You've read 20,000 of bucky's posts? Enough to make you a self ascribed expert on what posts make sense and what ones don't?What is RUI definition of a troll? Most of Uncle Bucks posts make sense to me. Keep it real.
you people
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
Flaming Pie
Well-Known Member
lol im tired dammit. I say things when im tired.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I know surf and turf is a right wing plot to keep the working man down but I'm having trouble connecting the dots. Any help?
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Drama, did you catch them with your own poll?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
if having some criteria on which i refuse to compromise, even if it means being unpopular makes me "a hate filled psychopathic snob", then let me be GUILTY!
a few noteworthy points:
Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] from the Ancient Greek ψυχή "psyche", -soul, mind and πάθος, "pathos" -suffering, disease, condition[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]) is a personality disorder that has been variously described as characterized by shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, lacking guilt, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, nonplanfulness (huh? thats not even a word, i think they meant an inability to recognize future consequences from actions) , impulsivity, and antisocial behaviors such as parasitic lifestyle and criminality. There is no consensus about the symptom criteria and there are ongoing debates regarding issues such as essential features, causes, and the possibility of treatment
Point 1: to be hate filled, i must necessarily be filled with HATE, sadly that is lacking. i despise many things, hold many things in low regard, and refuse to compromise on my coore beliefs, and established facts. this does not equate to hate, much less the brimfull wickedness and evil you seem so quick to ascribe to others over differences of opinion.
Point 2: i think you meant to say that i am a sociopath, but that term is fallen out of favour they now call it:
Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is described by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."[SUP][1][/SUP]
The World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems', tenth edition (ICD-10), defines a conceptually similar disorder to antisocial personality disorder called (F60.2) Dissocial personality disorder.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Though the diagnostic criteria for ASPD were based in part on Hervey Cleckley's pioneering work on psychopathy, ASPD is not synonymous with psychopathy and the diagnostic criteria are different.ICD-10
The World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, tenth edition (ICD-10), defines a conceptually similar disorder to antisocial personality disorder called (F60.2) Dissocial personality disorder.[SUP][4][/SUP]
It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
- Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
- Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
- Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
- Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.
The diagnosis includes what may be referred to as amoral, antisocial, psychopathic, and sociopathic personality (disorder).
The criteria specifically rule out conduct disorders.[SUP][5][/SUP] Dissocial personality disorder criteria differ from those for antisocial and sociopathic personality disorders.[SUP][6][/SUP]
this description fits your established perception of myself far better than psychopathy. it's not as catchy, and doesnt have that awesome Law and Order Special Victims Unit tie in, but accuracy is more important than punchy rhetoric when diagnosing others over the interwebs.
Point 3: snobbery generally refers to those who exhibit a pronounced attitude of social superiority, and exclude others based upon the perception of social inferiority, i have no such grandiose ideals. i am a farm laborer. not denizen of the salons and parlours of the cognoscenti. i hold no illusions that others are inferior to myself in social standing, breeding, wealth or taste. in fact i am a classic redneck, a member of the vulgar classes.
if understanding that certain persons are idiots makes one a snob against morons and dolts, then indeed, yes i must be a snob under those circumstances.
if accepting that savage uncivilized behavior is in fact NOT acceptable in polite society (eg: car bombs, machine gunning preschools, or crashing passenger planes into office towers) then all of the civilized world is snobbish to the extreme, and i am in good company.
when refusing to bow to the unreasonable demands of random leftists on the interwebs that one concede the debate on whether it is permissible or legal to fire missiles at terrorist and their sympathizers in a land with no civil authority, and under the control of militant terrorist factions is snobbery then again, i am in good company, and you are surrounded by the enemies of freedom,, liberty, and civil society on your side.
if holding fast to the position that terrorism and savagery are characterized by a preference for and love of deliberate attacks on civilian populations, random assaults on neighborhoods, and the targeted murder of innocent children, or other indiscriminate violence as the first last and only recourse in all disagreements, while civilized persons resort to violence as a final option, and deliberately try to avoid collateral damage and non-combatant casualties is snobbery then once again, i must be guilty, along with the rest of the civilized world.
