Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Right Side of the News
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 3436 of 5796 (866669)
11-14-2019 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3426 by Faith
11-13-2019 5:50 PM


Re: Faith reads her own stuff, not yours
Faith writes:
The **** is an Ideology....
It can be but it doesn't have to be - which is why stereotyping "leftists" can lead you to such stupid conclusions.
Faith writes:
... they may believe all sorts of degrees and variations on the ideology...
In fact, "ideologies" can overlap. In some ways, I'm probably more conservative than you are.
Faith writes:
... the ideology is what it is and I'm clear about what it is.
The ideology may be what it is but you can't pigeon-hole everybody neatly into an ideology. Ideologies are for lazy thinkers (and non-thinkers).

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you...."
-- Rudyard Kipling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3426 by Faith, posted 11-13-2019 5:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 3437 of 5796 (866693)
11-14-2019 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 3429 by Faith
11-14-2019 8:54 AM


Re: Another Insulting Trump Tweet
Faith writes:
No there was no quid pro quo OR extortion. The Democrats just keep changing the definition of what they are trying to impeach him for because none of it is impeachable, and they will soon abandon extortion too.
This is the part I don't get. You could care less if there was a quid pro quo because you would support Trump no matter what. So why keep up this charade? Multiple people with knowledge of what went on have said there was a quid pro quo. Those are the facts.
They are trying to get their lies, their emotional words. int othe public mind, knowing they are lies but not caring
That's exactly what Trump does every time he plays the victim. "Witch hunt" and "Fake News" are all emotional words meant to deflect away from the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3429 by Faith, posted 11-14-2019 8:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(3)
Message 3438 of 5796 (866694)
11-14-2019 4:19 PM


Can you tell the difference ?
Trump or Jesus
Trump followers might find it difficult.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3439 by Chiroptera, posted 11-14-2019 5:45 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3439 of 5796 (866702)
11-14-2019 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3438 by PaulK
11-14-2019 4:19 PM


Re: Can you tell the difference ?
Okay, that was funny.

