Jump to content
Null

Shoney'sPonyBoy

Verified Member
  • Posts

    381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shoney'sPonyBoy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Shoney'sPonyBoy's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare

Recent Badges

257

Reputation

  1. O.k. I have no idea what any of that has to do with what I typed. I know health care a pet topic of yours. The bottom line is that you can't have a massive centralized federal government and expect that people aren't going to—one way or another—attempt use it to exert control whenever and wherever they can to benefit themselves. Anywhere there is a massive sword laying around, people are going to fight for the ability to pick it up and swing it in furtherance of their objectives. If you voted for Hillary Clinton for POTUS you voted for probably the individual most willing to sell government influence and generally all around greediest grifter to seek that office since I don't know who. So if you did that I can't see that your concern about American greed is genuine. It's likely just an excuse to give yourself a moral high ground to argue for the policies you favor. But tying this to your recent hysteria about guns, the more powerful the tool, the greater the capacity for damage. Also the greatest capacity for good. The guy who makes drive-by cryptic statements as though they are fact yet never substantiates them may call that simplistic, but I challenge anyone to actually refute it (what he does is not in any way a refutation). The problem is that you think you can limit the damage while preserving the good. And you are willing to do violence to the first amendment to accomplish this (and btw, calling a person's own campaign for a candidate "dark money" might play well in certain audiences, but all you're talking about is telling citizens that they don't have free speech when it comes to politics). And, as usual, you completely ignore the direct questions I asked about how you plan to accomplish this practically. Yes or no: Posting "AU9377 For President!" would become illegal under your plan? If not, you've done exactly nothing to achieve your goal. Again, more people will see that on a decent online platform than they would on a billboard. The internet IMO has made what you want to do impossible, so there's no point in considering it, really.
  2. That's the whole point. If it's so important to them, why do they include it with a bunch of stuff that they know—or at least SHOULD know—is a non-starter? They guarantee its demise out of the gate, same as with the Republicans and Obamacare. It's a political strategy, not a real attempt to change anything. Then they (and you) can claim they are standing up for the people and fighting for what's right (while violins play and an American flag waves in the breeze in the background), all the while knowing that it won't pass. So instead of taking responsibility for that themselves, they get to blame the other party for "blocking" all of their snow-white attempts at virtuous governance. Again, the Republicans do it too. They are the masters of it. I have come to believe that they don't even want to be the majority party any more. They love that position of not having to do anything they campaigned on because the evil Democrats won't let them.
  3. The constitution is not a "guiding document" in our system of government. It's a governing document. It is the highest governmental authority we have. It trumps lower court rulings, legislative actions, and executive actions. The examples you gave are both examples of constitutional contradictions. Specific instances that contradicted the overall principle of the document. In other words, instances that were in and of themselves unconstitutional because they violated the spirit of the rest of the document. How is placing a limitation on political speech similar to those examples? Do you really think censoring political speech goes against the intent of the 1st Amendment in the same way that excluding minorities from possessing the same inherent rights as white men does? "I don't like the consequences of upholding these inherent rights," isn't the same as violating the notion of inherent rights. Plus, like I said earlier, there's a way to fix this without ignoring the constitution. It would take a long time to fix and would be difficult, but it's not a complicated idea. You just reduce the size and scope and reach and power of the federal government. The people who conceived of the idea of a constitution that guaranteed inherent rights never intended for them to co-exist with a behemoth federal government like ours. Faced with a choice between the federal government that by your own words is the enforcement arm of the very problem you describe and the constitution, I'm taking the constitution and the 1st Amendment.
  4. No, it's the truth. If they really wanted to have done something about it so far they would have. They've had opportunities.
  5. Yet you want the federal government to exert even more control over society. Do you not realize that the federal government exerting so much control over society and having to grow so large to support that control is exactly how we got to where you just described we are in the first place?
  6. Yeah, I already knew why you were saying what you were saying, but you didn't address the practical reality of what you want to do. You'd make it illegal to type "AU9377 FOR PRESIDENT!" on the internet? And people in Australia are not as free as Americans. They do not protect the right to bear arms either.
  7. I understand why you say what you say, but we're really going to censor citizen's speech when it comes to political candidates? If it is illegal for me to take out a billboard that says, "AU9377 for President!" then how can it be legal for me to post that very same thing on a message board or on Facebook? Arguably more people will see it online than on the billboard. It doesn't even seem possible to do what you're saying we should do. Also—and I don't mean any offense by this—but you seem awfully dismissive of not just the constitution, but the whole notion that liberty has a price, for a lawyer.
  8. But the Citizens United ruling upheld the right of corporations and citizens to spend as much money on their own campaigns as they want to support (or oppose) a candidate as long as they aren't giving the money directly to the candidate and operate independently of the candidate's official campaign. So even if PACs went away, you'd still have influence.
