''Federal judges are appointed by people elected by popular vote.'' NO the rump lost the popular vote by 3 million still got to pack the court with nut con fools sorry but that did just happen
and 95% of the rump picks were nuts who will be a threat for years to come and WILL NEED NULLIFICATION OFTEN IN THE FUTURE
The only person in the process of installing Federal judges that is not elected by the popular vote is the President. The President is elected by the Electoral College. The Federal judges are nominated by the President and then interviewed and voted on by Senators of both parties. Senators are elected by popular vote.
Welcome to a Republic, where the rights of the minority are protected from the mob rule of a democracy.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: And you got it... "And the impacts on the insurance industry, which would otherwise have to cover the damages..."
But more apropos, you should be saying, the "insurance lobby." Almost every requirement within CFR 49 Statute 571 was put there as a result of the insurance lobby. This isn't a left/right thing... obviously, so no one should take it as such,
Yep.
I predict phones will soon be "required" to disable the keypad when moving faster than 15 MPH. Pretty simple technology.
How old is your dad? He's probably younger than I am! Being "old-school" is no excuse. No disrespect to your dad, but it's because of people like him that seat belt laws needed to be implemented. It's the same issue with people using their damn cell phones while they're driving. Anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that this is dangerous behavior and not do it... yet cell phone laws have had to be enacted to try and stop this idiocy from occurring.
Careful Patrick... don't be dissing my dad. He's definitely older than you by probably 15-20 years.
This should give you an indication of how old he is... he was born in a shed during the NAZI occupation of the Netherlands, just before the Canadians came in and saved them.
Seat belts were less common in Europe, and when he moved to the United States in 1963, he shared a used VW Beetle with his two roommates... and that Volkswagen (a late-50s VW) did not have them. His first Volvo (which was used) only had lap belts, and it wasn't normal for him to wear them. It's just what it is. He does put it on, but only after the car beeps at him enough times for him to realize that he needs to put it on.
He has to put on his special reading glasses just to see the screen, so I can assure you, he does not use his cell phone in his car either.
I predict phones will soon be "required" to disable the keypad when moving faster than 15 MPH.
That would suck for those in the car not driving who wish to use their cell phones. I believe that education, and damn stiff fines (and/or driving prohibitions), will have to suffice for now.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 08-10-2023).]
Careful Patrick... don't be dissing my dad. He's definitely older than you by probably 15-20 years.
This should give you an indication of how old he is... he was born in a shed during the NAZI occupation of the Netherlands, just before the Canadians came in and saved them.
I was born in 1955. Sounds like your dad is ten years older than me. That's not a lot!
Okay, I'll now use my own parents as an example. They were born in 1919 and 1920. Their first car was a '55 Chev bought in 1960. No seat belts. They then bought a brand new '67 Chev. It had seat belts. I remember driving back from the dealership in it. We all wore our seat belts... and that continued every time any of us got in that car.
Sorry, but being "old-school" is a bogus excuse for not wearing seat belts. Tell your dad to smarten up!
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 08-10-2023).]
I never wore them before 89. Then I rolled a 78 Pontiac Acadian down an embankment (blew the F.L. tire on a descending curve) and used my forehead to drive the rear-view mirror thru the windshield at the passenger a-pillar.
Kinda found out they might be a good idea.
Hasnt changed my stance on motorcycle helmets, though.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-10-2023).]
Hasnt changed my stance on motorcycle helmets, though.
I've only ever played recreational hockey, but when I started in the 70's (didn't play when I was a kid), I never wore a hockey helmet. It wasn't until I went to a summer hockey "school" that mandated helmets (or you didn't get on the ice) that I started wearing one. Now, a hundred years later (yes, I'm still playing), I wouldn't try playing hockey without a helmet. The boards and the ice are hard. I don't want my noggin scrambled in a fall.
So yeah, even a "leftist" like me had to be forced to initially wear a helmet... and then common sense prevailed to where it's now my decision to do so.
That would suck for those in the car not driving who wish to use their cell phones. I believe that education, and damn stiff fines (and/or driving prohibitions), will have to suffice for now.