Point 4: popularity is not my concern. i am not jan brady, and will never break down in tears or create some machiavellian scheme to curry the favour of others for any social status. thats just not how this hillbilly rolls. if popularity is so important to you, that would explain a lot.
canndo
Well-Known Member
All 5-4 decsions Doc?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
are you proposing that the court has been made up of the same 9 members since 1900? actually that would explain a lot...
the laws which were decided in these decisions, the cases which were the impetus for these decisions, and the tendency of the majority justices in these decisions tended to be of the progressive bent. the decisions themselves have been well favoured by the progressive movement, and the execution of these decisions in practice has been in a progressive manner.
note: i use the term progressive to represent the "Progressive" movement of leftist thought. not in any way to be confused with Progress, which is unrelated. much in the way the Democratic Party has very little to do with the political theory of democracy or democratic rule.
all of these rulings and decisions lead to an erosion of personal power, and an increase in power of groups organizations and entities which an individual citizen has no hope of influencing unless he happens to be a multi-billlionaire or a member of the bildebergers, the CFR, the trilateral commission, or the federal reserve board of trustees.
this concentration of power far from the hands of those who have a vote in our nation and states has served the interests of the "Progressive Movement" well until lately, but they now find themselves disenfranchised by the very entities they gave so much power. Suddenly the "Right Wing Looneys" who said the government was abandoning the constitution for global corporatocracy dont seem so crazy any more. of course they are still racist homophobic degenerates who want to drag us back into the 17th century with their bitter clinging to religion and guns...
our constitution has provisions for ammendment, these provisions are rarely used when making sweeping changes. intead its all "opinions" that are "legally binding" from faceless mandarins, or blatantly unconstitutional laws which never get struck down since nobody has srtanding to fight them in the courts. without a direct harm to you personally, no case can be filed, so no cases ever get heard over the failure to enforce our laws on the border, nor the failure to actually authorize a standing army of nearly a million, nor the constant erosion of civil rights thought small steps like the miranda decision (cant convict an illegal alien rapist on his confession, because he didnt know he didnt have to confess when he rapes in san francisco). or the claim that a roof vent means youre growing dope, and thus gives probable cause for operation greenmerchant midnight no-knock warrants. or the cliam by law enforcement agents that refusing a warrantless search is grounds for a warrant. need i continue?
canndo
Well-Known Member
Strange how you see it Doc. I can (and will if you want to get into it at length) demonstrate that the reverse is more often true, that it is the conservative activist court that has been eroding our personal rights and liberties while the progressives tend to discover new personal rights. In the particular, how can you manage to claim that the miranda decision is an erosion of civil rights? What is being taken and from whom? I believe you will see that in almost every instance the conservative faction of the court gives the benefit of the doubt to government and not the individual. How you believe that this strengthens individual rights is not evident to me.
I was not talking about 1900 but only about the Renquist and now the Roberts courts.
What we are talking about is findings that increase the power of the executive (while diminishing individual rights), dismantling the wall of separation between church and state, reducing the rights of criminal defendants, the general erosion of individual liberties and the points you are making about "standing". I think we will find that conservative activism is behind most of these things.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Doc you got pwned
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
miranda specifically eroded the ability of the police to question a subject, and has resulted in a huge upswing of mindless legalism trumping justice. miranda was an illegal alien who couldnt stop talking about how awesome it was to rape that girl. his lawyers played games, and the court simply accepted those games as fact. now the cops cant do shit if you blab i did it i did it before they can tell you to shut the fuck up. this opened the door for illegal aliens to claim the civil rights which were once the province of citizens and legal visitors and has resulted in numerous guilty bastards walking on newly created technicalities. nobody can even fathom the harm done by that stupid ruling, but the good it did was easy to establish. justice is now bound by the chains of legalism and the fetishistic cult of lawyers.
the 1968 gun ban was enacted as a direct response to the assassinations of jfk rfk, and mlk the law did not ban military surplus rifles, 22 revolvers or hunting rifles, the law banned machine guns, grenades and sawed off shotguns, none of which played a major role in crime since the 1930's. these assassinations were used as an excuse to broaden the powers of the government as a whole, by creating a new overarching commerce clause religion, where all things can be regulated controlled or banned by mommy fed.
