• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Adams was perhaps our first liberal president, and we're still paying the very very high price!

jbander said:
Some peoples remarks become so dishonest and stupid that it really is best to dump those liars. If they don't contribute or inflict us with their right wing unbaked lies , dump them big time.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

A pleasure it has been to meet you. My name is Howard. I am a duck.
 
jbander said:
Ya conservitives are owned by the liars that control them and will gladly argue with those non stop lies that in fact their party could not exist without,
Click to expand...


if so why is the liberal so afraid to present the biggest lie. What do you learn from your fear?
 
jbander said:
Anyone at all, know what this is.
Click to expand...


Quote Originally Posted by jbander View Post
Ya conservitives are owned by the liars that control them and will gladly argue with those non stop lies that in fact their party could not exist without,


Why cant jbander liberal tell us the biggest lie???? what is he afraid of?
 
James972 said:
3 decades?? America was founded on principle of limited govt or freedom from big liberal govt. Do you understand?
Click to expand...
You seem to be missing the point here , I'll paint a picture for you, Demographics and how it will effect the hate party. The only part of this countries sectors that is increasing in numbers in a major way is through the browning of American , You have **** on these people for decades . You really don't think they will just forget that and vote for your bigotry and hate. Throwing Scum Bag in there as the leader of the evangelicals and your party. Will first, pretty much Bury the evangelicals, considering the chose scum bag is their type of Christian. And your party even faster then demographics can
 
James972 said:
Quote Originally Posted by jbander View Post
Ya conservitives are owned by the liars that control them and will gladly argue with those non stop lies that in fact their party could not exist without,


Why cant jbander liberal tell us the biggest lie???? what is he afraid of?
Click to expand...
Again any clue.
 
James972 said:
oh ya, well I think your posts are ignorant.
Click to expand...
Well good for you, then again what you think IS irrelevant as it is just a pathetic desire to "get even" so go ahead.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
Click to expand...
Is it? Because your uneducated opinion says so? It must be so then.
 
James972 said:
they may be regarding it but they didn't establish it the way Marbury did. Interestingly,
Marbury was mostly a dead case till end of century when it finally began to be used for Judicial review.
Click to expand...

Judicial review is when the Supreme Court decides if a law passed by Congress is constitutional. In the two cases I cited, the Supreme Court made the ruling that the federal laws in question were constitutional. In Marbury, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law expanding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was unconstitutional. That is why Marbury lost and Jefferson won.

There was many debates of how the constitutionality of laws would be established. The concept of judicial review was not a surprise.
 
James972 said:
3 decades?? America was founded on principle of limited govt or freedom from big liberal govt. Do you understand?
Click to expand...
This country is what the courts decide in defining the constitution. You lost buddy. Example why push states rights when every right wing state won't educate their people so they can keep them dumb enough to vote for them. Put all the people in need in cardboard boxes, dumb government and have big business take care of us. Bring segregation back, probable forms of slavery. outlaw the democratic party. and preach non stop hate like the rest of them. No I don't in any way believe in state rights. It would destroy any state that was controlled by the right. hell they hate everything.
 
James972 said:
John Adams was perhaps our first liberal president, and we're still paying the very very high price!!

As a high Federalist liberal he (along with Washington and Hamilton)* believed in Platonic elite central govt ruling over the drooling masses. He appointed John Marshall to the Supreme Court who gave us Marbury v. Madison which established judicial review. Thus, 9 unelected fools for life in black robes can tell the other two branches of govt what laws they will accept. This is why all hell will break out if Judge Ginsburg dies. Everyone knows another conservative on the court will mean the entire govt of the United States is conservative. Obviously, the Supreme Court was intended to be just a co-equal* branch of a limited central govt sharing power with the states.*
Click to expand...

Seems similar to what I would expect of a Kremlin sponsored commentary on former American checks and balances governance. I write "former" because
republicans are successfully killing it with direct help from the Kremlin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland#Scalia_vacancy_and_2016_nomination
...In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[82][83] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[84][85][86] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate has waived its advise and consent role.[87] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[87]

Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[32] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[88] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[89]

Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress after a period of 293 days.[90]

On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[91]...
Click to expand...

The pressing question is what to do to contain this political climate of anti-American extremist lunacy if and when it is decisively put down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#End
....End
The West German political system, as it emerged from the occupation, was increasingly opposed to the Allied denazification policy.[82] As denazification was deemed ineffective and counterproductive by the Americans, they did not oppose the plans of the West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, to end the denazification efforts....
Click to expand...

If my language seems too strong or unreasonable, reread the OP of this thread and consider what Trump and republicans have done since
1992, when they considered AG Janet Reno's appointment of Robert Fiske as White Water Special Prosecutor so partisan that it necessitated the
replacement of Fiske, a republican appointed by Gerald Ford as US Attorney, SDNY, by right wing extremist Ken Starr.

Consider the GHW Bush pardons in anticipation of prosecution of indicted former Reagan cabinet members, an act of official malfeasance
performed out of POTUS Bush concern for his own criminal exposure.
Consider Jeb Bush's felonious "felon voter purge" in anticipation of the 2000 election,
Consider GW Bush instituting foreign black site surrogate torture of prisoners in U.S. custody and his ginning up of knowingly false justification
for invading and occupying Iraq!
Consider the McConnell theft of the last Obama SCOTUS appointment, and the attack on the country via undermining of its government,
judiciary, and Justice Dept., and its CIVILITY by evangelical favorite and serial liar adulterer, Donald J Trump!
 
Last edited:
post said:
Seems similar to what I would expect of a Kremlin sponsored commentary on former American checks and balances governance. I write "former" because
republicans are successfully killing it with direct help from the Kremlin.
Click to expand...
direct help? any evidence or just liberal goofing.
 
