DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Donald Trump's gift to America

I never would have imagined you'd get off over imaginary tears that only exist in your own little twisted mind. Why is it that liberals always believe conservatives are all 'butt hurt' when both sides are playing the same game of diplomacy.

Diplomacy: The art of letting someone have something your way.

Can the Conservative Caucus release their Leftist List? I'm just trying to see if I break the scale.

Are we considering Dems, liberals, Liberals, Socialists, Communists, and the other myriad of Anti-Constitutionalists in that category?

First we have to find a Conservative Stoner to make the list.

lol dude you're that mad that I called your far right?

Jeez. That's just my opinion. So you can go off all you want, but at the end of the day, when we roll up our sleeves and get into these threads, there isn't anything remotely center about you.

There might not be anything remotely center about myself, but you don't see me crying about it.

You could've asked Jeb bush about he list, but he seems pretty ashamed about it.

You weren't.

They know who I'm talking about. Just look at the post.

I don't mind being placed on any list. If you look at the issue of guns, I would be placed on the conservative list. When you look at social issues I would be added to the liberal list.

Guys like 40 call it straddling the fence. I believe it's being an independent thinker and not blindly following either parties lines. With guys like Trump in the race, what it is people are following is quite confusing. I think the conservatives call it a flip flopper.

You are the true definition of a 'keyboard commando' if you really think you create any anger in me. Mostly I feel frustration with liberals, as even facts won't convince them they are ever wrong. It's almost like dealing with kids that don't listen.

I don't care if you can't see anything center about me, and I'm actually quite happy about that. You see, I have my own beliefs that have been put together after years of hearing different points of view. I have made my decisions on white, black, and shade of grey, and I've stuck with it for a long time.

Finally he admits the Liberal part! That explains your stance on soooo many issues around here. When I referred to you as a Lib, long long ago, you flipped out.

Admitting the problem is the first step to recovery!

If anything, Pit comes across to me more as a libertarian which is what most of this country SHOULD be. Liberals freely ignore the Constitution while conservatives only embrace it to the extent it backs up their beliefs.

You're the one making a big deal out of it.

Everybody brushed it off, or explained why they are conservatives. It was actually a decent discussion until you and 40 decided to once again, go off the deep end.

Keyboard commando? Please. You really need to work on your insults better.

When did I ignore the constitution?

Strongly disagree.

No, I always described myself as a moderate and you always called me a fence rider. Would a liberal take my stance on guns?

See, you say different things about posters on different days. You can't even keep track of our own rhetoric.

A moderate will always appear to be either a conservative or a liberal depending on the topic. They're not followers of a party. That's why people like you who try to keep score get so confused. lol

I'm Number 1! I'm Number 1!

No you're not. GM has trouble with alphabetical order.

I'm #1.

I'm also awesome.

You personally, as in when have you as an individual violated the Constitution? I don't know you on a personal level like that.

But in terms of how many liberals view things and go about them, all the time!

First, anyone who supports Bernie does not support the Constitution. Socialist policies and beliefs run counter to the concepts, reasons, and ideals it was written on.

Second, anyone who believes Obama can enact Executive Orders because Congress doesn't act or doesn't do what he says, doesn't support the Constitution (Separation of Powers) In all fairness, both sides have done it, and Congress as a whole has continuously given over many of it's responsibilities to the Executive Branch. It's just that liberals don't even pretend to hide it.

Third, anyone with even a basic understanding of the Constitution knows that Obamacare is NOT Constitutional. When the Supreme Court deliberates on a case, they base their decisions on the merits of the arguments presented before them. If you don't make a compelling enough argument, the decision doesn't go in your favor. The Justices are not supposed to be in the business of creating the argument for any side, which is what Roberts did. The Obama Admin expressly argued that Obamacare was NOT a tax... yet Roberts ruled that it was.

Tax or not a tax aside, it's still is in stark opposition to the spirit and repeated theme of the Constitution: individual liberty. The mandate in the law that forces every citizen to buy healthcare insurance at the threat of a fine (and ultimately jail time if you don't pay) runs counter to that concept. You guys can deny the massive negative impact it has had so far, but what y'all fail to admit is that you guys have given away a massive amount of our individual freedoms through that mandate. I garuntee that the longer that law stands, it will be used as precedent for the gov't to dictate literally ANYTHING else they want us to do in the name of control.

Fourthly, you NEVER hear liberals refer to the Founding Fathers and their philosophies. They never celebrate the concept of limited gov't (again, the basis of the Constitution) because they believe that the gov't is the answer to all the problems in the world.

Throw in there that the concept of "separation of church and state" that many liberals put out there is based upon a butchered and wholly made up interpretation of what the Constitution actually says.

Liberals have zero problems with curtailing free speech of others, and have even introduced laws in recent years to control it.

The list goes on and on.

with which part?

On a scale of 1-10, what would you rank your awesomeness?

Now you're just being greedy.

You may be awesome ... maybe, some say ... even the awesomest ....

But I'm number 1! I'm number 1!

I think some of the stuff you mentioned is a bit of a reach.

Name a president that's hasn't made an executive order that doesn't go around the congress?

Don't worry, I'll wait.

The Supreme Court ruled it constitutional.

You're argument is basically boiling down to "its legal, but I don't like it, so it should be unconstitutional."

