President Donald J. Trump

[albrecht]

I saw some "legalese" claim about States and sanctuary cities citing the '65 Immigration Act, which was the death of the country (and still might be.) Hopefully we go back to a sane standard and some Court or even, though I don't like them generally, Executive Action goes back to a prior standard law that looks out for the country. Congress, ideally, should reassert that our Country is first priority and not immigrants that destabilize.

[PB the Deplorable]

Okay, that is PBS sure, but I watched PBS with my nephew.  Nothing on PBS or PBS for Kids, is exclusive in terms of helping growing minds.  Certainly "growing minds" were allowed to grow before PBS, and the vast majority of time my nephew learns in other ways outside of watching TV.

So, what is your defense against NPR and National Endowment for the Arts then?  I hope it is better than PBS.

National Endowment for the Arts supports a lot of great events and institutions, but we can't have any more offensive BS funded with public dollars. 

I'd be happy to keep it, and have the people involved with the more outrageous exhibits and such fired - from the past, and going forward.

[albrecht]

What does it say for your argument, that you can't be shitted enough to be bothered to present it correctly?



Your input is of null value. QUOT ERAT DEMONSTRATUM.

The "fake news" talking points is interesting. It is leading schools to schemes as you mention? Or just more "trust sources"- by the fact that those are "good sources?" And you can have logical "true" statements that are not in fact, or can you? Ultimately, I guess, one can go to solipsism- until someone punches you, but, I guess, even then if a good Stoic.  (But can you even know your own mind?- maybe not actually- weird studies about responses to stimuli prior to conscious knowledge of it and, obviously, most all of our health is based on activity not consciously activating. )

[GravitySucks]

I saw some "legalese" claim about States and sanctuary cities citing the '65 Immigration Act, which was the death of the country (and still might be.) Hopefully we go back to a sane standard and some Court or even, though I don't like them generally, Executive Action goes back to a prior standard law that looks out for the country. Congress, ideally, should reassert that our Country is first priority and not immigrants that destabilize.

If Bannin had been just a tad more forward looking when he wrote Trump's inauguration speech, he would not have used "America First". It should have been "US First"

Much better design for a hat.

[albrecht]

If Bannin had been just a tad more forward looking when he wrote Trump's inauguration speech, he would not have used "America First". It should have been "US First"

Much better design for a hat.

True, the "America First" designation does allow the others of the continent to lay claim, by semantics. Ideally we do want all of America, indeed the world to some extent, to be great, or at least stable. But he should have been more circumspect.

[PB the Deplorable]

If Bannin had been just a tad more forward looking when he wrote Trump's inauguration speech, he would not have used "America First". It should have been "US First"

Much better design for a hat.

Some phony judge will declare Trump's America First policy to be unconstitutional anyway.

They already started with today's ''ruling''

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

We can't have these phony judges making rulings

Who are these phony judges, and why are they being allowed to interpret the law of the land if they're imposters? Name some and show your work.

[the_Stranger]

National Endowment for the Arts supports a lot of great events and institutions, but we can't have any more offensive BS funded with public dollars. 

I'd be happy to keep it, and have the people involved with the more outrageous exhibits and such fired - from the past, and going forward.

Define "offensive"?

[the_Stranger]

Who are these phony judges, and why are they being allowed to interpret the law of the land if they're imposters? Name some and show your work.

It's the same argument as the one about "fake news", PBS, and anything else.
If it doesn't fit their world view, it's crap and should be abolished.
If you ain't with us, you're against us.

[albrecht]

Who are these phony judges, and why are they being allowed to interpret the law of the land if they're imposters? Name some and show your work.

I will allow you do so, from a theoretical framework, should an entity be allowed to judge, and expand, their own jurisdiction? I say no. Against Marbury etc. I also have big problems with the Executive Branch also, even like some of Trump stuff, But, still don't like this "top down," DC lead idea.