For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Müller

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3438 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2019 4:19 PM PaulK has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 3440 of 5796 (866710)
11-14-2019 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3297 by Percy
11-05-2019 8:02 AM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
More accurately, the businesses that made their living by providing services within the farm community have declined simultaneously with the industrialization of farming, corporations taking over small farms, combining them, and running them with many fewer people. More and more farming is being done by fewer and fewer people due to increasing mechanization and corporate involvement. Family farms that are still successful often find the children aren't interested in following their parents in a farm life. Fewer people farming means less of a need for businesses in town.
This is all true, but us Constitutionalists believe it's not a reason for the government to increase its involvement in domestic economics.
How does current rural America being better off than past rural America justify abandoning them to live an impoverished life?
Different people have different definitions of what the word "impoverished" means. As far as "abandoning" them goes, I think the answer lies in my previous reference to just how past presidents interpreted the authority given by the constitution for benevolence.
They're not unhappy because they're comparing themselves with the wealthy but with people just like themselves who happen to live in more prosperous regions, mostly urban and suburban areas.
They could very well be making the mistake of not appreciating NOT having some of the complications in their lives that people in urban and suburban areas often have, like increased likelihood of crime, stress, traffic jams, more stringent zoning laws, city taxes and other higher taxes etc. In any case, it's not the government's business.
Internationally the approach has been to get nations to voluntarily commit to certain emissions/pollutant targets by a certain date.
When a nation considers increasing its size and scope to achieve any goal, it has nothing to do with the word "voluntarily". Your use of this word seems to be an attempt to sugar-coat increases in government power. It's exactly like saying "Hitler voluntarily killed 6 million Jews to make the world a better place."
A number of cities will sink beneath the waves in the next 20 or 30 years, for example Alexandria, Egypt, and Miami Beach, Florida.
Did you believe all of these similar types of predictions when they came out decades ago?
Just a moment...
marc9000 writes:
How much climate change happens due to human activity is a big debate today,...
Keep telling yourself that.
I could load you up with links, but it would just result in a lot of well poisoning, so I won't bother.
marc9000 writes:
..but it's clear to everyone that climate change can and has happened from other sources completely unrelated to human activity.
Sure, but not this time.
Not this time? Everything has changed now, all those other sources have stopped and have no chance of happening again, and humans are now the only cause?
marc9000 writes:
What that means is that any attempts of man to improve or control climate change can't have target goals or accountability,...
We know there can be emissions/pollutants target goals because they already exist.
Not the kind I'm talking about. Currently, the government agents (along with the scientific community) who wish to issue mandates about reductions in fossil fuel use need to specify just how many fewer hurricanes the globe is going to have, how many fewer drastic swings in temperatures the world is going to have in each of the coming 10 years. Not 100 years from now. With details that will clearly show the public how much success their mandates had with the climate. If they turn out to be wrong, then a reversal of their mandates should be a major political issue, and not covered up or forgotten about by the mainstream news media.
marc9000 writes:
ABC News describes the California wildfires as "erupting", and "escalating rapidly". They seldom say that it takes a spark to ignite a fire, and fuel for it to burn.
Is there anyone over the age of 10 who doesn't know that already?
The news media seeks to terrify children of ALL ages, including those 10 years old and younger. Even some teenagers and adults can be brainwashed by slanted sensationalist reporting.
You're just repeating a fake argument Trump made up. California has been experiencing longer, hotter fire seasons, diminishing snowpack, and longer droughts, and that's why the trend has been more fires and more dangerous fires.
Why has only California been experiencing them, why not Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana? Wouldn't it be interesting if the news media would interview some forest management officials of the above states and ask them why their states have far fewer wildfires than California? They'd probably get an earful, one that they'd rather keep covered up.
marc9000 writes:
The climate change debate is reaching a fever pitch, probably almost to the point of the slavery debate in about 1858. The big difference is the MONEY involved - climate change action involves untold billions in corruption and bribes.
Really? And you know this how?
Carbon credit trading is still in it's infancy, has already made some millionaires, and is only a tiny part of what could happen. Several big corporations are very interested in getting involved in the politics of climate change.
quote:
That’s why it’s big news that 13 major companies have now joined four nonprofit organizations, including Environmental Defense Fund, to form the core of a new effort to push for climate policy. The CEO Climate Dialogue initiative involves major food brands, powerful utilities, and one of the nation’s leading car companies. Our goal is to turn the power of the marketplace towards addressing this crisis.
http://business.edf.org/...ate-climate-legislation-heres-why
Isn't that heartwarming, these big corporations care about us so much? Their "turning the power of the marketplace" couldn't possibly have anything to do with increasing their profits, could it? There's "one of the nation's leading car companies" in there. Doesn't say which one, doesn't matter. All three of them have desperately shed at least one brand recently to help stop the bleeding (Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Plymouth, Mercury) I was talking to a GM employee 15 or so years ago, and he told me that $2000.00 of the price of every new GM vehicle at that time went for NOTHING but past employees retirement. It's obviously similar to the other two, they've all been in business for over 100 years, often dealing with the same unions. Isn't it wonderful that they now have the luxury of caring about us, of expending effort to combat global warming? Like maybe helping get useful, older cars banned so they can sell more new ones?
