OK, LIBERALS: WHERE DO U STAND?

@Merry Andrew,

Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:
If liberalism had a motto, it woud be: "that 's close enuf."

Nah, I don't think so. Most of the so-called 'liberals' that I know at least know how to spell.

how true, I speel reel good.

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:
If liberalism had a motto, it woud be: "that 's close enuf."

Nah, I don't think so. Most of the so-called 'liberals' that I know at least know how to spell.

That makes them CONSERVATIVES, maybe ORTHODOX, as to spelling.
I clearly take a liberal deviation from the paradigm of spelling.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

i believe i responded to the 1st and 2nd amendment questions, my solutions rendered an answer to the 8th amendment a moot point

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:

Quote:
If liberalism had a motto, it woud be: "that 's close enuf."

Nah, I don't think so. Most of the so-called 'liberals' that I know at least know how to spell.

how true, I speel reel good.

30 or 40 years ago, b4 we had computers with spell check
we used typewriters, which for some reason, did not correct
the spelling of those who used them.

I remember correcting my secretaries' spelling in red ink b4 I 'd sign the dictation.
Thay used to feel bad when thay had to type it over.
I did not think in terms of fonetic spelling back then.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The lesson is that rules are created in order to benefit specific groups in specific ways, and that following the rules without question is a poor way to go through life.

OK, but don 't cheat people out of what thay r rightfully entitled to by lying about the rules.
The XO (presumably) did not MAKE anyone play poker.

No, but it was the only game in town.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The lesson is that rules are created in order to benefit specific groups in specific ways, and that following the rules without question is a poor way to go through life.

OK, but don 't cheat people out of what thay r rightfully entitled to by lying about the rules.
The XO (presumably) did not MAKE anyone play poker.

No, but it was the only game in town.

He does not appear to have been deviating
from the rules of poker; not 4 flushing.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

No, but there are the real rules, and the rules he made up to create his own comfort zone, a place where his style of play, his willingness to take on risk and his understanding of the game fit perfectly. He convinced himself that his was the best place and that his rules were "the" rules and sought to marginalize those who disagreed. In his case, he could do so directly using his position so he didn't have to use name calling, intimidation and rhetoric the way people have to in these public forums.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

OK, LIBERALS: WHERE DO U STAND?

Having read all the opinions in Citizens United v. FEC -- and there were a lot of them -- I would side with the opinion of the Court. As they stood, the relevant parts of McCain-Feingold did a bad job of protecting America's democracy against corruption, and were overbroad in the speech they prohibited.

But there's a more important point to make about those opinions: Both Kennedy's opinion of the Court and Stevens's dissent were reasonable. Neither interpretation of the First Amendment justifies the sheer amount of noise that has erupted around these opinions. That goes both for your hyperbole about "anti-freedom liberals", and for other voices whining about the "precedent-slashing" opinion of "the radical-right-wing court". I emphatically recommend that everyone take a chill pill and read the opinion they don't like. Mongering generalities is pointless.

1 Reply

In both Citizens United and in Heller, you see hysteria from both sides which entirely ignore the opinions which were written, and the implications of the practical application of both decisions. Heller does not spell the end of gun control, as conservatives like to crow--the majority opinion makes it clear that the Court does not intend to end all forms of gun control, and in fact that they sustain many forms of gun control. As well, Heller simply returns the situation to the status quo ante. In the case of Citizens United, the Court has not determined that there can be no constitutional limits on corporate speech--but liberals are squealing as though they had been scorched. And, once again, Citizens United just returns us to the status quo ante.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I think you're projecting David's opinion about Heller to a status that is unwarranted.

Most pro-2nd amendment people recognize Heller only as far as it resulted in a significant and long fought for change to the practice of banning hand guns. It will soon result in a change to the Chicago hand gun ban, which I for one am ecstatic about (it means I can finally move into the city).

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Perhaps, but he's not the only one here, or on-line in general, who assumes that Heller means an end to gun control legislation.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I think he's probably hoping for that; but I find it hard to believe he is that far gone as to believe it.

0 Replies

He apparently does believe it, based on what he posts at this site. The majority decision in Heller specifically states that the Court recognizes the validity of other forms of gun control, and has no plans to overturn those.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
OK, LIBERALS: WHERE DO U STAND?

Having read all the opinions in Citizens United v. FEC -- and there were a lot of them -- I would side with the opinion of the Court. As they stood, the relevant parts of McCain-Feingold did a bad job of protecting America's democracy against corruption, and were overbroad in the speech they prohibited.

But there's a more important point to make about those opinions: Both Kennedy's opinion of the Court and Stevens's dissent were reasonable. Neither interpretation of the First Amendment justifies the sheer amount of noise that has erupted around these opinions. That goes both for your hyperbole about "anti-freedom liberals", and for other voices whining about the "precedent-slashing" opinion of "the radical-right-wing court".
I emphatically recommend that everyone take a chill pill and read the opinion they don't like. Mongering generalities is pointless.

I 've gotta say, Thomas: u command my respect,
regardless of our earlier (and future) disagreements,
both as to your powers of intellect and your willingness
to abstain from ad hominem reasoning.

I admire your tight focus of analysis upon the message,
rather than upon the merits or shortcomings of the messenger.
In that virtue, u outclass most of the posters on this board, including me.

Permit me to reveal that my choice of descriptive words
(qua "anti-freedom liberals") was born of some resentment
of the violence that liberals' philosophy has inflicted upon
and against freedom in the American way of life, since the
earliest years of the 1900s, obviously increasing in the 1930s.
I love, I yearn for, and I champion
(to the modest extent that my voice can reach)
laissez faire free enterprize, begruding liberal curtailments
and subversion thereof.

By my choice of descriptive words in my opening paragraf,
(and elsewhere) I inflict an infinitesimal vengeance for liberals' rape
of the Constitution in very numerous ways that have elicited
my pain, abhorence and alarm. As per your advice, I have now taken my chill pill
and I have enjoyed reading the defeated liberals' assertions.

David

0 Replies

OK, LIBERALS: WHERE DO U STAND?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know