Welcome to a Republic, where the rights of the minority are protected from the mob rule of a democracy.
I've seen variations of this posted here numerous times, as if it somehow clarifies what the benefit of minority rule is.
The only people benefiting from minority rule are those who currently find themselves in a favorable societal position which can only be maintained through unfair representation in governmental affairs. So sure, I understand why these particular people would strive to maintain the status quo... but let's not pretend this is equatable for all. To suggest that the rights of a few have more weight than the rights of the many is... is... let me introduce you to the "royal" families of Europe. I thought Americans wished to distance themselves from this nonsense.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 08-11-2023).]
I've seen variations of this posted here numerous times, as if it somehow clarifies what the benefit of minority rule is.
The only people benefiting from minority rule are those who currently find themselves in a favorable societal position which can only be maintained through unfair representation in governmental affairs. So sure, I understand why these particular people would strive to maintain the status quo... but let's not pretend this is equatable for all. To suggest that the rights of a few have more weight than the rights of the many is... is... let me introduce you to the "royal" families of Europe. I thought Americans wished to distance themselves from this nonsense.
I think you're looking at it wrong. In the United States, the point of the government is not to take care of the people. It's to do the absolute minimum and stay out of the way. That's essentially what the point of our government is. The "Republic" is to ensure that the MINORITY of states, cannot impose their will on the MAJORITY of states. Does this make sense? If 40 states believe abortion is wrong, but 10 states believe it's right... well, those 10 states cannot force those other 40 to allow it. Thus, you have what we have now... which is where the states decide independently.
You are certainly welcome to believe in any form of government you want, but this is the government that WE have chosen, and it's been pretty successful. And with you poking a judgemental finger at my dad, and disparaging my favorite Constitution, I will remind you that 90% of Canada's population sits within 100 miles of the border of the United States. So we definitely did something right.
I've seen variations of this posted here numerous times, as if it somehow clarifies what the benefit of minority rule is.
The only people benefiting from minority rule are those who currently find themselves in a favorable societal position which can only be maintained through unfair representation in governmental affairs. So sure, I understand why these particular people would strive to maintain the status quo... but let's not pretend this is equatable for all. To suggest that the rights of a few have more weight than the rights of the many is... is... let me introduce you to the "royal" families of Europe. I thought Americans wished to distance themselves from this nonsense.
Your looking at the whole concept wrong.
The rights of the few (free speech, thought, belief, self-defence, ect) are PROTECTED FROM the many. It's what stop us from becoming a theocracy or califate. Hasnt worked so well at defending us from becoming a leftist-marxist sheethole, though.
Personally, I have no use for "democracy" or "democratic society" as a system whatsoever. It works fine up to the family/small group with common interests level and after that it falls apart.
Opppssss, alomst forgot the obligatory...
Fuk ya and fuk yer vote. And fuk Trudeau too !
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-11-2023).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I think you're looking at it wrong. In the United States, the point of the government is not to take care of the people. It's to do the absolute minimum and stay out of the way..
If the government is not here to take care of the people then who does it serve?
Your vague, subjective definitions are meaningless. You are just parroting speaking points fed to you by right-wing media. For example many people agree with what you say, but they define "absolute minimum" much differently.
Originally posted by fredtoast: If the government is not here to take care of the people then who does it serve?
Your vague, subjective definitions are meaningless. You are just parroting speaking points fed to you by right-wing media. For example many people agree with what you say, but they define "absolute minimum" much differently.
"The Government" (all of them) these days are much like a mugger with a heart.
After he stabs and robs you, he offers a bandage for the wound.......and somehow you are supposed to be grateful for the bandage.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I think you're looking at it wrong. In the United States, the point of the government is not to take care of the people. It's to do the absolute minimum and stay out of the way. That's essentially what the point of our government is. The "Republic" is to ensure that the MINORITY of states, cannot impose their will on the MAJORITY of states. Does this make sense? If 40 states believe abortion is wrong, but 10 states believe it's right... well, those 10 states cannot force those other 40 to allow it. Thus, you have what we have now... which is where the states decide independently.