The possibilities for out-of-control corruption in the politics of climate change are unlimited.
You don't have to guess. The actions that are within our power to take have already been identified: a) reduce our reliance on power generation that produces greenhouse gases;
Still nothing specific. Right now, power generation and use is done completely by individual choice, (freedom) and the choice of organizations / businesses. To "reduce our reliance" on it, someone has to lose that freedom. Who's first?
That's the big problem. The U.S. (the world actually) RUNS on fossil fuel. Many / most products everyone uses is manufactured using fossil fuels, and even those that aren't are transported in trucks that use it. So everyone is "guilty", yet there is no way to equally divide the penalties, the mandates, that come with government attempts to lessen it. Obviously, idle people are less afraid of mandates than are productive people.
Antique cars are a negligible proportion of the national motor vehicle fleet, its rare that they're driven many miles, and they'll continue to be grandfathered.
They were not grandfathered in any way in my area in the early 2000's when auto emission testing was being done. Mileages weren't considered, they passed or they were denied registration. There are never any guarantees on whose lives will or won't be destroyed by climate change mandates. Antique car owners are a small voting minority, they are among the most vulnerable.
As I type this, David Muir is sensationalizing the latest school shooting. By children who are increasingly told that they only have 12 years to live because of climate change. But it's the guns fault!!!
First you say these "disparaging attitudes have been traditional in the history of the U.S.," and now you're dismissing them as just labels?
Why did you put quotes around the word "disparaging"? I never used that term. I was referring to small government attitudes.
marc9000 writes:
...like a realization that the U.S. wasn't founded automatically, and isn't sustained automatically,...
I can only guess that you're trying to say something about not taking our country for granted.
A good guess, it takes a lot of effort to keep the lights on, keep food store shelves full. Our leaders should focus or more things than the climate change hoax, or this amazingly childish impeachment fiasco.
So when people exhibit racism, calling them racist is name calling? What if managers at a Buffalo Wings restaurant ask a large party that includes black patrons to move because one of the other patrons sitting nearby is racist? Is calling their actions racist is just name calling?
It is if there is a double standard. An incident like you mention above is often big national news, yet if white people in a black neighborhood are disrespected or even physically abused, it's never a big deal. How do I know you ask? Sometimes I see a quick mention of that kind of thing on local news, but it never seems to make national news.
Hearkening back to an even earlier time only reinforces how out of step you are with modern views on equality.
People are smarter today than they were in the past?
Again, this isn't a Democrat/Republican issue or a left/right issue. Racism is wrong. Fortunately we're a less racist nation than a hundred years ago, but not as much as we could wish. And the further you go from the cities into the country the more you encounter racism. Them's just facts.
The recent Baltimore riots weren't racist? Elijah Cummings, or Don Lemon of CNN are never racists?
You've lost the plot. What you originally said in Message 2969 was that economic appeals will not sway any Trump voters, and I pointed out that Trump has often stated that the strong economy is why he'll be reelected. In other words, to make this painfully obvious, even Trump believes that Trump voters are particularly receptive to economic appeals.
It's a logical thing to be receptive to, much more than Trump haters being receptive to emotion, like climate change and racism. Societies can't function on emotion.
By socialism we're only talking about social programs, not the public ownership of business and industry or the nationalization of major industries.
You trust the government to only grow so much, then suddenly stop growing?
In a week as this is likely to be, I think most news outlets are going to put impeachment-related headlines at the top of the news. Except Fox News, of course. Their top headlines are about the murder of a Mormon family in Mexico, the Michael Flynn trial, Trump and social media, the Tulsi Gabbard workout video, and a black cat on a football field. To Fox News it's as if there's no impeachment activity in Washington. I challenge you to find an impeachment story at Fox News right now (if you don't see this pretty quickly after I write this then it isn't valid as news websites update their webpages many times during the day).
I seldom have much time for Fox New, but when I catch some of their discussion shows, impeachment is often the main topic, and they usually have at least one Democrat congressman, or Democrat "strategist". There's no doubt that they cover the impeachment circus as well as anyone else. I did see the black cat story at the end of ABC news the other evening.
(I'll try to get to message 3293 this weekend, or early next week)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3297 by Percy, posted 11-05-2019 8:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3441 by xongsmith, posted 11-14-2019 10:13 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 3442 by dwise1, posted 11-14-2019 10:29 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 3443 by Phat, posted 11-15-2019 6:20 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3444 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 8:31 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 3445 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 8:37 AM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3463 by Percy, posted 11-16-2019 11:01 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 3484 by Percy, posted 11-18-2019 11:24 AM marc9000 has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 3441 of 5796 (866715)
11-14-2019 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3440 by marc9000
11-14-2019 7:38 PM