[PB the Deplorable]

Who are these phony judges, and why are they being allowed to interpret the law of the land if they're imposters? Name some and show your work

The ones who make their decisions based on their own agendas - i.e., so-called Liberalism or ''Progressivism'' - rather than interpreting the law and the Constitution.  Nearly all Clinton's and Obama's judicial appointments, and too many of Bushes.

All these cases that the courts take regarding social issues do not fall under the court's authority, they belong to the state legislatures.  The 9th Amendment says there are more rights than those listed in the first Eight Amendments, and the 10th Amendment says the States decide what those are:

The 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The long forgotten 10th Amendment: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Jackstar]

points is interesting

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

I really must complain about the quality of the comments of the loyal opposition on this thread of late.  Your argumentation is stale, redundant and counter factual.  I could argue against my own positions much more effectively than you do.  Attaching hyperlinks to dubious sources is in no way martialing the facts to support your arguments which invariably travel in concentric circles until you end up with your head planted firmly up your ass.  With a few exceptions you are boring the shit out of me.

I will be like so crushed if I'm not one of those exceptions, especially after I gave you sound investing advice and everything. You did mean it when you said you'd call, didn't you? Yorkie sometimes leaves me hanging for weeks, and I like to think you're better than that, especially since any bar set lower than his would be in danger of scraping the ground.

[PB the Deplorable]

Define "offensive"?

I can give you some examples that stand out, without me having to look up others:

Piss Christ
The Mapplethorpe S&M exhibit
The US flag on the floor for museum goers to wipe their feet on in order to get up close to the paintings
The painting of Mary made from elephant shit

There are plenty of other examples, you should be able to find them for yourself

There is no way the American people want this, or want to pay for it, or should have to.  I'd personally not like to see the National Endowment for the Arts be defunded, I'm suggesting they be given fair warning.

[the_Stranger]

The ones who make their decisions based on their own agendas - i.e., so-called Liberalism or ''Progressivism'' - rather than interpreting the law and the Constitution.  Nearly all Clinton's and Obama's judicial appointments, and too many of Bushes.

All these cases that the courts take regarding social issues do not fall under the court's authority, they belong to the state legislatures.  The 9th Amendment says there are more rights than those listed in the first Eight Amendments, and the 10th Amendment says the States decide what those are:

The 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The long forgotten 10th Amendment: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article III
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;â€"to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;â€"to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;â€"to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;â€"to Controversies between two or more States;â€"between a State and Citizens of another State;10 â€"between Citizens of different States, â€"between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[PB the Deplorable]

It's the same argument as the one about "fake news", PBS, and anything else.
If it doesn't fit their world view, it's crap and should be abolished.
If you ain't with us, you're against us.

Yeah, never mind the dozens of examples that have been posted to this thread.

It's the America haters who have the rigid world view.  When do the ''Progressives'' ever hold any ideas not approved by the group?  When do the ''Progressive'' ever defend anyone else's right to a different opinion?

[Meister_000]

If Bannin had been just a tad more forward looking when he wrote Trump's inauguration speech, he would not have used "America First". It should have been "US First"

Much better design for a hat.

#

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

The ones who make their decisions based on their own agendas - i.e., so-called Liberalism or ''Progressivism'' - rather than interpreting the law and the Constitution.  Nearly all Clinton's and Obama's judicial appointments, and too many of Bushes.

All these cases that the courts take regarding social issues do not fall under the court's authority, they belong to the state legislatures.  The 9th Amendment says there are more rights than those listed in the first Eight Amendments, and the 10th Amendment says the States decide what those are:

The 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The long forgotten 10th Amendment: 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The best legal minds among the FF were debating the meaning of the Constitution before it was ratified by the states. It's possible to disagree with a ruling without questioning the legitimacy of the judge who makes it. You asserted that some judges are "phony," which means they weren't duly confirmed or elected, depending on the applicable laws. If you know of anyone on the federal or state level who wasn't duly confirmed and/or elected, please name names so those scoundrels can be hauled away in chains ASAP.

