gon2srf wrote:I'm going to lock this thread if we don't get back to the topic at hand....laughing to myself as I note that 3 out of the 5 board members are participating. Can't you guys just open a new political thread and keep all your POV's there for goodness sake.
I just answered the trivia question about the quote. I'm fully in agreement with you Scott.gon2srf wrote:I'm going to lock this thread if we don't get back to the topic at hand....laughing to myself as I note that 3 out of the 5 board members are participating. Can't you guys just open a new political thread and keep all your POV's there for goodness sake.
Wow, this is a real stinker...so much squash, so little meat. While I'll agree that repubs (much different than the "right") act more like demorats in drag (drag as in SLOWLY doing the same thing, as well as the classic definition), I don't think that applies to the right wing, or conservative faction.xtatik wrote:Good Gawd, this stuff is fun.
Now for the "redistribution of wealth" comment.....I was listening to Lush Rimjob this morning and as usual, he walked into his own trap while discussing statistics for the issue of "redistribution of wealth" (another contrived and simplistic term). And, after listening to his own statistics, it became apparent to me how much "redistribution of wealth" is systematically taking place on both sides of the aisle. More interesting to me, is which party is systematically more successful at it. Given the statistics and current state of our middle class, it's apparent to me that the right is clearly winning the redistribution game.
I agree, amendments are the ONLY method originally intended. Judicial review is a "whim". Divorce is a dissolution, not a whim (yeah, I know, a fine line there). Firing is usually covered in the employment contract, is a part of the contract, and done in case of a violation of its terms. It's easier if you're employed "at will", almost impossible if you're a bureaucrat or union thug. Short sales are an amendment of sorts, they don't have to do it, they are actually doing the borrower a favor in lieu of foreclosure.cruiserlarry wrote: Regarding your comment about liberals: while "living" and "breathing" are used metaphorically, the constitution has been subject to change (check out the list of amendments next time you get the chance to read it), and so are all of the other documents you cited. The misconception is that this can be done at the "whim" of a party or individual; fortunately for all of us, it takes substantially more effort than that to alter any of the aforementioned contracts - but make no mistake - all can be altered (just ask any lawyer, or even anyone who is divorced, been fired, or been involved in a short sale of a house)
My point was, that any "contract", be it one for your house, your job, your marriage, or your country, can be changed. No society has ever survived by being static. So while the constitution was not meant to be changed on the "whim" of any political or judicial ideology, it was constructed to allow for change. That was part of the amazing foresight of our founding fathers, IMO.Cammo wrote:I agree, amendments are the ONLY method originally intended. Judicial review is a "whim". Divorce is a dissolution, not a whim (yeah, I know, a fine line there). Firing is usually covered in the employment contract, is a part of the contract, and done in case of a violation of its terms. It's easier if you're employed "at will", almost impossible if you're a bureaucrat or union thug. Short sales are an amendment of sorts, they don't have to do it, they are actually doing the borrower a favor in lieu of foreclosure.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