im too angry to continue but there are numerous repercussions from all these sweeping changes to the constitution, and many of the changes can be ascribed to republicans or democrats, but the core of the issue is "Progressive" VS "Conservative" and in my book conservatives are always preferred. change, whether radical or incremental should be performed under the scrutiny and approval of the people, not in the shadowy halls of academia or the plush salons of the legal profession's private clubhouse.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i disagree.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Not really, I didn't prove my case - yet.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Perhaps we can talk about the rest when you are a bit less.... angry. What you have posted here in no way increases the power of the individual in comparison to the power of the state. This is contrary to what you claim. What happens here is as I said, SCOTUS insitutionalizes the benefit of doubt going to the defendant - rather than it going to the state. This is not my idea of an increase in personal liberty and I doubt it is yours.
For instance, SCOTUS (the activist right) has ruled that defending lawyers can be all but drunk while in the process of defending a man standing trial for murder (I am not so certain of the particulars of this at the SOTUS level). The concept of the right to Assistance of counel being nearly nullified. A bit LESS power to the individual, a bit more to the state. The laws governing exculpatory evidence and requirements of the state to divulge such evidence have been weakened by those same rightist activists - less power to the individual, more to the state. The rights of the individual to remain silent has been partialy nulified - SCOTUS rendered a descision that says that the suspect must state that he does not intend to speak and unless he does, he can be legaly harassed. Rules surrounding ill gotten evidence have been made lax as well. What happens in this case is that law enforcement need not be particularly lawful in their gathering of evidence because they may not risk that evidence being thrown out. Again, less "power" for the individual, more to the state. Habeus corpus law has also been whittled away, giving the individual even less ability to stand against the Federal government. Some constitutional violations can no longer be raised on habeus corpus at all. This is a reversal of findings of the Warren Court, again, less power to the individual, more to the state, furthered by the right leaning activists. 1989 5-4 "no right to councel for habeas pettitions.
Now you could argue somehow that justice served enhances individual rights, but not if that justice is served by having the state's case bolstered while the defendent's case is weakened by rightis SCOTUS rulings favoring the government.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
when those guilty of crimes particularly violent crimes and theft go free on a technicality, all of society suffers when DA's plea bargain violent criminals down to misdemeanors or infractions all of society suffers, in the case of a one R%ichard Alan Davis, one particular young girls suffered most.
Davis was arrested for kidnapping a woman, raping her repeatedly, beating her, forcing her to empty he bank account at knife point through the ATM, locking her in the trunk of his car, and the police belied he fully intended to murder her as he had stated to his cellmate before he was relased on parole, just a few months before.
a multiple convicted felon who stated that he would leave no witnesses next time was released on parole, when arrested and charged with multiple serious violent felonies and zero doubt as to his guilt on these charges,, the judge released him without even a bond. needless to say his next victim was not so luicky, plus she was only 12. nice job liberal legal system. nice job. this kind of weak kneed sissy legal system is geared towards ensuring lawyers get fat paychecks and comfy retirement packages, not justice. with no justice in our society, nobody gets a fair shake. every homeowner must defend his own property against the criminal element which every year becomes bolder due to the failure of the legal system to pursue justice.
you may point out the procedural maneuvers and picayune details of your personal favorite "right wing" rulings, but the pattern of behavior from the "progressives" is to reduce justice, increase crime and punish those who defend themselves.
gun control measures (always a popular progressive/liberal whipping boy) do not reduce criminal use of weapons, they always have and always will increase criminal activity, by helping to ensure criminals of a safer workplace. gun restrictions only assist criminals, because, and this might be a shock to you, criminals do not obey laws. it's in their job description. if they start obeying laws on gun control they could lose their union seniority. and the leftists give the advantage to criminals
resistance to tort law reform is another area where the left stands boldly forward and declares it's dedication to the status quo. in california a burglar can and has sued a home owner fro his injuries when he stepped on a loose roller skate, and he won... it's an unsafe workplace. and once again the left gives the advantage to criminals
when an illegal alien commits a crime in san francisco the city does NOT allow immigration officials to deport him, they protect him from deportation through their "sanctuary city" program. even violent felons and one murderer have been protected from the INS/ICE by san francisco's liberal elite another leftist advantage to the criminal
In the united states any time you are facing a potential fine of $25 or more you have the constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury. if you demand said jury you will be informed by the "judge" (administrative law clerk) that the fine is only $25 the remaining amount is in administrative costs, and "Use Fees" you in reality can only claim a jury trial in civil suits or criminal trials. in "infraction" trials you face a mindless worker bee clerk who wears a black robe and demands you call him a judge (but he is not) before he summarily demands you pay the fees and shut the fuck up and the progressives win another battle against our wicked constitution.