Re: global warming
You could google "global warming" and find that your view is simply ignorant.
Here's an old (June 2015) site I liked for the graphs:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Click past the misleading link label.
Another link:
What is global warming? | Live Science
a bit easier for those who have math/graph vertigo.
"Here are the bare numbers, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Average surface temperatures rose a total of 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) between 1880 and 2016. The pace of change has been an additional 0.13 degrees F (0.07 degrees C) per decade, with the land surface warming faster than the ocean surface 0.18 degrees F (0.10 degrees C) versus 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, respectively."
Edited by xongsmith, : added two more links

"I'd rather be an American than a Trump Supporter."
- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3440 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2019 7:38 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3479 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2019 8:56 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3442 of 5796 (866716)
11-14-2019 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 3440 by marc9000
11-14-2019 7:38 PM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
I seldom have much time for Fox New, but when I catch some of their discussion shows, impeachment is often the main topic, and they usually have at least one Democrat congressman, or Democrat "strategist". There's no doubt that they cover the impeachment circus as well as anyone else.
A lot of news services carried Wednesday's open testimonies live, all of it (albeit cutting back to the studio during recesses). A guest today on the Dean Obeidallah Show (Sirius XM) talked about switching over to FOX News for their coverage. He reports that they were showing a video of a baby beluga whale while asking whether that baby beluga was a Russian spy. His report was that while FOX News did carry the opening statements, they selectively cut away during the actual testimony.
Edited by dwise1, : replaced "covered" with "carried", a much more accurate choice of words

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3440 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2019 7:38 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3480 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2019 9:04 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3443 of 5796 (866725)
11-15-2019 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 3440 by marc9000
11-14-2019 7:38 PM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
I had to look up "Constitutionalism.
Wiki writes:
What is the purpose of constitutionalism?
The Central Purpose of Constitutionalism. The central purpose of constitutionalism is to limit governmental power, to check and restrain the persons who hold public office and exercise political authority.
OK I think I get it. Constitutionalists are kinda like voluntary extensions of congress. My only problem with that (sounds a bit like the ultra-conservative tea party) is that too many constitutionalists are of the same political ideology. In order for the concept to work, one would need constitutionalists representing both political parties. Which is essentially what we have now, though the liberal constitutionalists are known as activists.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"We, humans, are engaged in an ongoing war of ideologies. I see it in this microcosm of EvC Forum just as I see it in the governments and attitudes of people throughout the world. Take your pick: Oppression or Seduction .
"~Thugpreacha
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3440 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2019 7:38 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3444 of 5796 (866730)
11-15-2019 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 3440 by marc9000
11-14-2019 7:38 PM


Constitutionalism?
Hi Marc, sorry to add to the answer pile, but I'm curious:
This is all true, but us Constitutionalists believe it's not a reason for the government to increase its involvement in domestic economics.
Like Phat/Thugpreacha I had to look up Constitutionalist/m. I get a little different take:
quote:
Constitutionalism is "a compound of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law".[1]
Political organizations are constitutional to the extent that they "contain institutionalized mechanisms of power control for the protection of the interests and liberties of the citizenry, including those that may be in the minority".[2] As described by political scientist and constitutional scholar David Fellman:
Constitutionalism is descriptive of a complicated concept, deeply embedded in historical experience, which subjects the officials who exercise governmental powers to the limitations of a higher law. Constitutionalism proclaims the desirability of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the arbitrary judgment or mere fiat of public officials ... Throughout the literature dealing with modern public law and the foundations of statecraft the central element of the concept of constitutionalism is that in political society government officials are not free to do anything they please in any manner they choose; they are bound to observe both the limitations on power and the procedures which are set out in the supreme, constitutional law of the community. It may therefore be said that the touchstone of constitutionalism is the concept of limited government under a higher law.[3]
Definition
Constitutionalism has prescriptive and descriptive uses. Law professor Gerhard Casper captured this aspect of the term in noting, "Constitutionalism has both descriptive and prescriptive connotations. Used descriptively, it refers chiefly to the historical struggle for constitutional recognition of the people's right to 'consent' and certain other rights, freedoms, and privileges. Used prescriptively, its meaning incorporates those features of government seen as the essential elements of the... Constitution".[4]
Fundamental law and legitimacy of government
One of the most salient features of constitutionalism is that it describes and prescribes both the source and the limits of government power derived from fundamental law. William H. Hamilton has captured this dual aspect by noting that constitutionalism "is the name given to the trust which men repose in the power of words engrossed on parchment to keep a government in order."[13]
Moreover, whether reflecting a descriptive or prescriptive focus, treatments of the concept of constitutionalism all deal with the legitimacy of government. One recent assessment of American constitutionalism, for example, notes that the idea of constitutionalism serves to define what it is that "grants and guides the legitimate exercise of government authority".[14] Similarly, historian Gordon S. Wood described this American constitutionalism as "advanced thinking" on the nature of constitutions in which the constitution was conceived to be a "sett of fundamental rules by which even the supreme power of the state shall be governed."[15] Ultimately, American constitutionalism came to rest on the collective sovereignty of the people, the source that legitimized American governments.
(Color added to highlight specific points)
Could you elaborate in your words what is meant by "a higher law" ... particularly in context of "the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law" and constitutionalism "is the name given to the trust which men repose in the power of words engrossed on parchment to keep a government in order" ... is it that the written human law ensconced in, say the US Constitution, is paramount to any personal law or belief?
In regards to Trump, do his frequent claims that the Constitution allows him to do what he wants meet the smell test?
Was his use of his position to attempt to extort a foreign government leader into assisting his re-election campaign overstepping the bounds?
Is his refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the House in pursuit of due diligence on oversight overstepping the bounds?
Just wondering.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3440 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2019 7:38 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3446 by Theodoric, posted 11-15-2019 8:45 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 3481 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2019 9:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3445 of 5796 (866733)
11-15-2019 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 3440 by marc9000
11-14-2019 7:38 PM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
You're just repeating a fake argument Trump made up. California has been experiencing longer, hotter fire seasons, diminishing snowpack, and longer droughts, and that's why the trend has been more fires and more dangerous fires.
Why has only California been experiencing them, why not Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana? Wouldn't it be interesting if the news media would interview some forest management officials of the above states and ask them why their states have far fewer wildfires than California? They'd probably get an earful, one that they'd rather keep covered up.
Except it isn't only California, it is also happening in Canada and Siberia.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3440 by marc9000, posted 11-14-2019 7:38 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3447 by jar, posted 11-15-2019 9:04 AM RAZD has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 3446 of 5796 (866735)
11-15-2019 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3444 by RAZD
11-15-2019 8:31 AM


