|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 07 2017 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:is anyone here saying that DACA was solid/ not squishy from a legal perspective? no, and so there's no real reason to be arguing about that. but on the other hand, was DACA a stopgap measure that was in the public interest? arguably yes (or no). besides, the supreme court has managed to put out some fairly convoluted cases in order to rule in favor of something that at face value might not be constitutional. of course, someone might start decrying "judicial activism!" if in some hypothetical case they ruled in favor of DACA.  One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Are we advocating for a tyrant in the White House or are we arguing for a congress that does its fucking job? Also doesn't Congress have the power to reign the President in on issues like this by, I don't know, passing a law themselves? If they had balls, they'd impeach the president for unconstitutional acts. You are advocating for a tyrant in the White House provided he says the magic words "Congress has failed to act." Since you can't see this spelled out four different ways, maybe I'll stop. Congress can prove him wrong by acting. Why has the Republican congress not acted? Maybe that means they are ok with it but didn't want to dirty their hands on it themselves. Now they can reap the benefits while blaming Obama for it. Or are you seriously trying to pretend like Congress has been doing its job and Obama overreached on a subject that Congress had under control?
Congress can say we aren't changing a damn thing Mr President, and he must pound sand. The fact that he did a brazenly unconstitutional act and got away with it changes nothing. Congress makes these things or keeps things as is. The president does not write immigration law because he thinks Congress did a bad job. His opinion and yours simply don't matter. Maybe Trump rights this wrong or maybe Congress makes a law within their authority ... both would be a return to constitutional law.
|
On September 07 2017 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 01:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:is anyone here saying that DACA was solid/ not squishy from a legal perspective? no, and so there's no real reason to be arguing about that. but on the other hand, was DACA a stopgap measure that was in the public interest? arguably yes (or no). besides, the supreme court has managed to put out some fairly convoluted cases in order to rule in favor of something that at face value might not be constitutional. of course, someone might start decrying "judicial activism!" if in some hypothetical case they ruled in favor of DACA. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Wait, so you'd rather have Congress AND the Executive not do anything and let things go to shit? I am in awe of your immense respect for the Constitution to the point you'd rather see a good chunk of our economy thrown into confusion and turmoilrather than stepping into uncertain legal territory. If you don't like how your Congressman has voted, vote him out. If you're unsatisfied with multiple factions, pen your editorial, start a group, lobby nationally. Violating the constitution because you don't like the job your elected representatives are doing is a recipe for lawlessness. It's as simple as that. You want a new constitutional amendment that splits Article 1 Section 8 powers beyond Congress, I'm all ears. You're trashing the process because you don't like chaos and forget that trashing the process is worse chaos. I can only imagine the anxiety you would have felt if you were around during the civil rights movement. They did not take your advice.
Let me guess. The president unilaterally won the civil rights movement without legal authority. Because this "they" is really needing an antecedent to show how you think it's related.
|
On September 06 2017 22:43 Plansix wrote:
I could have just told him to read a book or educate himself. Expressing pride in one’s ignorance is beyond fucking basic.
Man you're the funniest person ever, honestly 
I happen to have a MA in English, and another one in linguistics. The first thing you learn on anything beyond an incredibly basic level is that being versed in communication pretty much correlates to expressing complicated ideas in simple terms.
Using thoroughly unnecessary big words to present your points, especially in long sequences of vapid nonsense, which you personally are guilty of 24/7, is a sign of not only an extremely limited grasp on language but also of poor understanding what efficient communication looks like.
I'm pretty sure with your habits you're actually unable to communicate with an average POC without coming across as a condescending prick, which is super hilarious.
It's like Einstein said. Any cretin can make subjects complicated but it takes mastery to simplify them.
|
On September 07 2017 01:55 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 22:43 Plansix wrote:
I could have just told him to read a book or educate himself. Expressing pride in one’s ignorance is beyond fucking basic.