You are certainly welcome to believe in any form of government you want, but this is the government that WE have chosen, and it's been pretty successful. And with you poking a judgemental finger at my dad, and disparaging my favorite Constitution, I will remind you that 90% of Canada's population sits within 100 miles of the border of the United States. So we definitely did something right.
EXACTLY HOW HAITI ''WORKS'' OR MANY COUNTRY'S IN AFRICA STEAL ALL YOU CAN NO GOV TO CARE
"The Government" (all of them) these days are much like a mugger with a heart.
After he stabs and robs you, he offers a bandage for the wound.......and somehow you are supposed to be grateful for the bandage.
HUH ?
History and facts prove that you are wrong.
Without government protection individuals and the environment were exploited and subjugated by corporate powers. The government is the only protection we have from the corporate "muggers".
What, I'm not allowed to politely express an opinion on the American constitution in the political section of this forum?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
I will remind you that 90% of Canada's population sits within 100 miles of the border of the United States. So we definitely did something right.
You trying to take credit now for setting the climate? What makes more sense... the majority of Canadians living within 100 miles of our southern border... or inhabiting the arctic regions in the north?
Todd, I think you need a break from the forum. It appears to me that fredtoast has gotten into your head, and you're not handling it well.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fredtoast: If the government is not here to take care of the people then who does it serve?
Tell me that this is sarcasm…. I do not want the guy to “take care of” me. They did such a wonderful job with the covid **** show….right ? Yeah, they took care of people….the way the mob does.
Originally posted by PhatMax: I’m convinced now that Fred is a plant on this forum to stir up crap….
"Planted" by whom or what..? And for what purpose?
It's beyond my imagination that any Democratic Party-aligned organization or office—I say "Democratic Party," just because I am trying to get my head around what PhatMax seems to be saying—would have any awareness of Pennock's Fiero Forum.
So I can't imagine a rational motivation for anyone or any group to put forward even the small amount of effort to create a "plant" on this forum.
You trying to take credit now for setting the climate? What makes more sense... the majority of Canadians living within 100 miles of our southern border... or inhabiting the arctic regions in the north?
Todd, I think you need a break from the forum. It appears to me that fredtoast has gotten into your head, and you're not handling it well.
Patrick... I think you took all of that too seriously. If I was mad, there would be a lot more caps.
But even with all the years of terrorizing people as my dad drove callously endangering the planet by not wearing his seat belt for the first couple of minutes of every drive... he certainly didn't skip a beat. And if he needs to "smarten up," then I can only imagine what else he could have accomplished when he was in his prime.
But even with all the years of terrorizing people as my dad drove callously endangering the planet by not wearing his seat belt for the first couple of minutes of every drive... he certainly didn't skip a beat.
Are you now telling me that your dad buckled up while driving? I'm alerting the FBI...
Originally posted by fredtoast: If the government is not here to take care of the people then who does it serve?
Your vague, subjective definitions are meaningless. You are just parroting speaking points fed to you by right-wing media. For example many people agree with what you say, but they define "absolute minimum" much differently.
It serves the people by ensuring their freedoms, and keeping the interstate commerce on a level playing field, and protecting the people from enemies, foreign and domestic.
It is NOT here to feed the poor, give away cellphones and clean needles, run elections and have career politicians, although it has devolved into that.
Speaking for myself, I am disgusted with your rehashing of failed Liberal talking points and your general air of smugness and superiority that comes across in your postings on this Forum.
Originally posted by fredtoast: History and facts prove that you are wrong.
Without government protection individuals and the environment were exploited and subjugated by corporate powers. The government is the only protection we have from the corporate "muggers".
Actually, the system you are describing is EXACTLY what we have now.
It's called "vax culture" and "cancel culture" and "pride culture"....or simply WOKE.
The people are getting it up the azz from BOTH the leftist goobermint AND the leftist corporations.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 08-12-2023).]
