WAR ROOM LOUNGE V12: Mao With Noir

[Jack V Savage]

Is four different responses by one poster to the same post a record?

 

[Falsedawn]

 

[Limbo Pete]

Is four different responses by one poster to the same post a record?

He's losing it imo lol

 

[Fawlty]

Some peasants just can't appreciate Domination when they see it.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

He's losing it imo lol

I feel bad. For some reason it absolutely tickles me to post the most apathetic sad stuff about the future of conservatives and about how he's inevitably going to be replaced. It tickles me senseless but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going to be watching CNN and all of a sudden "breaking news, man is involved in a stand off with police. All we know is he's talking about dominating some dog."

 

[Limbo Pete]

I feel bad. For some reason it absolutely tickles me to post the most apathetic sad stuff about the future of conservatives and about how he's inevitably going to be replaced. It tickles me senseless but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm going to be watching CNN and all of a sudden "breaking news, man is involved in a stand off with police. All we know is he's talking about dominating some dog."

...At approximately 10am, he approached a cashier and began aggressively rambling about a "proprietary model"....


...when police failed to talk him down, he siezed a poodle and began threatening to "dominate" it over a manly game of chess...

 

[salamander]

This is probably what my nieces and nephews see and hear when i'm trying to talk to them. (Without the beat)

 

[waiguoren]

Before addressing this, I'll just thank you for a detailed and reasonable response.

Likewise.

Now if you would only accept our month-old bet in the betting thread...

Article I, Section 8 only grants Congress the authority to deal with "naturalization", and never "immigration". Therefore, under the 10th Amendment, this is a states' rights issue. All currently existing immigration legislation (e.g., the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965) is unconstitutional.

However, leaving immigration to the states is not feasible as it was in the 18th century. Therefore, I call for an immediate constitutional amendment granting to the federal government the ability to secure our borders and regulate immigration.

Would be fair to say that you support a Constitutional amendment, but until one passes, you support simply violating the Constitution (as you see it)? Not knocking (I think it's wise, actually--that strict adherence to any system leads to absurdities or atrocities), but I think it should be made explicit.

It depends what you mean by “support”. Are you asking me what I would do if I were president? That’s a big hypothetical, but I’ll try. Prior to taking office, I would have my legal team draft a constitutional amendment authorizing the federal government to perform functions satisfying the following four criteria: (1) I deem them important (2) the federal government currently performs them (3) they are presently unconstitutional (4) there is broad bipartisan support for them. Examples: federal regulation of immigration, federal environmental regulation, the creation and maintenance of an air force. The goal would be to achieve ratification in the period between election and inauguration.

There would be difficulties. Social Security is obviously unconstitutional, for example*. Ending Social Security overnight would be a disaster. An aerial view of the Capitol would appear as a mosaic while senior citizens swarmed it with their many-colored walkers. Grannies would topple over in the streets and croak. Poor old people would suffer from the immediate loss of their checks. Although I would like to see Social Security phased out through time, there might be no practical political way to achieve it. In that case, another constitutional amendment would be needed to authorize the program. In my view constitutionalism is more important than ending almost any specific program.

For some other federal functions which fail (1) but satisfy (2) and (3), a constitutional amendment with phase-out language might be in order, or perhaps an amendment that allows Congress to appropriate funds to compensate for a short period of time those harmed by the ending of the particular program.

Of course, all of the above is moot. No one is going to get elected on a platform of real constitutionalism. In my estimation, the populace is too ignorant of the true principles of the founding to tolerate it.




*Briefly: starting around 1790 Hamilton began to bastardize the general welfare clause, twisting its original meaning (see Madison’s clear exposition in Federalist #41 and Jefferson’s letters) to justify federal spending on various economic programs. Madison and Jefferson tried to stop Hamilton but the gravy train was too seductive.

 

[Limbo Pete]

That's what I suspected was behind your absurd defense of Nunes after he was caught lying. IMO, a better skill to work on than defending obviously wrong positions is identifying and standing behind truth.

It's fairly transparent lol
"These fools will never see me coming!"

 

[curryjunkie]

...At approximately 10am, he approached a cashier and began aggressively rambling about a "proprietary model"....


...when police failed to talk him down, he siezed a poodle and began threatening to "dominate" it over a manly game of chess...

i couldnt take any more of his bullshit, the very definition of an asshole that absolutely has to have the last word, no matter how incorrect it is, hes on ignore, and sherdog is easy to read again.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It depends what you mean by “support”. Are you asking me what I would do if I were president? That’s a big hypothetical, but I’ll try. Prior to taking office, I would have my legal team draft a constitutional amendment authorizing the federal government to perform functions satisfying the following four criteria: (1) I deem them important (2) the federal government currently performs them (3) they are presently unconstitutional (4) there is broad bipartisan support for them. Examples: federal regulation of immigration, federal environmental regulation, the creation and maintenance of an air force. The goal would be to achieve ratification in the period between election and inauguration.

And if said amendment did not pass, your view would be that the best course of action would be to simply violate the Constitution as written (not, obviously, as enforced--I presume you're not talking about starting some kind of legitamacy crisis), correct? And you would support a president who did not make such a movement likewise simply violating the Constitution, as you see it?

Another question: Given that you seem to reject the notion that the courts should decide on whether a law is Constitutional, what is your proposed alternative method of settling controversies on the issue?

