might have supported the Confederacy's bid to secede from the Union?

I would have supported the confederate state's right to secede, but I also would have supported the union State's right to collectively go to war to free those slaves as well as destroy the nation beside them that chooses to violate such basic human rights. After freeing the slaves, however, and destroying the upstart nation, I believe that the confederate states should not have been allowed back into the union. They should have been left to wallow in the misery of their own making with assurances that should such human rights violations occur again, they would receive more of the same.

One of the issues that I feel should be universally agreed upon by all members of the confederacy is that basic human rights should be protected for everyone, and they should not be denied without due process of law.

Anyway, I do agree that the Feds have un-constitutionally usurped much of the states' power_

But, I do believe the states should remain bound by our Constitution to ensure national unity_

Although there should be severe penalties in place for judicial activist appointed to the SCOTUS_

These are inherently contradictory statements. The only reason that the states became bound by the constitution is because of the judicial activism of the SCOTUS. And national unity is a pipe dream in a democratic society. The only way to achieve national unity is through totalitarianism, and the violent destruction of all opposition to one's ideals.

 

[Captain America]

But we did give the government that power. By sitting back and allowing it to happen when it suited our personal agendas, we've allowed them to have authority that they should never have had.

No truer words were ever spoken.

I wonder if that is what "The rooster's coming home to roost," means?

As long as power abuse suits the personal agenda of the citizen, they do have a tendency to sit back and allow it to be done, all the while not being able to look beyond the nose on their own face.

We seen it when the right was defending Bush Corp as the left was bashing him.

We see it now as the right is all upset with Obama following Herr Bush's lead while the left sits back and does nothing, supporting their chosen one.

Politics have become a team sport. The best interests of the nation is placed on the back burner. It's all about which team one supports these days. Not the country.

It's a political pendulum.

 

[Empirica]

I think both Empirica and Tucker Case are often wrong on the merits of government - not always, but most of the time - but this totally off-topic conversation between the two has been rather illuminating as it has brought into focus the way in which some Americans are True Believers and others have taken the time to study and understand why they think in a particular way about our society.

It seems that a self-avowed "socialist" has declared one of us to be a "True Believer"_

And the other to have "taken the time to study and understand why they think a particular way about our society"_

It appears that either Empirica or Tucker Case has earned the admiration of the extreme far-left__Imagine that!

 

[Tucker Case]

It seems that a self-avowed "socialist" has declared one of us to be a "True Believer"_

And the other to have "taken the time to study and understand why they think a particular way about our society"_

It appears that either Empirica or Tucker Case has earned the admiration of the extreme far-left__Imagine that!

Do you actually think that someone's political views affects their ability to see and understand things?

 

[Somerville]

Captain America, you might wish to take a spin thru the leftie blogosphere if you presently think the "left sits back and does nothing, supporting their chosen one"

April 2013 -

Daily Kos
. . . nonetheless, the Espionage Act is a problematic, heavy-handed law intended to go after spies, and the Obama administration has a terrible track record of using Espionage Act charges to silence dissenters.

June 2013, another Daily Kos column outlining Obama's hypocrisy

FireDogLake in May this year

Liberal Hypocrisy Isn’t Free | FDL News Desk

To drone or not to drone? President Barack Obama recently demonstrated his most valuable political talent – fooling liberals into supporting Bush policies under another name.

of course one can find all manner of rightie web sites that say things like Liberals Defend Obama for Spying on Media but the past history of some of those sites should cause one to do a bit of their own Googling if they are truly interested in leftie views.

 

[Empirica]

Not at all. There would be economic unions, common defense unions, citizenship unions, you know, along the lines of the enumerated powers, in the strictest of senses.

I would have supported the confederate state's right to secede, but I also would have supported the union State's right to collectively go to war to free those slaves as well as destroy the nation beside them that chooses to violate such basic human rights. After freeing the slaves, however, and destroying the upstart nation, I believe that the confederate states should not have been allowed back into the union. They should have been left to wallow in the misery of their own making with assurances that should such human rights violations occur again, they would receive more of the same.

Wouldn't that be contrary to your belief that, each state be responsible for its own laws and policies?

One of the issues that I feel should be universally agreed upon by all members of the confederacy is that basic human rights should be protected for everyone, and they should not be denied without due process of law.

And what happens when all members do not universally agree with every policy?

Would you support an interventionist policy to bomb them into submission?

These are inherently contradictory statements. The only reason that the states became bound by the constitution is because of the judicial activism of the SCOTUS. And national unity is a pipe dream in a democratic society. The only way to achieve national unity is through totalitarianism, and the violent destruction of all opposition to one's ideals.