[the_Stranger]

I can give you some examples that stand out, without me having to look up others:

Piss Christ
The Mapplethorpe S&M exhibit
The US flag on the floor for museum goers to wipe their feet on in order to get up close to the paintings
The painting of Mary made from elephant shit

There are plenty of other examples, you should be able to find them for yourself

There is no way the American people want this, or want to pay for it, or should have to.  I'd personally not like to see the National Endowment for the Arts be defunded, I'm suggesting they be given fair warning.

I may want to see some of those things, but since your vote counts extra I guess I'd be out of luck.
No wonder sales of 1984 are seeing a resurgence.

[PB the Deplorable]

Article III
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;â€"to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;â€"to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;â€"to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;â€"to Controversies between two or more States;â€"between a State and Citizens of another State;10 â€"between Citizens of different States, â€"between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The social issues don't fall under any of those categories.

They aren't in the Constitution.  They aren't laws of the US (that's why the agitators are suing in the first place), they aren't treaties, etc, they aren't controversies between states or between states and citizens of another state, etc. 

In Roe, the Court claimed a right to privacy in the ''penumbras'' of the Constitution.  Totally made up.  Of course once ''privacy'' is established - and that the Courts should rule on it, much of the rest followed.  For other cases the Court claimed jurisdiction under the Amendment granting ex-slaves equality, and apply that to anything they can somehow fit into a ''equality'' argument.  They don't even make the claims under the Section you referenced.

[Jackstar]

There is no way the American people want this, or want to pay for it, or should have to.  I'd personally not like to see the National Endowment for the Arts be defunded, I'm suggesting they be given fair warning.

These superlative examples were all--all--brought to you by the Criminal Intelligence Agency. These projects were not executed merely because they were bored. Okay, maybe the piss Christ, but still--obvious social manipulation is obvious.


We are long, long past continuing to pretend it is not long past time for jökulhlaup in Foggy Bottom. Most of us are excused from not even knowing that it has already begun--justice for Katie Malone, woot woot--but anyone standing around with their hat in their hands questioning the necessity for a whole system purge is no longer to be taken seriously.

Who am I trying to convince? In Soviet Russia, whirlwind reaps you

[PB the Deplorable]

I may want to see some of those things, but since your vote counts extra I guess I'd be out of luck.
No wonder sales of 1984 are seeing a resurgence.

No one is saying they can't be exhibited, or that you can't go see them.

Taxpayer funds shouldn't be supporting it.

[the_Stranger]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

[SciFiAuthor]

I may want to see some of those things, but since your vote counts extra I guess I'd be out of luck.
No wonder sales of 1984 are seeing a resurgence.

Why the fuck would anyone want to go see a painting done in elephant shit?

[the_Stranger]

No one is saying they can't be exhibited, or that you can't go see them.

Taxpayer funds shouldn't be supporting it.

I feel the same way about Lockheed Martin.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

I can give you some examples that stand out, without me having to look up others:

Piss Christ
The Mapplethorpe S&M exhibit
The US flag on the floor for museum goers to wipe their feet on in order to get up close to the paintings
The painting of Mary made from elephant shit

There are plenty of other examples, you should be able to find them for yourself

There is no way the American people want this, or want to pay for it, or should have to.  I'd personally not like to see the National Endowment for the Arts be defunded, I'm suggesting they be given fair warning.

Mapplethorpe has been dead for almost thirty years. He can't hurt you any more, so just put him behind you.

[Jackstar]

Why the fuck would anyone want to go see a painting done in elephant shit?

Still preferable to a Clinton presidency.

[SciFiAuthor]

Still preferable to a Clinton presidency.

Indeed.

[the_Stranger]

Not a fan of the business the symbol represents, but from a visual standpoint I find this photo very striking.

[SciFiAuthor]

Mapplethorpe has been dead for almost thirty years. He can't hurt you any more, so just put him behind you.

Now there was a guy that knew how to work the system. Make a bunch of cash from BDSM pics without having to convince porn viewers to pay for them. Just get the government to do it.