the controlled substances act was pushed through and empaneled by "progressive" politicians to ensure federal control over all drugs medications and other such things. this mindless bureaucracy is only interested in prohibiting weed speed and coke, but they totally approve of pimple creams that cause lymphatic cancer (no joke) arthritis pills that cause cerebral hemorrhages (really) and heart pills that cause heart attacks (???) since it's inception the controlled substances act has been dedicated to reducing the rights powers and freedoms of the people and the states by transferring new authority to the federal government under the protective blanket of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Hooray Progressive Change at Any Cost!
the miranda case in specific did NOT increase the powers or rights of citizens or even illegal aliens except to presume that illegal aliens have constitutionally protected rights (which was new since the constitution was drafted for US citizens, not mexicans sneaking across the border with rape on their minds) it further eroded the right of the rape victim to expect the cops to actually be able to charge the perpetrator with the crime he admitted with no coercion. the cops couldnt get this asshole to shut up about his crime. it further eroded the ability of the courts to prosecute anyone who might not speak english sufficiently to understand his right to shut the fuck up. we are not talking about having a doobie in his pocket, he committed violent rape. and he walked. this degrades respect for the law, as a law that cannot be enforced is merely a suggestion. many persons who would never have considered engaging in a crime (like myself) find ourselves at odds with the legal system over trivial matters of legalism, not justice. thats the difference i am talking about. growing a single pot plant can land you in prison longer than forcible rape. Progressive legalism defeats justice again
many on the left argue that citizens united is a victory for the right wing, but it's not. the powers granted to "corporations" are extended to all political action committee, unions, pressure groups, charitable organizations etc etc etc, not just corporations like haliburton or rupert murdoch's media empire. let us not forget the intimate relationship between obama and GE. thge progressive movement created this monster with their endless tinkering with corporate law, and their assertion in the 19th century that a corporation was a person, with all the rights of a natural person. citizens united was just their own creation turning on them in it's rage and pain when the villagers waved their torches in it's face. shortsighted progressives do it again.
let us not forget the many progressives who rallied to the cause of the federal reserve act, and the foolish passage by a congress controlled by progressive democrats, and its signing by a progressive democrat president, only to see when the masks came off that the act was drafted by the very same rich assholes who it was alleged to fight. the act itself defies the constitution, and transfers power from the congress and the states to an extragovernmental authority with no basis in constitutional law. proof that progressives never learn.
where in the US constitution can one find the power of the Bar Association to decide who may or may not practice law or become a judge? answer, NOWHERE! this authority is crafted from whole cloth by the trade guild of lawyers called the Bar Association. only 3 states even feature a Bar in their state constitutions. this unaccountable unconstitutional unelected unscrupulous trade union of the LEAST TRUSTWORTHY BASTARDS ON THE PLANET that is to say, LAWYERS has given itself the power to decide who can and cannot practice law, or become a judge. amazing how these things slowly creep up on you isnt it. how did this happen? progressive "scholars" created this organization and unionized the lawyers to advance their agenda. Thanks Progressives. i guess unions werent corrupt enough by themselves...