Man you're the funniest person ever, honestly I happen to have a MA in English, and another one in linguistics. The first thing you learn on anything beyond an incredibly basic level is that being versed in communication pretty much correlates to expressing complicated ideas in simple terms. Using thoroughly unnecessary big words to present your points, especially in long sequences of vapid nonsense, which you personally are guilty of 24/7, is a sign of not only an extremely limited grasp on language but also of poor understanding what efficient communication looks like. I'm pretty sure with your habits you're actually unable to communicate with an average POC without coming across as a condescending prick, which is super hilarious. It's like Einstein said. Any cretin can make subjects complicated but it takes mastery to simplify them.
...what are you even on about? You're the one who has a problem with someone else's word choices, when no one else here has any trouble understanding him. That's pretty simple.
|
I see Plansix using about 1 7th grade level three syllable word per line. Playing semantic police on a few -ly words only indicates that you have no argument.
|
On September 07 2017 01:55 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2017 22:43 Plansix wrote:
I could have just told him to read a book or educate himself. Expressing pride in one’s ignorance is beyond fucking basic.
Man you're the funniest person ever, honestly I happen to have a MA in English, and another one in linguistics. The first thing you learn on anything beyond an incredibly basic level is that being versed in communication pretty much correlates to expressing complicated ideas in simple terms. Using thoroughly unnecessary big words to present your points, especially in long sequences of vapid nonsense, which you personally are guilty of 24/7, is a sign of not only an extremely limited grasp on language but also of poor understanding what efficient communication looks like. I'm pretty sure with your habits you're actually unable to communicate with an average POC without coming across as a condescending prick, which is super hilarious. It's like Einstein said. Any cretin can make subjects complicated but it takes mastery to simplify them.
...is this some sort of satire?
|
Hello Plansix's ideological comrades, nice to meet you.
I stand by my points. The subjects we're discussing (if that's even what we are doing, not much reflection seems to be going on a lot of the time) are best discussed in extremely simple language, because, let's face it, they are rather simple subjects.
Not everyone here is a native speaker, would you like to exclude them from the debate?
|
On September 07 2017 02:05 Wulfey_LA wrote:
I see Plansix using about 1 7th grade level three syllable word per line. Playing semantic police on a few -ly words only indicates that you have no argument.
Joke is on him because I’m super dyslexic, yet work in the legal field writing all day. The only reason my language stays around 7th grade is spelling college level words is a chore.
|
On September 07 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:is anyone here saying that DACA was solid/ not squishy from a legal perspective? no, and so there's no real reason to be arguing about that. but on the other hand, was DACA a stopgap measure that was in the public interest? arguably yes (or no). besides, the supreme court has managed to put out some fairly convoluted cases in order to rule in favor of something that at face value might not be constitutional. of course, someone might start decrying "judicial activism!" if in some hypothetical case they ruled in favor of DACA. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Are we advocating for a tyrant in the White House or are we arguing for a congress that does its fucking job? Also doesn't Congress have the power to reign the President in on issues like this by, I don't know, passing a law themselves? If they had balls, they'd impeach the president for unconstitutional acts. You are advocating for a tyrant in the White House provided he says the magic words "Congress has failed to act." Since you can't see this spelled out four different ways, maybe I'll stop. That is the opposite of how impeachment works. Signing an unconstitutional executive order is not a high crime. If it was, there would be no point to executive orders or challenging them in the court. Teddy Roosevelt does not approve.
Look at Federalist paper 64 by John jay about the threat of impeachment to keep the executive faithfully administering passed laws with honor. Or look at the impeachment of Johnson for failing to follow a Congressional law. It's precedented and it's an important check on the executive.
|
On September 07 2017 02:06 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:55 Kickboxer wrote:On September 06 2017 22:43 Plansix wrote:
I could have just told him to read a book or educate himself. Expressing pride in one’s ignorance is beyond fucking basic.
Man you're the funniest person ever, honestly I happen to have a MA in English, and another one in linguistics. The first thing you learn on anything beyond an incredibly basic level is that being versed in communication pretty much correlates to expressing complicated ideas in simple terms. Using thoroughly unnecessary big words to present your points, especially in long sequences of vapid nonsense, which you personally are guilty of 24/7, is a sign of not only an extremely limited grasp on language but also of poor understanding what efficient communication looks like. I'm pretty sure with your habits you're actually unable to communicate with an average POC without coming across as a condescending prick, which is super hilarious. It's like Einstein said. Any cretin can make subjects complicated but it takes mastery to simplify them. ...is this some sort of satire?