James972 said:
direct help? any evidence or just liberal goofing.
Click to expand...

What do you ostriches use to prevent all that sand from irritating your nostrils?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/us/politics/nielsen-election-trump-russia.html
Homeland Security Chief Backtracks After Saying Russia Didn’t Try to Help Trump
By Ron Nixon
May 22, 2018

WASHINGTON — Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary, said on Tuesday that she did not believe that Russia had tried to help President Trump during the 2016 election — putting her at odds with American intelligence agencies that found widespread meddling by Moscow.

Speaking to reporters after briefing Congress on voting security, Ms. Nielsen said she believed that Russia had tried to sow confusion on both sides of the political divide.
....
A January 2017 report by the office of the director of national intelligence found that the Russian government favored Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign over that of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. The report concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia personally ordered an “influence campaign” to harm Mrs. Clinton and to “undermine public faith in the American democratic process.”
Click to expand...
 
post said:
What do you ostriches use to prevent all that sand from irritating your nostrils?
Click to expand...

for 3rd time: any evidence or just parroting what someone told you to say??
 
James972 said:
for 3rd time: any evidence or just parroting what someone told you to say??
Click to expand...

You are shameless.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/...urr-senate-intelligence-committee-russia.html
Top Republican Senator Says ‘No Reason to Dispute’ That Russia Favored Trump
By Matthew Rosenberg
May 16, 2018

WASHINGTON — The Republican at the helm of the Senate’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election backed on Wednesday the assessment by American intelligence agencies that Moscow favored Donald J. Trump in the race, contradicting both the president and fellow Republicans in the House.

...The four main intelligence agencies — the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — compiled the assessment, and a declassified version was released Jan. 6, 2017. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of their president, Vladimir V. Putin.

The statements by top committee members on Wednesday came after the panel held a closed hearing with the men who led the intelligence agencies when the assessment was conducted, including John O. Brennan, the former C.I.A. director, and James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director fired by Mr. Trump....
Click to expand...
 
jbander said:
This country is what the courts decide in defining the constitution. You lost buddy. Example why push states rights when every right wing state won't educate their people so they can keep them dumb enough to vote for them. Put all the people in need in cardboard boxes, dumb government and have big business take care of us. Bring segregation back, probable forms of slavery. outlaw the democratic party. and preach non stop hate like the rest of them. No I don't in any way believe in state rights. It would destroy any state that was controlled by the right. hell they hate everything.
Click to expand...

What part of Article III has that provision?
 
Tennyson said:
What part of Article III has that provision?
Click to expand...
I love the little monkeys running around and each and everyone of them has their own definition and meaning of the constitution. Hell they like that kind of constitution, then whatever they do is constitutional and what anyone else does isn't. They just don't understand that the courts define the constitution not them the courts. They want is so they do but then there would be millions of different interpretation of the constitution. I think they got it right when they decided to have the court do that.
 
I hope everyone here understands that scum bag is a agent of Russia and Putin. I finally realized by the total of what Russia did in the election that Scum Bag wouldn't have won without the Russian interference. Russia won the election and has there man in office as we speak.
 
jbander said:
I love the little monkeys running around and each and everyone of them has their own definition and meaning of the constitution. Hell they like that kind of constitution, then whatever they do is constitutional and what anyone else does isn't. They just don't understand that the courts define the constitution not them the courts. They want is so they do but then there would be millions of different interpretation of the constitution. I think they got it right when they decided to have the court do that.
Click to expand...

What part of Article III has that provision?
 
Tennyson said:
What part of Article III has that provision?
Click to expand...
It's in there if the court says it's in there, your interpretation of the constitution is as nutty as it gets. If it doesn't support your ugliness then it is wrong and or your interpretation to get to this ugly ness isn't shared by the court who decides what it mean. You don't get your way because you will hold your breath and jump up and down until you get your way. It's not just ridiculous , it's against the best interest of this country and as always just plane ugly and hateful.
 
jbander said:
It's in there if the court says it's in there, your interpretation of the constitution is as nutty as it gets. If it doesn't support your ugliness then it is wrong and or your interpretation to get to this ugly ness isn't shared by the court who decides what it mean. You don't get your way because you will hold your breath and jump up and down until you get your way. It's not just ridiculous , it's against the best interest of this country and as always just plane ugly and hateful.
Click to expand...

What part of Article III has that provision?

Also, reconcile your views with the intentional lack of federal question jurisdiction by the Framers?
 
Howard the Duck said:
Nonsense:

Founded: March 20, 1854; 164 years ago

The first official party convention was held on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan.[34] By 1858, the Republicans dominated nearly all Northern states. The Republican Party first came to power in the elections of 1860 when it won control of both houses of Congress and its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, was elected President.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
Click to expand...
To back you up here.

The main thing is that while the Jeffersonians and Madisonians called themselves Republicans (the party or faction itself being labeled Democratic-Republicans), the party, for all intents and purposes became known as the Democratic Party as the years passed.

The Federalists died out, some of the moderate federalists intentionally joined the Democratic-Republicans as the party waned and dies off. Then after the 20's, they dispositionally went to the Whigs. When the Whigs fell apart over the Compromise-era culture war and politics, they then filed into the newly-formed Republican Party which found its champions in William Seward and Abraham Lincoln.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Tennyson said:
What part of Article III has that provision?

Also, reconcile your views with the intentional lack of federal question jurisdiction by the Framers?
Click to expand...
. the court interprets the constitution.
and they have done that very clearly on this , give you some advice sue the courts , you have that right otherwise be quite and live with it. That's your only two choices . The reality is very few people really care about your silliness. You jumping up and down and holding your breath is humorous and will get no other result then everyone's laughter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom