If Jesus was...
Aug 14, 2020 15:34:46 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
JamesCurran wrote:
And I see you still don't understand the difference between a monarchy and a democaracy.
To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand: A society is a group of people who work together and pool their resources, to do collectively what they cannot do individually. The government is the people they hire to manage the grubby details of doing that collective work while the rest of them get on with their lives.
To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand: A society is a group of people who work together and pool their resources, to do collectively what they cannot do individually. The government is the people they hire to manage the grubby details of doing that collective work while the rest of them get on with their lives.
A democracy is two wolves and a sheep v****g on who’s for dinner.
Interesting that your analogy of a democracy was not a democracy but a well ran republic.
The US is not a democracy, never was a democracy and hopefully never will be a democracy.
Aug 14, 2020 15:35:48 #
DaveO wrote:
Sorry, but normal decorum is to prove or source your allegation. LWW is the first to whine for proof and full well knows that he is expected to be able to substantiate his statement. Frankly, I fully expect that he will do so.
And I fully expected that would be your response have a great day
Aug 14, 2020 15:38:10 #
usnpilot wrote:
And I fully expected that would be your response have a great day
As an Attic fan I'm sure you have seen that my response is the preferred one...not my idea, but think about it. You should be able to back up your statement.
BTW, I find it difficult to believe that you expected my last sentence in the reply you're referencing.
Aug 14, 2020 19:05:23 #
JamesCurran wrote:
The state *IS* the community. Conservative are so self-centered can't understand that. That's why they expect great praise for doing basic human acts.
It's actually the corporate way to take three bushels of aid to deliver one bushel to the needy and keep the rest.
It's actually the corporate way to take three bushels of aid to deliver one bushel to the needy and keep the rest.
OMG you and that idea are so completely full of crap. How much better for each person to earn their own bushel of aid rather than have anyone give it to them. I am not a s***e. Why should I work so that my pay goes to someone else too lazy to work? Hell, for that matter, WAKE UP, why should you or anyone. There are jobs out there for those who want to get educated and then find jobs. You Liberals putting up with a bunch of freeloaders is great right up until you force me into your dumb ass schemes. You want to feed a bunch of lazy freeloaders and i*****l a***ns because you feel good about yourself then knock yourself out. But do not include me or mine.
Dennis
Aug 14, 2020 19:10:32 #
LWW wrote:
Interesting that your analogy of a democracy was not a democracy but a well ran republic.
My example was neither a democracy nor republic. It was an description of a "society".
Aug 14, 2020 19:30:07 #
JamesCurran wrote:
Justices are accountable. They are appointed by the executive but approved by the legislature. Their actions can be overridden by Constitutional amendment (or often, by more specific laws). They can be impeached by the legislature.
The trouble is that there will likely never be a sufficient majority in the Senate to actually remove a judge. Therefore, the Justices are effectively not accountable to the Congress. The only true accountability is when liberal appointees are required to pledge allegiance to Roe.
Aug 14, 2020 19:34:01 #
Tex-s wrote:
The only true accountability is when liberal appointees are required to pledge allegiance to Roe.
Actually, ALL justices are expected to pledge allegiance to Roe, as it is the law of the land.
Although, to be appointed by a conservative, they are required to condemn it.
Aug 14, 2020 20:03:55 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
JamesCurran wrote:
My example was neither a democracy nor republic. It was an description of a "society".
A society does not need a gubmint to legislate ‘mandatory compassion’ from society.
Aug 14, 2020 20:04:41 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
JamesCurran wrote:
Actually, ALL justices are expected to pledge allegiance to Roe, as it is the law of the land.
Although, to be appointed by a conservative, they are required to condemn it.
Although, to be appointed by a conservative, they are required to condemn it.
So you support the SCOTUS decision on Dred Scott?
If you would read books ... other than Marx ... you would realize the court reverses itself fairly often.
Aug 14, 2020 20:35:24 #
LWW wrote:
So you support the SCOTUS decision on Dred Scott?
If you would read books ... other than Marx ... you would realize the court reverses itself fairly often.
If you would read books ... other than Marx ... you would realize the court reverses itself fairly often.
The Dred Scott decision was overturned (well, actually, rendered moot), by the 13th Amendment, which, if you actually understood the law, was the only way it could have been.
Aug 14, 2020 21:46:47 #
Aug 14, 2020 21:53:55 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
JamesCurran wrote:
The Dred Scott decision was overturned (well, actually, rendered moot), by the 13th Amendment, which, if you actually understood the law, was the only way it could have been.
The SCOTUS has overturned poor rulings many times.
Two hundred and thirty six times actually, despite your claim it is impossible to do.
Now, you agree with the Dred Scott decision or not?
https://qz.com/1326096/despite-its-pending-hard-right-turn-the-supreme-court-is-unlikely-to-overturn-roe-vs-wade/
Aug 14, 2020 22:07:13 #
LWW wrote:
The SCOTUS has overturned poor rulings many times.
Two hundred and thirty six times actually, despite your claim it is impossible to do.
Two hundred and thirty six times actually, despite your claim it is impossible to do.
SCOTUS does not directly reverse it's past decision. They will sometimes offer a new, and wildly different decsion on a new case with only a slightly different situation from the past case.
Quote:
Now, you agree with the Dred Scott decision or not?
No, of course not.
Aug 15, 2020 04:43:40 #
lenben
Loc: Seattle
Seriously folks: Trump for his own selfish reasons (re e******n) is now trying to destroy the US Postal system. This is anti-Constitutional and a serious slap to the American public. Only the US Congress can stop this. Have you noticed your mail is now less voluminous; checks are delayed, bills are delayed, delivery is late. Mail boxes are being locked down and removed and sorting machines are being deactivated. This is outrageous. I would love for the US Congress to develop a spine and stop this. I know there are a bunch of Trump supporters on this blog - how do you feel about this development which is against US Citizens and threatens to destroy a system which has 90% approval of the American public.
Aug 15, 2020 05:04:31 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
JamesCurran wrote:
No, of course not.
Yet you believe the court's decision must be correct?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.