  9. No, it's correct, and the one who hasn't done his homework is you. Either that or you are very gullible. Name a bill the Democrats have introduced that ONLY addresses campaign finance without bundling it with other stuff that they know Republicans won't pass. In the case of HR-1, a bunch of stuff making voter fraud easier. The Republicans do the same thing. They introduced what—6 different bills to dismantle Obamacare...when they knew there was no chance for them to pass. As soon as they got a majority they magically couldn't agree on a single one. So how serious were they about overturning Obamacare? Not at all is my answer. Same with this. You introduce legislation you know won't pass so that you can claim to be battling the evil other party who won't cooperate. It's just a PR campaign. And it looks like you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
  10. "That and the fact that this data isn't evidence of anything except that people were walking around in public spaces near voting boxes." Dozens of times (they didn't even qualify as a "mule" unless they had gone to a voter box at least 23 times). Usually between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. And mysteriously wearing latex gloves only after a voter fraud indictment came down in Arizona with the key piece of forensics being fingerprinting the ballots. And ping analytics from 2020 identifying many of them as the same people involved in riots during the 2020 runs who were associated with Antifa groups and BLM. And video from the collection sites showing "mules" taking pictures so as to get paid to deliver ballots—which is illegal in and of itself. And interviews with some of the "mules" confirming the payment and revealing that non-profits were the source of the funding, which is also illegal in and of itself. And confirmation of inflated voter rolls in the states and counties investigated. Again, if you haven't seen the movie you simply don't know what you're talking about. Doesn't mean the election was stolen. Doesn't mean there was enough of this that it resulted in a needle move, just like the voter fraud you mentioned. There's always voter fraud in every election with dead people voting and people voting multiple times and the like. From both parties. But this was very shady. Like I said earlier, if you can watch it and still refuse to admit that there was some shady !#$@ going on here, you're just a partisan tribseman who wouldn't admit fault for your team no matter what evidence was presented. I find several posters here to be of that character.
  11. 1. I would be willing to bet that not a single poster completely dismissing the movie has actually seen it. So talk about constructing an argument to support a pre-conceived prediction. 2. Aren't there pretty tight time constraints involved in contesting an election? So collecting data like this to present wouldn't really be feasible to actually contest an election (for those using the, "Well if there really was evidence, why didn't it get presented?" argument). 3. And if so, it would appear that the FFs either didn't anticipate finding evidence well after the election that fraud had occurred or they figured even if that happened it would be better for the country to just move forward regardless. 4. Did the movie claim the "100 foot" perimeter or is that just the popular criticism? Geotracking is quite accurate...it's what Uber and Lyft drivers use and it tells you what side of the street a fare is on. It brings you right to them. So if the movie is the one using the "100 feet" criteria then I would think that would significantly weaken their case. If it's just the popular criticism, it's a BS criticism. 5. I'm not saying that the election was stolen and I don't think this movie proves that it was. However, if you can't at least admit that the behavior in the movie looks shady as hell—to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy—you might be a tribal partisan.
  12. 1. Homosexual sex being illegal in the 1920s or 1950s isn't the same as any state "outlawing" gay marriage in 2022. It's a bogus comparison. You two really think any state would make same-sex marriage illegal? As in, arrest and fine or imprison someone for holding a same-sex marriage the way people were sometimes arrested and jailed for being caught having gay sex back then? Or are we just talking about—as I said—refusing to recognize a same-sex marriage as a legal marriage? 2. When and where? I was unaware that one had ever been passed when citizens got to vote on the issue. 3. Yes we do. That reason is that our system was designed to be a constitutional representative republic in which citizens didn't vote on many issues directly, but elected representatives to vote for them and the constitution is supposed to be the highest authority in the country, far higher than popularity. It's accurate to use a form of the word "democracy" as an adjective to describe that system, as in, "The US system is a relatively democratic form of government," but the insistence of people on the left of using it as a noun—which is a usage that is not very accurate IMO—I think is deliberate. I believe that you were the one posting upthread, for example, that abortion has 70% approval from the public. So what? That has nothing to do with whether it's constitutional or not. That statistic a completely irrelevant detail in the context of this debate, but the insistence on calling our country a democracy implies that it is relevant and should sway the debate somehow. I personally cannot fathom how anyone reads the 14th amendment and comes away from it having concluded that a "right" exists to have an abortion. I've never seen anyone explain it, either. If you can connect those dots, please do; I will have learned the answer to a question that I have been asking about for around four decades. It sure looks to me in Roe V. Wade like the court simply ruled on an issue based solely on popularity and just made up a legal justification for it. I'm sure that manufactured legal justification was based on other court cases that also did violence to the 14th amendment, but ultimately they named the 14th amendment as the constitutional basis for the ruling. Back to your statement, "We have a constitution for a reason." We do. It's supposed to stop things like that from happening.
  13. Well, you're riding a corndog on a lake.
  14. The distinction is that no states ever outlawed gay marriage. They just didn't sanction it. No one went to prison for holding a same-sex marriage. It just wasn't granted legal status. People talk about the US on this board almost universally as being a democracy. Did same-sex marriage ever win even a single state referendum in any state in which one was ever held? I guess it's only a democracy when convenient.
×
×
  • Create New...