There would be difficulties. Social Security is obviously unconstitutional, for example*. Ending Social Security overnight would be a disaster. An aerial view of the Capitol would appear as a mosaic while senior citizens swarmed it with their many-colored walkers. Grannies would topple over in the streets and croak. Poor old people would suffer from the immediate loss of their checks. Although I would like to see Social Security phased out through time, there might be no practical political way to achieve it. In that case, another constitutional amendment would be needed to authorize the program. In my view constitutionalism is more important than ending almost any specific program.

For some other federal functions which fail (1) but satisfy (2) and (3), a constitutional amendment with phase-out language might be in order, or perhaps an amendment that allows Congress to appropriate funds to compensate for a short period of time those harmed by the ending of the particular program.

Of course, all of the above is moot. No one is going to get elected on a platform of real constitutionalism. In my estimation, the populace is too ignorant of the true principles of the founding to tolerate it.

I would think that it wouldn't just be current SS recipients who would object to both the repeal of our most successful anti-poverty program and to the idea of a single person overruling the wishes of the public and lawmakers and single-handedly overturning a SCOTUS ruling. Seems that everyone who expects to be old someday and who values freedom and democracy would have a problem with this. I think that the objections are not so much the populace being ignorant of the True Meaning of the Founding as a widespread belief in America that free people have say in their own governance and a belief that mass poverty is bad.

 

[Gregolian]

Ssssooooo, prosecutor's office in my county.. head prosecutor is retiring at the end of the year (not running for re-election) after 40 years as a prosecutor in general.

His head office administrator is also retiring

The head legal assistant is also retiring.....

Time to get my resume updated again.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Ssssooooo, prosecutor's office in my county.. head prosecutor is retiring at the end of the year (not running for re-election) after 40 years as a prosecutor in general.

His head office administrator is also retiring

The head legal assistant is also retiring.....

Time to get my resume updated again.

 

[Limbo Pete]

And if said amendment did not pass, your view would be that the best course of action would be to simply violate the Constitution as written (not, obviously, as enforced--I presume you're not talking about starting some kind of legitamacy crisis), correct? And you would support a president who did not make such a movement likewise simply violating the Constitution, as you see it?

Another question: Given that you seem to reject the notion that the courts should decide on whether a law is Constitutional, what is your proposed alternative method of settling controversies on the issue?



I would think that it wouldn't just be current SS recipients who would object to both the repeal of our most successful anti-poverty program and to the idea of a single person overruling the wishes of the public and lawmakers and single-handedly overturning a SCOTUS ruling. Seems that everyone who expects to be old someday and who values freedom and democracy would have a problem with this. I think that the objections are not so much the populace being ignorant of the True Meaning of the Founding as a widespread belief in America that free people have say in their own governance and a belief that mass poverty is bad.

I like how his fantasy includes ratification of a constitutional amendment between election and inaguration

E Z P Z

 

[Fawlty]

Ssssooooo, prosecutor's office in my county.. head prosecutor is retiring at the end of the year (not running for re-election) after 40 years as a prosecutor in general.

His head office administrator is also retiring

The head legal assistant is also retiring.....

Time to get my resume updated again.

Will any of them write you a nice letter?

 

[Gregolian]

Will any of them write you a nice letter?

The Judges and Commissioners won't write me a letter but are willing to be references so there's that.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Ssssooooo, prosecutor's office in my county.. head prosecutor is retiring at the end of the year (not running for re-election) after 40 years as a prosecutor in general.

His head office administrator is also retiring

The head legal assistant is also retiring.....

Time to get my resume updated again.

Tell the hiring committee you give the best head and are open to any position available. But they need to make a quick decision because lately you've been beating off the recruiters with a stick.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

I don't know if you guys remember but somebody tried to #metoo me. It was pretty awful, someone spread rumors I drugged her but my name was cleared pretty quickly. I don't have a car lol. So drugging a girl and taking her home wouldn't work.

Also everyone knows me, knows I wouldn't, but a bunch of girls are bitter I fucked them it seems and are trying to slut shame me lol.

The fucked up thing is they did it because they knew I was leaving, and now it seems like they're targeting other guys. Good dudes I know too, one just because he banned this chick from a restaurant.

We're talking basic bitch hipster thots, but the ones without a college education and bounce from waitress job to waitress job.

So glad I'm out of that shithole.

 

[Gregolian]

I don't know if you guys remember but somebody tried to #metoo me. It was pretty awful, someone spread rumors I drugged her but my name was cleared pretty quickly. I don't have a car lol. So drugging a girl and taking her home wouldn't work.

Also everyone knows me, knows I wouldn't, but a bunch of girls are bitter I fucked them it seems and are trying to slut shame me lol.

The fucked up thing is they did it because they knew I was leaving, and now it seems like they're targeting other guys. Good dudes I know too, one just because he banned this chick from a restaurant.

We're talking basic bitch hipster thots, but the ones without a college education and bounce from waitress job to waitress job.

So glad I'm out of that shithole.

Claim you worship Thor and Odin and that you need sacrifices for a bountiful harvest and then bleed them all....

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Claim you worship Thor and Odin and that you need sacrifices for a bountiful harvest and then bleed them all....

This is why we're friends Brogolian.