Originally posted by fredtoast: If the government is not here to take care of the people then who does it serve?
[82-T/A's] vague, subjective definitions are meaningless. [82-T/A is] just parroting speaking points fed to [him] by right-wing media. For example many people agree with what [82-T/A has said], but they define "absolute minimum" much differently [than does 82-T/A.]
"The devil is in the details."
In other words, ideological discourse is more often than not a meaningless expression, unless it's connected to specific, real world circumstances or "cases."
This forum is littered with countless, illustrative examples of untethered and pointless ideological expressions that are nothing more than sentiment. Mostly, it comes from the very same forum members who are constantly harping on their "Big Lie" that any liberal or progressive idea comes from sentiment—never from reason. (Consider the distinction that's possible between "any liberal or progressive idea," versus "any idea that strikes them as liberal or progressive.")
Forum member 82-T/A [At Work] is not among the first to come to my mind when I think about these "Big Lie" forum members.
Here's one of the most current examples:
quote
Leftists cannot differentiate their feelings from rational, critical, objective, thinking. A Leftist's emotions supplant deliberative thought. The stronger the emotion, the "deeper" they imagine that they are "thinking".
Those are the words of one of the "Big Lie" forum members, in another thread that's been recently active in this same Politics & Religion subforum. (It's not a thread that I would be excluded from entering, by the perhaps not so well known Thread Exclusion table, which consists of a set of unordered pairs of particular forum members.)
That is a literally jaw-dropping example of what an unthinking, "maxed out" blowhard is like when they go off on one of their pointless, ideological screeds—especially for anyone who is familiar with that particular forum member's "body of work", in which "leftist" or any of its variants refers to at least half of the entire post-adolescent population of the United States, by any reasonable measure.
It's a sad thing to witness, but I'm glad to say that I don't expect that to be the future.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-12-2023).]
Those are the words of one of the "Big Lie" forum members, in another thread that's been recently active in this same Politics & Religion subforum. (It's not a thread that I would be excluded from entering, by the perhaps not so well known Thread Exclusion table, which consists of a set of unordered pairs of particular forum members.)
That is a literally jaw-dropping example of what an unthinking, "maxed out" blowhard is like when they go off on one of their pointless, ideological screeds—especially for anyone who is familiar with that particular forum member's "body of work", in which "leftist" or any of its variants refers to at least half of the entire post-adolescent population of the United States, by any reasonable measure.
It's a sad thing to witness, but I'm glad to say that I don't expect that to be the future.
This Forum also has members that post long screeds that say nothing of any meaning to those that spend their time reading them.
Brevity in writing is an art form in the communication world. If one can get their message point across with few words, the reader appreciates the time savings.
Brevity in writing is an art form in the communication world. If one can get their message point across with few words, the reader appreciates the time savings.
Originally posted by olejoedad: This Forum also has members that post long screeds that say nothing of any meaning to those that spend their time reading them.
Brevity in writing is an art form in the communication world. If one can get their message point across with few words, the reader appreciates the time savings.
The "short form" of what I just posted would likely get me booted from the forum.
I put the Read-o-Meter on my own post, and it says "1 minute and 45 seconds."
Too few words makes for a text that is cryptic and difficult to parse.
I gave it my best shot, at making it readable and inviting. It took way longer than "1 minute and 45 seconds" for me to work that into its final form.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-12-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: Forum member 82-T/A [At Work] is not among the first to come to my mind when I think about these "Big Lie" forum members.
Here's one of the most current examples:
Heh... I'm pretty sure I didn't write what you quoted (I think it was Randye that wrote that), even though you referenced me as having wrote it. But I whole-heartedly agree with it.
Also for the record, you quoted me as referencing "radical right media." I actually don't watch the news, to be clear. I waived off Fox News more than 5-6 years ago. I've maybe put it on 2 times in the past 6 years, if even that because it's all just a constant soap opera. If I do watch the news, it's usually CNN, PBS News Hour, and on rare occasions, I go to OAN to watch a political speech (left or right) because they don't cloud it with commentary and just actually SHOW the speech without interruptions.