I do'nto think so; it seems reasonably consistent with his prior posting behavior and expressed attitudes. and highly consistent with his attitudes and choice of sides.
|
On September 07 2017 02:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On September 07 2017 01:34 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 01:16 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2017 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:is anyone here saying that DACA was solid/ not squishy from a legal perspective? no, and so there's no real reason to be arguing about that. but on the other hand, was DACA a stopgap measure that was in the public interest? arguably yes (or no). besides, the supreme court has managed to put out some fairly convoluted cases in order to rule in favor of something that at face value might not be constitutional. of course, someone might start decrying "judicial activism!" if in some hypothetical case they ruled in favor of DACA. One man's squishy is another man's blatantly unconstitutional. If you get to decide when Congress hasn't acted and choose to do so yourself, you're literally advocating for a despot in the White House. Then it matters little if the squishes defending DACA expressed reservations. That ship has sailed. Thankfully Trump might see this one through. Are we advocating for a tyrant in the White House or are we arguing for a congress that does its fucking job? Also doesn't Congress have the power to reign the President in on issues like this by, I don't know, passing a law themselves? If they had balls, they'd impeach the president for unconstitutional acts. You are advocating for a tyrant in the White House provided he says the magic words "Congress has failed to act." Since you can't see this spelled out four different ways, maybe I'll stop. That is the opposite of how impeachment works. Signing an unconstitutional executive order is not a high crime. If it was, there would be no point to executive orders or challenging them in the court. Teddy Roosevelt does not approve. Look at Federalist paper 64 by John jay about the threat of impeachment to keep the executive faithfully administering passed laws with honor. Or look at the impeachment of Johnson for failing to follow a Congressional law. It's precedented and it's an important check on the executive.
Just assume I’m well read on the founding fathers and their writings about the executive branch. 200 years of US history has shown that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Attempting to undo the will of the people by putting the president’s actions on trial before the opposing branch requires more than a single executive order that over reaches its authority.
|
Starts out his post with an emoji.
Proceeds to tell people how much smarter, better educated, and well spoken he is then everyone else.
|
This is the kind of news that makes me a Democrat. Against an impending crisis, Democrats held together and got essential government functions funded with zero insane/ideologically cuts. The Democrats may not be able win elections, but that doesn't stop them from winning on policy.
|
On September 07 2017 02:21 Sermokala wrote:
Starts out his post with an emoji.
Proceeds to tell people how much smarter, better educated, and well spoken he is then everyone else.
I support the use of emoji to denote tone while posting online. They should not be a mark against anyone’s argument. Especially the poop emoji, which is the purest representation of the internet.
|
|
|
On September 07 2017 02:21 Sermokala wrote:
Starts out his post with an emoji.
Proceeds to tell people how much smarter, better educated, and well spoken he is then everyone else.
I have trouble understanding where I'm saying those things. Would you mind quoting me on that? As for the specific information under the emoji, can you explain where I'm wrong?
The group bashing and pseudo-ridicule me and other conservative posters receive on this site - we are a minority after all, let's not forget - almost smells of "progressive TL member privilege".
|
|
|
There are several conservatives on this site that have no problem existing in this thread and having productive discussions. Again, that problem might have more to do with you than your political views.
|
On September 07 2017 02:30 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2017 02:21 Sermokala wrote:
Starts out his post with an emoji.
Proceeds to tell people how much smarter, better educated, and well spoken he is then everyone else. I have trouble understanding where I'm saying those things. Would you mind quoting me on that? As for the specific information under the emoji, can you explain where I'm wrong? The group bashing and pseudo-ridicule me and other conservative posters receive on this site - we are a minority after all, let's not forget - almost smells of "progressive TL member privilege".
sermo is also conservative iirc.
the ridicule is more cuz everyone ridicules everyone; also because the conservatives more oftne push stuff that just isn't true.
being a minority doesn't count for much when you're just plain wrong.
|
The best negotiator.
Majorities in Senate, and House and still losing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