Davis was arrested for kidnapping a woman, raping her repeatedly, beating her, forcing her to empty he bank account at knife point through the ATM, locking her in the trunk of his car, and the police belied he fully intended to murder her as he had stated to his cellmate before he was relased on parole, just a few months before.
a multiple convicted felon who stated that he would leave no witnesses next time was released on parole, when arrested and charged with multiple serious violent felonies and zero doubt as to his guilt on these charges,, the judge released him without even a bond. needless to say his next victim was not so luicky, plus she was only 12. nice job liberal legal system. nice job. this kind of weak kneed sissy legal system is geared towards ensuring lawyers get fat paychecks and comfy retirement packages, not justice. with no justice in our society, nobody gets a fair shake. every homeowner must defend his own property against the criminal element which every year becomes bolder due to the failure of the legal system to pursue justice.
you may point out the procedural maneuvers and picayune details of your personal favorite "right wing" rulings, but the pattern of behavior from the "progressives" is to reduce justice, increase crime and punish those who defend themselves.
gun control measures (always a popular progressive/liberal whipping boy) do not reduce criminal use of weapons, they always have and always will increase criminal activity, by helping to ensure criminals of a safer workplace. gun restrictions only assist criminals, because, and this might be a shock to you, criminals do not obey laws. it's in their job description. if they start obeying laws on gun control they could lose their union seniority. and the leftists give the advantage to criminals
resistance to tort law reform is another area where the left stands boldly forward and declares it's dedication to the status quo. in california a burglar can and has sued a home owner fro his injuries when he stepped on a loose roller skate, and he won... it's an unsafe workplace. and once again the left gives the advantage to criminals
when an illegal alien commits a crime in san francisco the city does NOT allow immigration officials to deport him, they protect him from deportation through their "sanctuary city" program. even violent felons and one murderer have been protected from the INS/ICE by san francisco's liberal elite another leftist advantage to the criminal
In the united states any time you are facing a potential fine of $25 or more you have the constitutionally protected right to a trial by jury. if you demand said jury you will be informed by the "judge" (administrative law clerk) that the fine is only $25 the remaining amount is in administrative costs, and "Use Fees" you in reality can only claim a jury trial in civil suits or criminal trials. in "infraction" trials you face a mindless worker bee clerk who wears a black robe and demands you call him a judge (but he is not) before he summarily demands you pay the fees and shut the fuck up and the progressives win another battle against our wicked constitution.
the controlled substances act was pushed through and empaneled by "progressive" politicians to ensure federal control over all drugs medications and other such things. this mindless bureaucracy is only interested in prohibiting weed speed and coke, but they totally approve of pimple creams that cause lymphatic cancer (no joke) arthritis pills that cause cerebral hemorrhages (really) and heart pills that cause heart attacks (???) since it's inception the controlled substances act has been dedicated to reducing the rights powers and freedoms of the people and the states by transferring new authority to the federal government under the protective blanket of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause. Hooray Progressive Change at Any Cost!
the miranda case in specific did NOT increase the powers or rights of citizens or even illegal aliens except to presume that illegal aliens have constitutionally protected rights (which was new since the constitution was drafted for US citizens, not mexicans sneaking across the border with rape on their minds) it further eroded the right of the rape victim to expect the cops to actually be able to charge the perpetrator with the crime he admitted with no coercion. the cops couldnt get this asshole to shut up about his crime. it further eroded the ability of the courts to prosecute anyone who might not speak english sufficiently to understand his right to shut the fuck up. we are not talking about having a doobie in his pocket, he committed violent rape. and he walked. this degrades respect for the law, as a law that cannot be enforced is merely a suggestion. many persons who would never have considered engaging in a crime (like myself) find ourselves at odds with the legal system over trivial matters of legalism, not justice. thats the difference i am talking about. growing a single pot plant can land you in prison longer than forcible rape. Progressive legalism defeats justice again
many on the left argue that citizens united is a victory for the right wing, but it's not. the powers granted to "corporations" are extended to all political action committee, unions, pressure groups, charitable organizations etc etc etc, not just corporations like haliburton or rupert murdoch's media empire. let us not forget the intimate relationship between obama and GE. thge progressive movement created this monster with their endless tinkering with corporate law, and their assertion in the 19th century that a corporation was a person, with all the rights of a natural person. citizens united was just their own creation turning on them in it's rage and pain when the villagers waved their torches in it's face. shortsighted progressives do it again.
let us not forget the many progressives who rallied to the cause of the federal reserve act, and the foolish passage by a congress controlled by progressive democrats, and its signing by a progressive democrat president, only to see when the masks came off that the act was drafted by the very same rich assholes who it was alleged to fight. the act itself defies the constitution, and transfers power from the congress and the states to an extragovernmental authority with no basis in constitutional law. proof that progressives never learn.