Re: Constitutionalism?
Proponents of Constitutionalism are similar to or fellow travelers with Libertarians.
They believe in "for me, but not for thee".
This quote from John Kenneth Galbraith encapsulates the basic philosophy of the modern right movements. I think we can wrap conservatism, libertarianism and constitutionalism all together in one.
quote:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3444 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 8:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3450 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 12:05 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 3447 of 5796 (866737)
11-15-2019 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 3445 by RAZD
11-15-2019 8:37 AM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
And Texas and Arizona and most of the US.
Source

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill StudiosMy Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3445 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 8:37 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3449 by Theodoric, posted 11-15-2019 9:35 AM jar has not replied
 Message 3451 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 12:08 PM jar has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3448 of 5796 (866739)
11-15-2019 9:12 AM


The Right and Trump's Tax Returns
The Washington Post (and all other news outlets) today report that https://www.washingtonpost.com/...92-c46ee8cb3dce_story.html. Is there anyone on the right who finds it suspicious that Trump is this determined to keep his tax returns secret?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 3452 by RAZD, posted 11-15-2019 12:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 3454 by Faith, posted 11-15-2019 1:40 PM Percy has replied
 Message 3482 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2019 9:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 3449 of 5796 (866742)
11-15-2019 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 3447 by jar
11-15-2019 9:04 AM


Re: Fox News Gets the Facts Backward
I see those damn liberals in Montana. Oklahoma and Kansas are causing trouble again.
Damn, they got Wyoming too.
Edited by Theodoric, : word

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3447 by jar, posted 11-15-2019 9:04 AM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 3450 of 5796 (866758)
11-15-2019 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3446 by Theodoric
11-15-2019 8:45 AM


Re: Constitutionalism?
Proponents of Constitutionalism are similar to or fellow travelers with Libertarians.
They believe in "for me, but not for thee".
That's the impression I got, I just wanted to hear what marc had to say.
It seems to me that Trumpty Dumbty is a bull in a china shop when it comes to following the law, and wanted feed-back on that as well.
If we are looking at behavior that is narrowly provided in the Constitution, it seems that would mean appearing in hearings when lawfully subpoenaed. The House subpoenas are lawful and necessary for them to provide the Constitution mandated oversight on the Executive branch and the separation of powers.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3446 by Theodoric, posted 11-15-2019 8:45 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024