Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

[Raz]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

That you disagree is not surprising. As you probably know, what you think doesn't matter; this is the law of the land and the current state of the constitution.

So you now know that your drivel about the detainees not having rights under U.S. and international law is completely incorrect. You should also be aware that if you disagree with this policy, you hold an unconstitutional opinion.

It would be far more accurate to say that Master Shake holds an illegal position.

Stephen Breyer doesn't give a damn about the Constitution of the United States.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

The NeoCons have managed to ruin conservatism in the eyes of most Americans by presenting neoliberalism instead. I can have a heated discussion with a Classic Liberal about FACTS and policy knowing that we both care more about the next generation than we do about the next election. One sign of a Classic Liberal is that when I disagree with them they don't pull out the "racist" card.
Half of the Democrats of today fall into the category of the "Bed Wetting" Left - America is to blame for most of the world's problems, opposing "choice" is the same as hating women, opposing socialism is "racist", and other mendacious slurs.
With the exception of Reps. Paul and Kucinich, a few other Republicans and most of the "Blue Dog" Democrats, the rest of these rat-bastards are only concerned with being re-elected by appealing to the moron vote (of the Right or Left) - the country be damned.


Many people think Pat Buchanan is a racist because he doesn't believe U.S. foreign policy should be subservient to Israeli interests in the Middle East. And because he actually thought Jon Demanjuck shouldn't be lynched. Buchanan has said a few things that I disagree with, and quite a few more that make me uncomfortable. But he has had the NeoCons tagged for well over a decade, and correctly predicted that "W" would be a disaster for the Conservative Movement, the Republican Party, and more importantly, the United States.

Agreed.

Raz, have you ever heard of the hugely popular message board, freerepublic.com? It is somewhat infamous....

I was an active member during Clinton's second term. It was a gathering place online for paleoconservatives, libertarians and other limited government Republicans. With the election of W. Bush, things suddenly changed. Long time posters deemed to critical of W. were purged from the ranks, to be replaced only by party loyalists and neocons. But it was much worse immediately after 9/11. I used freerepublic.com as the launching point for a (obviously failed) public awareness campaign about the national id legislation coming down the pike and was purged from the membership as a result.

[Munger]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

It would be far more accurate to say that Master Shake holds an illegal position.

Stephen Breyer doesn't give a damn about the Constitution of the United States.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. If you think the constitution says something and the Supreme Court disagrees, you are wrong by definition.

[Raz]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. If you think the constitution says something and the Supreme Court disagrees, you are wrong by definition.

You must be a lawyer. Truth is whatever the "Supreme Court" says it is.

By your definition Roger Tanney was right and Fredrick Douglas was wrong.

[Master Shake]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

It would be far more accurate to say that Master Shake holds an illegal position.

Stephen Breyer doesn't give a damn about the Constitution of the United States.

It would be precisely accurate to say that I disagree with the SCOTUS rulings the Mungster fan cited, and some of them don't apply to situation at hand.

Breyer doesn't give a damn and the departed O'Connor (Sandy, baby!) believed at the end of her term that international law should be taken into account when deciding Constitutional issues.

[Master Shake]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution. If you think the constitution says something and the Supreme Court disagrees, you are wrong by definition.

Actually, the people are the ultimate arbiter since, if they disagree with SCOTUS, they, either directly via Convention or via their elected representative, can amend the Constitution.

Your position seems to be "the Supremes said it, I agree with it, and that settles it."

[Munger]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

You must be a lawyer. Truth is whatever the "Supreme Court" says it is.

By your definition Roger Tanney was right and Fredrick Douglas was wrong.

I made no mention of truth. Like I said, the Supreme Court ultimately determines what the constitution means. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison.

[Munger]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Actually, the people are the ultimate arbiter since, if they disagree with SCOTUS, they, either directly via Convention or via their elected representative, can amend the Constitution.

Incorrect, again. Under certain circumstances the constitution can be changed. The Supreme Court gets to interpret those changes.

Your position seems to be "the Supremes said it, I agree with it, and that settles it."

Incorrect. My position is just as I said: the Supreme Court has the power of ultimate interpretation of the constitution. You are entitled to disagree with the logic, outcome, etc, of course. But since they have the power to determine what the constitution means and you don't, you are wrong by definition.

[Master Shake]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Incorrect, again. Under certain circumstances the constitution can be changed. The Supreme Court gets to interpret those changes.



Incorrect. My position is just as I said: the Supreme Court has the power of ultimate interpretation of the constitution. You are entitled to disagree with the logic, outcome, etc, of course. But since they have the power to determine what the constitution means and you don't, you are wrong by definition.

So, the justices who dissent, since very few cases are decided 9-0, are "wrong" by defintion?

[Munger]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

So, the justices who dissent, since very few cases are decided 9-0, are "wrong" by defintion?

Yes, and they would be the first to tell you that their dissents mean nothing as far as the state of constitutional interpretation following the decision.

[Master Shake]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Yes, and they would be the first to tell you that their dissents mean nothing as far as the state of constitutional interpretation following the decision.

Except that stare decisis doesn't always hold, and later justices may find the dissenters were in fact "right."

[Raz]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

I made no mention of truth. Like I said, the Supreme Court ultimately determines what the constitution means. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison.

So you didn't. My apology for missrepresenting your position.

I could have ignored your statements and called you a Communist, but I didn't.
I admitted my error - and it didn't even hurt.

You should try it sometime.
It works wonders for your erudition and perspicacity.

[Diarmuid]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

Removed post

[Diarmuid]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

It would be precisely accurate to say that I disagree with the SCOTUS rulings the Mungster fan cited, and some of them don't apply to situation at hand.

Breyer doesn't give a damn and the departed O'Connor (Sandy, baby!) believed at the end of her term that international law should be taken into account when deciding Constitutional issues.

Are you working for Goebbels in the US department of state propoganda?

[Munger]

Re: Meet our new American Fuhrer: Barack Obama

So you didn't. My apology for missrepresenting your position.

I could have ignored your statements and called you a Communist, but I didn't.
I admitted my error - and it didn't even hurt.

You should try it sometime.
It works wonders for your erudition and perspicacity.

Appreciated. I apologize for calling you racist; I do not (and did not) think you are. I will note that I did not introduce that word into our other discussion until you had brought it up a few times. It seemed a straw man, and I threw it out blatantly to egg you on.

Regardless, I apologize.