I'm sorry Tuck, I wasn't notified of the change;

Exactly when was the responsibility of the SCOTUS switched from interpreting the Constitution to tweaking it?

 

[Empirica]

Do you actually think that someone's political views affects their ability to see and understand things?

No! not their ability to see and understand things but definitely how they see and understand things_

This is basic human nature you should have learned in Paying Attention 101_

You're fast losing what little credibility you have Tuck and becoming quite a disappointment in the process_

 

[Tucker Case]

Wouldn't that be contrary to your belief that, each state be responsible for its own laws and policies?

No. Once they decide to secede, they no longer have the advantages that members of th econfederacy would enjoy.

And what happens when all members do not universally agree with every policy?

Not every policy, just that one.

Would you support an interventionist policy to bomb them into submission?

For human rights violations from a former member of the confederation? Absolutely. I believe in a Sherman-like approach to that.

I'm sorry Tuck, I wasn't notified of the change;

You weren't alive when it happened, so I doubt you would have been notified in any way. The information is there for the finding, though, if you do some research.

Exactly when was the responsibility of the SCOTUS switched from interpreting the Constitution to tweaking it?

With the Marshall court.

 

[Tucker Case]

No! not their ability to see and understand things but definitely how they see and understand things_

Interesting distinction. So you are arguing that one's political orientation affects the manner in which they come to see and understand things, but not their capacity to see and understand things.

So you are essentially agreeing that that somerville would be capable of seeing and understanding that one of us is a "true believer" and the other a "reasoned individual" in a competent fashion, as he has the ability to do so, but the methods that they go about doing so (aka the how he saw and understood it) would be different from the methods that, say, you or I would employ.

So why did you start babbling about his political orientation if his ability, i.e. the competence of his assessment, is not in question, despite having used a different manner of reaching those conclusions than a conservative might have?

 

[Empirica]

No. Once they decide to secede, they no longer have the advantages that members of th econfederacy would enjoy.

Not every policy, just that one.

For human rights violations from a former member of the confederation? Absolutely. I believe in a Sherman-like approach to that.

Do you recall posting the following statement???

"The only way to achieve national unity is through totalitarianism, and the violent destruction of all opposition to one's ideals."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ips-republican-w-316-a-52.html#post1061981630

You weren't alive when it happened, so I doubt you would have been notified in any way. The information is there for the finding, though, if you do some research.

With the Marshall court.

I'm aware that "judicial activism" occurs, but I wasn't aware it was made into law_

 

[Tucker Case]

Do you recall posting the following statement???

"The only way to achieve national unity is through totalitarianism, and the violent destruction of all opposition to one's ideals."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...ips-republican-w-316-a-52.html#post1061981630

Of course. On the issue of human rights, I'm OK with totalitarianism. It's the one real exception I have to a dual confederacy. The idea that one group of people should be withheld from basic human rights by another is something I feel cannot be allowed to exist, and I make no bones about it. I am perfectly content with saying that anyone holding such views should be summarily executed.

If a state seceded because they did not like Obamacare, I would oppose any violent response toward them. If a foreign nation far from our borders commits a human rights violation, I support sanctions, but not a violent response. Ifa state secedes in order to commit human rights violations, however, I say destroy them.

I'm aware that "judicial activism" occurs, but I wasn't aware it was made into law_

That's how the states were bound to the constitution. Judicial activism that incorporated the amendments and denied state sovereignty :shrug:

 

[Empirica]

Interesting distinction. So you are arguing that one's political orientation affects the manner in which they come to see and understand things, but not their capacity to see and understand things.

So you are essentially agreeing that that somerville would be capable of seeing and understanding that one of us is a "true believer" and the other a "reasoned individual" in a competent fashion, as he has the ability to do so, but the methods that they go about doing so (aka the how he saw and understood it) would be different from the methods that, say, you or I would employ.

So why did you start babbling about his political orientation if his ability, i.e. the competence of his assessment, is not in question, despite having used a different manner of reaching those conclusions than a conservative might have?

Sooo, you have chosen to flip the intended definition of "how" from its context, in hopes of saving yourself the embarrassment of having no defense__You have finally hit rock bottom Tuck_

Taggim and Baggim Bones, my work here is done!...bye-bye~ eace

 

[Tucker Case]

Sooo, you have chosen to flip the intended definition of "how" from its context...

No, I posited the only possible definition of "How" a thing is done that would not affect one's "ability" to do it (i.e. taking it in it's complete context).

I'm not the person that decided to not think the comment through. You only have yourself to blame for that.