Deranged Rhino Posted December 18, 2019 Author Posted December 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Gary M said: I was listening to NPR on a bus, did someone just compare Trump to Jesus? *********************** 4
Foxx Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 lol! get 'em Gomert! i'm sure there will be a clip of him breaking decorum. 2
Warren Zevon Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Gary M said: I was listening to NPR on a bus, did someone just compare Trump to Jesus? Yes. Trump is God now.
Foxx Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 i wish Collins would call ol' Nads out about reading his staff/lawyer prepared notes. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted December 18, 2019 Author Posted December 18, 2019 They should cut Schiff's mic off. 2
bbb Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 32 minutes ago, GG said: That's because he also gouges the elderly. You must be a fan of the Aceman? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted December 18, 2019 Author Posted December 18, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Foxx said: lol! get 'em Gomert! i'm sure there will be a clip of him breaking decorum. Here's the first video clip I've seen: *Second clip has the follow on fireworks. Edited December 18, 2019 by Deranged Rhino added a clip 1 2
Deranged Rhino Posted December 18, 2019 Author Posted December 18, 2019 34 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Rob's House Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Democrats absolutely loathe the Constitution and the principles it is founded upon, such as rule of law. "Rule of law" is a term of art that refers to constitutional limitations on the power of government. This is a distinction from the principle of "rule of man" by which the government can make laws as it sees fit, unconstrained by any greater authority. The only constraint Democrats want on the power of the Federal government is the popular vote (I suspect they would do away with that if they had the power to do so). Throughout the 20th century they eroded the Constitution to the point that "constitutional law" scarcely resembles the document itself. The FDR years were a strong shift in that direction. In 1942 the Supreme Court, effectively ruled that the relatively narrow enumerated power to regulate commerce between the states empowered the government virtually unlimited authority to pass any legislation it saw fit, as long as it did not run directly afoul of another constitutional provision. The case was Wickard v. Filburn. It upheld FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. 8 of the 9 justices were Roosevelt appointees. There are plenty of other examples over the decades that I won't get into here. Suffice to say, their only use for the Constitution is as a weapon to further erode state sovereignty and enact legislation they cannot accomplish through the legislative process. In doing so they do not promote adherence to the Constitution, but rather the effective repeal of it, as they argue that the Constitution requires & prohibits things that cannot be reasonably inferred from the document itself. They reject all standard canons of statutory interpretation in favor of a "living, breathing document" that is not constrained by the plain meanings of the text, nor the intent, but is to be "interpreted" by the "spirit" of the Constitution. The "spirit" being defined as promoting the liberal agenda. In essence, they argue (in opposition to John Marshall) that the duty of the court is to rule according to what the law should be, rather than what it is. They reject the incontrovertible fact that the spirit of the Constitution was to strictly limit the power of the Federal government, granting it only specific enumerated powers. Today they are still on the warpath to eradicate constitutional protections. They want to abolish the electoral college, repeal the 2nd amendment, and gut the 1st amendment so they can ban "hate speech" (which likely includes Fox News, et al.). They claim the Constitution supports removal of the President by Congress based on an undefined charge of "abuse of power," the standard of which is to be subjectivity determined ex post facto. Prior to that they claimed the 25th allowed Congress to remove the President on the subjective criteria that they do not believe that he is "fit" for office. They now want to impose an unconstitutional wealth tax. They've even employed left-wing activists masquerading as legal scholars to argue the patently absurd notion that a tax on one's net worth is not a direct tax. The bottom line is, the Democrats have utter contempt for the rule of law. They envision themselves as the rightful bearers of power and see any hindrances to their exercise of that power as illegitimate. These are not liberals, progressives, or even socialists. They're closet Soviet style communists who want to control and monitor their subjects, and would readily imprison, torture, and kill dissidents if given the power to do so. 1 1 4
Deranged Rhino Posted December 18, 2019 Author Posted December 18, 2019 (here's an even better clip) 1
Doc Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 I always suspected Dems lived in a fairly tale world. Now I know it's true. 1 1
dpberr Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 I think they still get to censure because when it comes down to it, "these" people care most about their own backsides and that requires not taking a side. If you're a Democrat House member, there's no win here for you. Vote for impeachment and suffer the wrath of an electorate, its likely defeat and the Republican fringe. Don't vote for it, and likely suffer the wrath of your party and its fringe. So...let's just not vote at all. Let's just send a letter. 1
Tiberius Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc said: I find it hilarious that they think they have facts. Well, if you take your head out of your butt you’d see the evidence. 17 minutes ago, Rob's House said: Democrats absolutely loathe the Constitution and the principles it is founded upon, such as rule of law. "Rule of law" is a term of art that refers to constitutional limitations on the power of government. This is a distinction from the principle of "rule of man" by which the government can make laws as it sees fit, unconstrained by any greater authority. The only constraint Democrats want on the power of the Federal government is the popular vote (I suspect they would do away with that if they had the power to do so). Throughout the 20th century they eroded the Constitution to the point that "constitutional law" scarcely resembles the document itself. The FDR years were a strong shift in that direction. In 1942 the Supreme Court, effectively ruled that the relatively narrow enumerated power to regulate commerce between the states empowered the government virtually unlimited authority to pass any legislation it saw fit, as long as it did not run directly afoul of another constitutional provision. The case was Wickard v. Filburn. It upheld FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. 8 of the 9 justices were Roosevelt appointees. There are plenty of other examples over the decades that I won't get into here. Suffice to say, their only use for the Constitution is as a weapon to further erode state sovereignty and enact legislation they cannot accomplish through the legislative process. In doing so they do not promote adherence to the Constitution, but rather the effective repeal of it, as they argue that the Constitution requires & prohibits things that cannot be reasonably inferred from the document itself. They reject all standard canons of statutory interpretation in favor of a "living, breathing document" that is not constrained by the plain meanings of the text, nor the intent, but is to be "interpreted" by the "spirit" of the Constitution. The "spirit" being defined as promoting the liberal agenda. In essence, they argue (in opposition to John Marshall) that the duty of the court is to rule according to what the law should be, rather than what it is. They reject the incontrovertible fact that the spirit of the Constitution was to strictly limit the power of the Federal government, granting it only specific enumerated powers. Today they are still on the warpath to eradicate constitutional protections. They want to abolish the electoral college, repeal the 2nd amendment, and gut the 1st amendment so they can ban "hate speech" (which likely includes Fox News, et al.). They claim the Constitution supports removal of the President by Congress based on an undefined charge of "abuse of power," the standard of which is to be subjectivity determined ex post facto. Prior to that they claimed the 25th allowed Congress to remove the President on the subjective criteria that they do not believe that he is "fit" for office. They now want to impose an unconstitutional wealth tax. They've even employed left-wing activists masquerading as legal scholars to argue the patently absurd notion that a tax on one's net worth is not a direct tax. The bottom line is, the Democrats have utter contempt for the rule of law. They envision themselves as the rightful bearers of power and see any hindrances to their exercise of that power as illegitimate. These are not liberals, progressives, or even socialists. They're closet Soviet style communists who want to control and monitor their subjects, and would readily imprison, torture, and kill dissidents if given the power to do so. Shut up you idiot. Go live 8n Russia if you hate the country so much 2
bdutton Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 17 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Well, if you take your head out of your butt you’d see the evidence. Shut up you idiot. Go live 8n Russia if you hate the country so much 2 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Gary Busey said: Yes. Trump is God now. ...and you're on his hit list....thank GOD..............
Foxx Posted December 18, 2019 Posted December 18, 2019 https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1207410329480843270 3
Recommended Posts