where in the US constitution can one find the power of the Bar Association to decide who may or may not practice law or become a judge? answer, NOWHERE! this authority is crafted from whole cloth by the trade guild of lawyers called the Bar Association. only 3 states even feature a Bar in their state constitutions. this unaccountable unconstitutional unelected unscrupulous trade union of the LEAST TRUSTWORTHY BASTARDS ON THE PLANET that is to say, LAWYERS has given itself the power to decide who can and cannot practice law, or become a judge. amazing how these things slowly creep up on you isnt it. how did this happen? progressive "scholars" created this organization and unionized the lawyers to advance their agenda. Thanks Progressives. i guess unions werent corrupt enough by themselves...
canndo
Well-Known Member
You are straying from your original point. That conservatives tend to award more power to the individual, yet your examples talk of "justice", as though justice is a direct advantage to the individual citizen. It is not. Further, you discount judicial proceedure as carrying little weight when it goes to the heart of this debate. Namely, the Right and their judicial activists never saw a governmental power they didn't like, and didn't like more than any citizen's right that was endangered by that power.
What you are doing is claiming that all accused are criminals, and criminals don't deserve rights therefore, and your logic escapes me here - the people have cultivated more power from those incidences. Frankly, your response is far too long for me to be willing to respond on a point by point basis so I won't attempt it here but the one about Citizens United is glaring.
You claim that Citizens United is a "fair" ruling because it spreads the power of the dollar as vote evenly across corporations, unions and civil organizations. What you don't seem to point out is that Unions are a very tiny portion of the monied pie. Something less than 17 percent of all employees are members of unions. Now all the rest of the employees - read individual citizens - are left on their own, having the power of their own wallets alone to counter the interest and wealth of corporations. You claimed early on that conservatives are interested in the rights of the individuals yet have failed to show how that interest plays out, speaking rather of how the left reduces justice, increases crime and inhibits the individual from protecting themselves. Now I will grant you that the last item is a right, and a right due the individual, but the other things are not.
You have failed to make your case - and we so far have only spoken of one segment of SCOTUS rulings.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
when you use the word conservative i presume you mean republicans. actual conservatives resist change until you prove to their satisfaction that the change is lawful constitutional, and needed.
progressives and liberals demand change regardless of reason legality or constitutionality. change for change's sake. this is how we got into the current mess
i made no assertion regarding the citizens united ruling's "fairness" only it's equitability and lack of discrimination in how we get fucked. unions may be a smaller organization than corporations but unions have far fewer responsibilities and liabilities on their money. if a corporation donates to a cause, those donations can only come from their monies allocated for lobbying, not the investors dividends, company assets or other financial assets of the company. unions on the other hand can drop their entire war-chest into a campaign with no concern for the future, after all, the members will be paying their dues next month too... the unions also draft their goon squads to engage in electioneering, set up phone bank boiler rooms, host fundraisers with union funds, hold rallys in union halls, campaign among their members, and even pay their out of work members to attend functions as seat fillers. the end result is unions giving more money and "value" to one party each election than both parties receive from corporations combined. you personal affection for unions is obvious, and quite understandable. i used to hold unions in high regard too,, until i saw the sausage being made with their shady back room deals strongarm tactics, public shunning of anyone with a differing opinion, blatant criminal activity, and corrupt election systems. the bloom is off the rose, and i will never work for a union again.