Being completely forthright, I have almost no time at all to read the news. I get everything sent to me in the early morning at about 6:00 AM. It's news aggregators, "Daybreak Insider" for conservative-based interests (they almost always only reference liberal articles), and "Wake Up to Politics" by Gabe Fischer for liberal-based interests. I skim the article headings and the couple of sentences for each, and within 15 minutes I'm done.
Other than debating (arguing in the case of Fred), there is literally zero-time spent reading politics or discussing it anywhere else with anyone else. Most of my friends are liberal, but we're all Gen-Xers and don't really care about politics because:
1 - We've all come to the agreement that we care about the same things, just believe in a different path to getting there (they all, except for one, love America) 2 - We all know that unless one of us runs for political office (one of them is actually a mayor of one of the cities here in Florida), there's no point in worrying about this stuff beyond our vote in November elections.
EDIT: I really shouldn't be spending the time on here that I do... I have so much going on in my life that I would be so much more productive if I didn't.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: Speaking for myself, I am disgusted with your rehashing of failed Liberal talking points and your general air of smugness and superiority that comes across in your postings on this Forum.
I think, honestly... we all know that the smugness and superiority is a "front," the poor guy is probably actually very insecure about his lot in life.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 08-12-2023).]
That's funny. Although I saw a report that the VP has been working to improve her informal or "off the cuff" remarks, and perhaps also her more formal statements.
Yo' 82... I did not mean that you were the author of that post.
I wanted to duplicate that post, but not flat out say who it was from. I did not mean to convey that it was from you. If that's how you read it, then there's been "a failure to communicate."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-12-2023).]
Yo' 82... I did not mean that you were the author of that post.
I wanted to duplicate that post, but not flat out say who it was from. I did not mean to convey that it was from you. If that's how you read it, then there's been "a failure to communicate."
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fredtoast: If the government is not here to take care of the people then who does it serve?
Tell me that this is sarcasm…. I do not want the guy to “take care of” me. They did such a wonderful job with the covid **** show….right ? Yeah, they took care of people….the way the mob does.
History proves that you are wrong.
Government protected you from subjugation to monopolies (Sherman Anti-trust Act)
Government protected you from unsafe working conditions (OSHA)
Government protected minorities from discrimination (Civil rights Act)
Government stopped rivers from catching fire and other horrible consequences of corporate pollution (EPA)
Government protected you from bad food and snake oil drugs (FDA)
Government protects you from financial frauds (SEC)
Government protects you from dangerous transportation providers (FAA and Dept of Transportation)
I 100% agree that individuals should do as much as they can to protect themselves, but no individual has the power to take on corporate America by himself. They would crush you like a little bug.
Originally posted by olejoedad: It is NOT here to feed the poor,
Yes they are. EVERY industrialized nation on earth has a government program to help feed the poor. The reason they do this is that hungry people lead to civil unrest that effects EVERYONE. Plus most humans have a thing called a conscious that makes it hard for them to let innocent children starve.
Why should I take your opinion over every political expert for every government in every industrialized country on earth?
[This message has been edited by fredtoast (edited 08-12-2023).]
Originally posted by fredtoast: History proves that you are wrong.
Government protected you from subjugation to monopolies (Sherman Anti-trust Act)
Government protected you from unsafe working conditions (OSHA)
Government protected minorities from discrimination (Civil rights Act)
Government stopped rivers from catching fire and other horrible consequences of corporate pollution (EPA)
Government protected you from bad food and snake oil drugs (FDA)
Government protects you from financial frauds (SEC)
Government protects you from dangerous transportation providers (FAA and Dept of Transportation)
I 100% agree that individuals should do as much as they can to protect themselves, but no individual has the power to take on corporate America by himself. They would crush you like a little bug.
Good post. Most of the items you listed would fall under the 'regulation of interstate commerce' portion of the Constitution.
What makes more sense... the majority of Canadians living within 100 miles of our southern border... or inhabiting the arctic regions in the north?