Come on bro.

Also, and I know you said it first, but let's not act like republicans are all about the constitution either. Cause we know that's a reach. Might need yoga classes for that one.


Also, another thing I need you to do for me:

You're confusing liberals at the civilian level with libberals in DC.

Even I know there's a difference between the real conservatives at the civilian level, and he ones that represent you guys in government.

And just to throw a little balance in there:

on the GOP side, the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and using the gov't to prevent gay marriage all run counter to the spirit and principles of the Constitution too

On a scale of 1-10?

Come on, why limit me? My little toe on my left foot has an awesomeness level of 10 on your scale.

I'm not of the opinion that any politician represents the people, they all represent themselves and their own interests. Conservative or Liberal.

Again, I'm not saying that the GOP hasn't been unconstitutional either... hell, you know why some die hards call Lincoln a Tyrant? It's because he threw journalists in jail for publishing articles about him that he didn't like.

And no, my assertion that Obamacare is unconstitutional is not based on sour grapes.

1) Find anywhere in the Constitution or any of the writings of the Founding Fathers that would support the individual mandate. I'll wait.

2) Second, liberals tend not to be able to see past their own nose (unless it's global warming... then somehow they can see in to the future).. but on a serious note, you DO understand that at one point the Supreme Court ruled slavery and later segregation was Constitutional right?

And that is what happens when We The People abdicate our Constitutional responsibility to be engaged and hold politicians accountable.

It's why I can't support yahoos like the guys in Oregon, no matter how much I think the father and son are getting a raw deal. The Constitution lays out a process to enact change... those guys never even try to get involved via that process, then suddenly think they have a moral right to armed insurrection after claiming "it's all crooked".

You're helping me make a point I've been trying to say for a while now in this board.

The constitution is great. It's the greatest document in the world, other than my daughters birth certificates.

You said at one point the surpremd court ruled slavery as constitutional. Based off the constitution, at THAT time, it was correct.

The point is that the constitution has to evolve with the times. As great as it is, time will always dominate anything we do in life. It has to evolve.

It evolved with slavery and segregation, right?

I have some reservations of a few people on this board, so I will say that you and most of the posters here had no problem with the constitution evolving in that ideology.

Right now, healthcare has to evolve, and part of that is the surpreme court ruling on that.

Not everything that happens you are gonna like. You know how many millions of Americans, how many thousands of Americans were pissed off that slavery was abolished as well as segregation?

There will always be a winner and loser. Right now, my ideology is winning, yours is losing. From 2001-2009, your political ideology was winning, mine was losing.

That's life.

One thing I do find odd. The GOP seems to really like mandated auto insurance but not mandated health care.

How can people pick and choose when mandated insurance should or should not be constitutional? To me, they're either both unconstitutional or both constitutional.

I'm not taking sides on this, but there IS a difference. With auto insurance, if you wreck me, you'd better have insurance to pay for the damages done to me, or my property.

Health insurance is a touch different.

Yeah, yeah, I get the whole "if you don't have health insurance, it raises the rates of those that do" bit.

Why don't people have health insurance? Because their job doesn't offer it, or they can't afford it. In either case, I'm still paying for it.

I'm paying either way.

That stinks.

With the part about witches!
And your libby friend Pit!

Have you noticed how awesome Arch is?

And you're the one gaining nourishment off of imaginary tears. That's very sad.

I call it swinging both ways. Some subjects I stand on the far right. Some subjects I stand far left, and some subjects I stand in the middle. I would call it using common sense, but most people never head of it, let alone used it in their lifetime

And yes, I have noticed how awesome Arch is... in fact, I've gone beyond that... his awesomeness has reached an existential realm where there are no words in either modern nor mystical ancient languages that can ever come close to describing how awesome he is

Man, I like when we find common ground

You are right, the Constitution does have to evolve from time to time. But that is what the Amendment process is for. The Founding Fathers put that process in there for that very reason. The problem is, many people think that "evolve" means that you can take the same words, but interpret them differently to fit whatever narrative, and that's not the case.

And that's why court appointments shouldn't be based upon whether or not a judge interprets the Constitution with liberal or conservative view points. Judges should be appointed based on their ability to apply the Constitution the way it is written.

Again, as much as I'm not a fan of the Fed Gov't, the fact that those yahoos in Oregon don't attempt to use that process is why I could never get behind them.

Health insurance vs. auto insurance is a false comparison because mandated auto insurance is not the same thing ass mandated health insurance.

You only need auto insurance if you drive.

You don't have to drive. In fact, millions of people who live in New York don't drive, and there for don't have auto insurance.

On the flip side, I have to have health insurance even if I'm one of those people who never goes to the hospital (and I am).

The only way you can say the two are the same is if everyone who doesn't have a car still has to have an auto insurance policy.

Good post. Talking sense to him will only help.

Everyone remember, VOTE and Vote often...

HILLARY FOR PRISON

I don't deny that there are some differences between auto insurance and health care. But in the end they are both "mandated insurance". It does seem people pick and choose when mandated insurance is okay and when it's not.

That's the way I see it GM. And as you can see, there's at least one poster who feels if you don't walk the party lines, your one of the enemy. I find that type of thinking very sad.

And what is so funny about that type of thinking is it actually turns people away from their party rather than helps gain them any support.