the union argument is non-sequitor, as citizens united makes no distinction between the Teamsters Union, the World Wildlife Fund or Wackenhut Security. what the supreme court did do with citizens united is further empower non-human organizations with rights powers and privileges far beyond those of mortal men. originally corporations were intended to be associations of persons and their capital for a single express purpose ("making more money" was not a purpose) such as constructing a bridge, purchasing a ship and cargo for transportation to distant ports, establishment of a manufacturing facility etc. corporations were originally prohibited from being part of, or owning other corporations, or engaging in business not directly related to their express purpose stated in their charter. over time these rules and regulations have been relaxed to allow unions to incorporate, to allow unions to absorb other unions, to allow companies and political pressure groups to spread their influence, to allow corporations to stand alone with no oversight from the states(commerce clause allows only feds to regulate interstate commerce), and no oversight from the federal government either (commerce clause does not REQUIRE the feds to regulate shit, including the borders) as long as corporations keep filling the campaign coffers, and keep paying taxes they always have a about 435 friends the house of representatives and about 99 more in the senate. this ensures an abundance of money to influence elections and bribe congressmen, which further ensurees a wide variety of kickbacks, special tax breaks, and absolutely no real oversight in the corporate world. the progressives loved this when they thought the rules favored their agenda, but when profit, rather than ideology becomes the goal suddenly corporations are evil...
citizens united is not a "republican" or "conservative" ruling, it is just another step on the non-partisan "progressive" ladder. do not be fooled into thinking "progressive" is the sole dominion of leftism, liberalism, marxism or any of the other isms that pepper the political landscape. progressivism is a long term movement to expand the powers of government at the expense of the individual, eroding our personal sovereignty for the presumed benefits of collective advancement.
anything which erodes the power of the person and the states under our constitution is change, this change should be fought examined and resisted by "conservatives" but most of those you call conservatives are just progressives with a slightly different angle on their attack. our constitution has provisions for modification and amendment why are they not used? because these provisions require the consent of the states and the people, which they would never be able to get. this is why the supreme court took upon itself the power to rule on constitutionality.
i do not claim all accused are criminals, but actual guilty criminals are regularly plea bargained, released without bond or with minimal bond, only to offend again, and it's not the judges and lawyers who suffer their predations. why are murderers theives and rapists sentenced to less time that a guy with 1 pot plant in his closet? because the legal system rejects justice in favor of legalism.
i dont want to go all Plato in this bitch, but if there is no justice in the self , there can be no justice in the society, and vice versa. with no internal drive for justice in the individual, that having been beaten out of us by nearly a century of the little guy getting kicked in the balls by government overreach or corporate/state/municipal greed and corruption, we all just reach for anything we can grab when the opportunity presents itself. that is the basis for this entire forum,, disregard of federal and state laws which are unjust for personal pleasure, profit or medication. our legal system has become the single largest source of injustice in the nation and it's all happened without any actual changes to the constitution. the only real amendments passed since the 1900's are the 19th and 26th amendments the rest are all unconstitutional(16th and 17th), unratified(16th) or useless twaddle. (all the rest)
all the changes to our system besides the income tax, popular election of senators, womens sufferage and reducing the voting age 18 have been performed not by the constitutional means but by fiat from the courts,, or with a wink and a nudge from congress.
the constitution specifically allows the establishment of a navy and coast guard, and congress created the marine corps as a subsidiary force for the navy which has strict limits on it's size. specifically and deliberately NOT included was a standing army and yet...
canndo
Well-Known Member
The Citizens United Decision was 5-4 along ideological lines. Citizens United, no matter how you couch it, deprives the individual of equal standing and preloads elections in favor of organizations with money. The majority of those organizations have specific interests and those interests are rarely the same as those of the individual. Now, you seem to have discounted what you called proceedural issues which in fact also weight the balance between the individual and government toward government and away from the individual. So far, you cannot seem to demonstrate how those sorts of things enhance the power or rights of the individual. In short, the conservative faction of the court almost without exception finds for government power and against the individual.
"what the supreme court did do with citizens united is further empower non-human organizations with rights powers and privileges far beyond those of mortal men." - your statement, and it goes toward my argument, that the Conservative faction of SCOTUS goes to great lengths to find against the individual.
Now, even when the court majority does not find in favor extended governmental power, you will see that the most conservative block will almost always file dessents that argue - again - for more power to be granted to the Fed. The case of Rasul V. Bush is an example where Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas argued that the individual is not entitled to habeus corpus. Boumedine V, Bush held that the Military Commissions Act was unconstitutional where Anthony provided the swing vote to the more liberal justices - as before, the conservative justices claimed that lending more power by way of those commissions to the Executive was in some way a good thing. No one can argue that such an act would lend more power or rights to the individual.
