- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ari Fleischer rips media for coverage of Pence walkout: 'Bias in action'
Posted on 10/9/17 at 4:20 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 10/9/17 at 4:20 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Nope.
I support the politicians who know what the "correct' interpretation of the US Constitution is and defend it not the politicians who try to muddy the waters so they can claim the US Constitution is ambiguous in order to redefine the meaning of it to suit their political agenda.
You know,
Oh dear...
I assume you're in favor of striking every federal drug law from the books, right?
1
Posted on 10/9/17 at 4:22 pm to cajunangelle
It's crazy that the MSM will say the VP is the bad guy because he was offended by the players disrespecting the National Anthem.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 4:48 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Interesting that you choose the flag burning imagery. Would you explain why you equate taking a quiet knee during the national anthem to setting the flag on fire?
I'm not equating it. But, I'm drawing a comparison of how a cause doesn't justify disrespect when your cause isn't related to the entity that you are disrespecting.
The complaints that these players have not only are not caused by what the flag and anthem stand for. But, what the flag and anthem stand for is the actual institution which guarantees them the freedoms they believe they are lacking. To protest the flag and the anthem is incredibly misplaced.
They are doing it for a specific reason. And, it is intentional. They are trying to piss people off.
And, your opinion on whether the players are being disrespectful really is irrelevant. I think it's pretty damn clear that a significant number of people think it is. In fact, it's a clear majority. You don't get to decide what should be offensive or not. Consensus says that it is.
This post was edited on 10/9/17 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 10/9/17 at 4:56 pm to cajunangelle
Ari is such a f'ing snowflake.
Only Trumpkins think the walkout wasn't planned.
Only Trumpkins think the walkout wasn't planned.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 5:33 pm to cajunangelle
where did the libs learn this shite!?
we never attacked obama mamma, foreign born dummy!
we never attacked obama mamma, foreign born dummy!
Posted on 10/9/17 at 5:37 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
This country was "openly denigrating" black people in 1968 vastly more than black people were denigrating this country.
"This country" passed The Civil Rights Act of 1964 thanks to Republicans.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 5:46 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
I assume you're in favor of striking every federal drug law from the books, right?
Point out to me where it is written in the US Constitution that you have the Constitutional right to inject substances into your body that result in you being a dreg on society.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:13 pm to Kickadawgitfeelsgood
quote:
Only Trumpkins think the walkout wasn't planned.
It's irrelevant whether VP Pence's walk out was planned or not.
What's relevant is that he did it and it was the correct thing for a VP to do.
Do you want a VPOTUS or POTUS who has someone insult the flag and the country right in front of their face not to react in some manner to show their displeasure in it occurring?
Oh, that's right.
You probably voted for Obama.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:16 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
"This country" passed The Civil Rights Act of 1964 thanks to Republicans.
Who said anything about Democrats and Republicans? And if you think the civil rights struggle was over in 1964, you need to read a history book
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:18 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
You're welcome to try to convince everyone that Pence went in utterly ignorant and clutched his pearls in genuine shock, but I think you're going to have a hard time.
This trip was scheduled for a while.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:24 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Point out to me where it is written in the US Constitution that you have the Constitutional right to inject substances into your body that result in you being a dreg on society.
That would be the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, proved by the Eighteenth and Twenty-first. It required an "activist" court to read the Interstate Commerce Clause so absurdly broad (See: Wickard v. Filburn, et seq) as to allow the federal prohibition of narcotics.
So tell me all about this "correct" interpretation of the Constitution, again?
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:27 pm to moneyg
quote:
And, your opinion on whether the players are being disrespectful really is irrelevant. I think it's pretty damn clear that a significant number of people think it is. In fact, it's a clear majority. You don't get to decide what should be offensive or not. Consensus says that it is.
Careful with that. "Consensus" very likely says that it's offensive to say that homosexuals are living in sin and going to hell
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:28 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
"This country" passed The Civil Rights Act of 1964 thanks to Republicans.
quote:
Who said anything about Democrats and Republicans?
You said "this country" and the majority of people in "this country' are Republicans and Dumocrats so...
quote:
And if you think the civil rights struggle was over in 1964, you need to read a history book
I'm 70 years old and was living in Georgia in 1964 so I don't need a history book to teach me about the civil rights struggle. I was part of it.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:41 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
That would be the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, proved by the Eighteenth and Twenty-first. It required an "activist" court to read the Interstate Commerce Clause so absurdly broad (See: Wickard v. Filburn, et seq) as to allow the federal prohibition of narcotics.
Point out where in the 9th and 10th amendment where it specifically says you have the Constitutional right to inject something that makes you a dreg on society.
Also, point out when it was specifically proven by the 18th and 21th Amendments.
You appear to be an attorney or studying Law so point out where the Court absurdly erred in its ruling that Wickard v. Filburn allowed the Federal prohibition of narcotics.
quote:
So tell me all about this "correct" interpretation of the Constitution, again?
So it's really that you just want to have the Constitutional right to deal and use drugs.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:41 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
You said "this country" and the majority of people in "this country' are Republicans and Dumocrats so...
That's the weakest cop out I've seen in a long, long time
quote:
I'm 70 years old and was living in Georgia in 1964 so I don't need a history book to teach me about the civil rights struggle. I was part of it.
If you don't need a history book, then maybe your memory needs refreshing
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:46 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Point out where in the 9th and 10th amendment where it specifically says you have the Constitutional right to inject something that makes you a dreg on society.
Also, point out when it was specifically proven by the 18th and 21th Amendments.
You appear to be an attorney or studying Law so point out where the Court absurdly erred in its ruling that Wickard v. Filburn allowed the Federal prohibition of narcotics.
The language of the Ninth and Tenth amendments was interpreted since the founding to restrict the federal government from the prohibition of narcotics. That's why the federal prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. And if you don't see how Wickard, et seq was a massive departure from prior jurisprudence, I'm not sure what to tell you, beyond that if I'm going to give you a full blown constitutional history lesson, I'm going to start billing by the hour
This post was edited on 10/9/17 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:47 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
You said "this country" and the majority of people in "this country' are Republicans and Dumocrats so...
quote:
That's the weakest cop out I've seen in a long, long time
Telling the truth is never a cop out.
quote:
I'm 70 years old and was living in Georgia in 1964 so I don't need a history book to teach me about the civil rights struggle. I was part of it.
quote:
If you don't need a history book, then maybe your memory needs refreshing
Nope. I remember it just like it was yesterday. If you weren't an adult back in 1964 like I was then all you know is what you've read in your history books.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:49 pm to DawgfaninCa
Yep, I'll be sure to take some 70 year old white dude from Georgia's word for it instead
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:54 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
The language of the Ninth and Tenth amendments was interpreted since the founding to restrict the federal government from the prohibition of narcotics. That's why the federal prohibition of alcohol required a constitutional amendment. And if you don't see how Wickard, et seq was a massive departure from prior jurisprudence,
You are the one making the assertion. The burden of proof is on you not me. Point out the specifics that I asked for.
quote:
if I'm going to give you a full blown constitutional history lesson, I'm going to start billing by the hour
Are you a California attorney who practices Constitutional Law?
If you are then I might consider hiring you because I'm looking for an attorney in California who practices Constitutional Law to represent me in a lawsuit that I am going to file.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:59 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Yep, I'll be sure to take some 70 year old white dude from Georgia's word for it instead
You don't have to take my word for anything but since I was involved in the civil rights struggle back in the 60s and you weren't then I know I am more of an expert than you on what was occurring back then.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News