On 01/06/2011 11:50 PM, RHF wrote:

.
The US Constitution a Blueprint of US Rights
and a Building Code for US Laws
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e8b363d10e2a35
.
.

Are they inherent unalienable rights endowed by an abstract "creator" or
are they "US Rights". The Bill of Rights was added for the paranoids who
didn't believe in self-evident rights. We have hundreds more.

On 01/06/2011 11:52 PM, RHF wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:17 pm, wrote:
- - On 01/06/2011 09:52 PM, RHF wrote:
- - Corporatist Oligarchy !

- Now maybe he'll join our fight
- against the real effete snobs

Prez-A-Duntz Obama is a Liberal Elitist and Head
of the Democrat Party Corporatist Oligarchy !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...ccb254180a4f1a
.
.

You'll get no argument from me there. Are you prepared to say the same
about John Boehner vis a vis the GOP?

On 1/5/11 23:28 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:46:15 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/5/11 14:27 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:38:44 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

I'm not the one claiming any interpretaton of law other than what you
agree with is correct

You are.


I see. So, a tendency to assign falsity to anything disagreed
with is only a flaw when YOU aren't doing it.

No, that would be exemplified by your claim that Marbury was bad.

Nice Dodge, Mrs Iaccoca.

I'm not the one claiming that opinions and decisions not to your
liking are unconstitutional, you are.


Also a nice dodge.

On 1/5/11 23:28 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:46:15 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/5/11 14:27 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 12:38:44 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

I'm not the one claiming any interpretaton of law other than what you
agree with is correct

You are.


I see. So, a tendency to assign falsity to anything disagreed
with is only a flaw when YOU aren't doing it.

No, that would be exemplified by your claim that Marbury was bad.

Nice Dodge, Mrs Iaccoca.

I'm not the one claiming that opinions and decisions not to your
liking are unconstitutional, you are.


Again, so are you. So what.

On 1/5/11 23:30 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:50:55 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

I'm not the one claiming any interpretation of law other than
what you agree with is incorrect.


You dismiss my points on technique.

I'm repeating what you claim----that decisions that you disagree with
are labeled "unconstitutional" and a "power grab"


And when they are, I'm right to do so.


You don't get to dismiss my points based solely on the fact that
I disagree with said decisions.

That's also quite telling.

The truth is, that you've yet to make a point based in anything
other than your disagreement with my points. Your claim that you have
support of law is, in fact, the point dissent. You've offered nothing
more than that you agree with your position.

On 1/5/11 23:31 , wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:44:13 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

But once again, you're countering with a rebuttal based on dislike of
the ruling---

Nothing different than anything you're doing. Interesting that
you don't like it.

What ruling am I disagreeing with?

Other than YOUR belief that decisions that are adverse to your beliefs
are "bad"


And your insistence that decisions that agree with your beliefs are
'good' is different somehow?

On 1/5/2011 4:35 PM, dave wrote:
On 01/06/2011 01:49 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
On 1/4/2011 9:42 PM, wrote:


Interpretation allows its intent to be ignored.

The belief of an interpretation like that is to deny the foundation of
the constitution and 300 Yrs of established law.

Judges interpreting laws and case law has been a new development of the
last 100 years.

Coincidentally the Progressives have been active in colleges and
politics in America the last 100 years.


And how about those Progressives that gave us the progressive income tax
and the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Then they gave us Prohibition.

Wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Don't confuse the Progressive Movement with today's liberals; two
different animals sharing the same root word.

What happened in 1710 of such legal import that you keep referring to it?

When discussing "original intent" please remember the Founders were
middle class farmers who tended toward liberal democracy. The
Federalists were the liberals. The antifederalists were the
conservatives. None of the founders was rich by today's standards.

So it was your Liberals who made institutional slavery a constitutional
right?

I wondered when Liberals would fess up and admit that they like slavery.
It's already obvious to me that Liberals are all for slavery because
they want the the entire unwashed masses to be slaves to the elite and
superior intellect of the ruling elite Liberals.

Welfare/Redistribution is all about forcing reliance on the government
just as black slaves had to rely on their Masters good will and legal
standing in the community.

On 1/6/2011 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:27:57 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
wrote:

Don't confuse the Progressive Movement with today's liberals; two
different animals sharing the same root word.

What happened in 1710 of such legal import that you keep referring to it?

When discussing "original intent" please remember the Founders were
middle class farmers who tended toward liberal democracy. The
Federalists were the liberals. The antifederalists were the
conservatives. None of the founders was rich by today's standards.

But were by their standards

So it was your Liberals who made institutional slavery a constitutional
right?

I wondered when Liberals would fess up and admit that they like slavery.

It's probably a wet-dream of every southern bigot and racist. But not
likely

It's already obvious to me that Liberals are all for slavery because
they want the the entire unwashed masses to be slaves to the elite and
superior intellect of the ruling elite Liberals.

I think we've discovered your problem---it's your "thinking"

Slavery was required to maintain the Southern aristocracy--both in
industry and social status.

With the collapse of the Southern rebellion---those conservatives
maintained their society by enacting Jim Crow laws which stood until
1954, beginning the demise of conservative stranglehold on the
Democratiic party

I'll remind you that it was progressive/liberals in congress who
stipped the southern conservative stranglehold and introduced the
"Civil RIghts Act"---aided by Northern liberals an progressives.

I'll also remind you that EVERY "progressive" policy or program in
America was opposed by conservative/Loonytarian idiots--(to name a
few): Child labor laws, collective bargaining, Womens rights, Civil
rights, Equal opportunity, desegregation/integration, childrens
rights, Old age poverty, general poverty/hunger/homelessness, clean
air, water, safe food and recently health care.


Welfare/Redistribution is all about forcing reliance on the government
just as black slaves had to rely on their Masters good will and legal
standing in the community.

You ignorant red-neck

As you revert to your Liberal racist name calling....


Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.
- Beam Me Up Scotty - 2009

On 1/5/2011 6:54 PM, RHF wrote:

...

Hairy clams are good. They have soft shells too! grin

Chuckle,
JS

On 1/6/11 11:32 , wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:43:37 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

So, no one may disagree with you without dismissal as uninformed,
unitelligent, or unenlightene

Only when they are.


Well, aren't you the snob.