Now, we see that the rightist factions agree that the executive has the right to detain individuals without hearing. It has the right to eavesdrop and even torture and beyond that, Bush claimed that the court doesn't even have the right to review it's actions.
What you seem to be saying still is that these actions or ideas are somehow empowering to the individual.
AS to your argument that limitations in standing degrades the power of the individual, a review of an ACLU suit intended to have warrantless wiretapping declared illegal was reversed in the Sixth circuit, saing that the plaintiffs lacked standing - why? because they could not show that their conversations - held secret by the NSA had been illegally intercepted. SCOTUS denied cert but you can see how this lack of standing inhibits the power of the individual and enhnces the power of the state. Time and time again in a host of different cases we find the conservative portion of SCOTUS ruling against the individual, against individual rights with regard to government and/or for enhanced powers for government.
No, Conservatives do not defend the individual and by failing to do so, they do not reinforce the rights of the individual.
"what the supreme court did do with citizens united is further empower non-human organizations with rights powers and privileges far beyond those of mortal men." - your statement, and it goes toward my argument, that the Conservative faction of SCOTUS goes to great lengths to find against the individual.
Now, even when the court majority does not find in favor extended governmental power, you will see that the most conservative block will almost always file dessents that argue - again - for more power to be granted to the Fed. The case of Rasul V. Bush is an example where Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas argued that the individual is not entitled to habeus corpus. Boumedine V, Bush held that the Military Commissions Act was unconstitutional where Anthony provided the swing vote to the more liberal justices - as before, the conservative justices claimed that lending more power by way of those commissions to the Executive was in some way a good thing. No one can argue that such an act would lend more power or rights to the individual.
Now, we see that the rightist factions agree that the executive has the right to detain individuals without hearing. It has the right to eavesdrop and even torture and beyond that, Bush claimed that the court doesn't even have the right to review it's actions.
What you seem to be saying still is that these actions or ideas are somehow empowering to the individual.
AS to your argument that limitations in standing degrades the power of the individual, a review of an ACLU suit intended to have warrantless wiretapping declared illegal was reversed in the Sixth circuit, saing that the plaintiffs lacked standing - why? because they could not show that their conversations - held secret by the NSA had been illegally intercepted. SCOTUS denied cert but you can see how this lack of standing inhibits the power of the individual and enhnces the power of the state. Time and time again in a host of different cases we find the conservative portion of SCOTUS ruling against the individual, against individual rights with regard to government and/or for enhanced powers for government.
No, Conservatives do not defend the individual and by failing to do so, they do not reinforce the rights of the individual.
canndo
Well-Known Member
BTW - I don't hold unions in high regard but I see the need for some form of amplification of the individual in relation to the corporation. I believe you mentioned tort reform in one of your posts - claiming I belive that such reform would add to the power of the individual. That is unlikely, as what tort reform does is further remove the individual's ability to have his greivances dealt with. That Conservative justices work to limit the individual's day in court, that they work to increase the legitimate use of arbitration with the bias and tilted results of such arbitration further goes to show that Conservatives do not wish upon us our full individual rights in this country.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I disagree with almost everything you say
But you can really debate
Kudos to you and canndo
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i believe we are suffering from a semantic disagreement.
my contention is that real conservatism is based on resistance to change, in the constitution's interpretation, text and implementation, while the progressives seek to accelerate that change, often quite recklessly.
i do not believe scalia robert or thomas are terribly conservative, nor that ginsburg and sotamyeur et al are wholly progressive.
i firml;y support the correct and literal interpretation in roe v wade that communication between you and your doctor, and whatever treatment you decide upon is your fucking business, not anybody elses.
i adamantly disagree with their acceptance of drug prohibition, restrictions on agricultural activity, private commerce within the borders of a state, the state's right to enact and prosecute their own laws (within the bounds of the constitution) and the right of a state to prohibit or allow such commerce agriculture and consumption of substances by private citizens whether they confer with a physician or not. (short form: get your laws off my cannabis patch)
thus we have a distinction drawn not by party lines or ideology but by actions either in support of change to the fundamental precepts of our constitution or in opposition to such change.
Real conservatives say "Prove to me why we should change", while progressives say "Prove to me why we should not".