# Incivility and the left...from glitter bombs to real bombs...



## billc (Jul 13, 2013)

As I have moved from being a democrat who voted for bill clinton in his first run for President, to now being a conservative, I have seen that the left is far more inclined to, in a polite way to say it, be less civil in the public sphere.  I have seen video of union thugs beating people who were simply holding signs or sitting at tables.  I have seen them pooping on police cars, and pouring a barrel of feces into the lobby of a bank.  I have seen them break windows and vandalize stores they didn't like.  I have seen them go to the homes of people they disagree with and threaten their families...when children were in the home.  Here is more along those lines...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/12/pro-abortion-protesters-class-up-texas-again/



> *More* detail on the protesters and their precious bodily fluids, by way of Ed Driscoll.DPS recommended to the State Preservation Board that all bags be inspected prior to allowing individuals to enter the Senate gallery, which the State Preservation Board authorized.
> During these inspections, DPS officers have thus far discovered one jar suspected to contain urine, 18 jars suspected to contain feces, and three bottles suspected to contain paint. All of these items &#8212; as well as significant quantities of feminine hygiene products, glitter and confetti possessed by individuals &#8212; were required to be discarded; otherwise those individuals were denied entry into the gallery.​*More*: The Texas Tribune also confirms that DPS confiscated the urine and feces while inspecting the bags of protesters going into the capitol. I&#8217;ve added so many confirmations because the reaction of leftists to these reports has been, essentially, &#8220;Did not!&#8221; DPS&#8217; response is &#8220;Did so!&#8221;


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/1...violence-against-pro-life-activists-escalate/



> Shortly before midnight, blogger Adam Cahnman also confirmed that law enforcement is asking pro-life activists to leave or stay away from the capitol.Cahnman&#8217;s Musings is currently holed up in an undisclosed location at the Texas Capitol. We are not in danger in any way shape or form. The Department of Public Safety has asked pro-lifers to stay away from the mob.​Other pro-life activists tweeted that they were being told to either hide out in offices or to get away from the capitol. There have been *unconfirmed* reports that a pro-abortion activist had been caught with a gun in or near the building. Whatever the cause, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX36) confirmed that police are telling pro-life activists to leave the capitol for their own safety.



In the way they treat miners in Wisconsin...a video...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-Graphically-Attack-Northern-Wisconsin-Miners


----------



## billc (Jul 13, 2013)

This blog looks at three things concerning incivility from the left and then has a video from the Daily Show where they go to a group preaching civility in public discourse...who labled the Tea Party "terrorists."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/353310/three-observations-about-left-and-civility-david-french



> First, excepting an exceedingly cynical minority, leftists use this rhetoric because they really, truly believe it. They truly believe we don&#8217;t care about kids. They truly believe we conservatives want people &#8212; especially minorities &#8212; to live in poverty if it means preserving our perceived wealth and privilege. In part they believe this because they tend to live in more concentrated monocultures than conservatives, and are more used to talking _about_ us than talking _to_ us.
> 
> Second, as intensely as they believe we are evil, they believe in their own ideological virtue. Thus, they often take a critique of their _ideas_ in the same way that others take personal insults &#8212; as direct frontal assaults on their character. This makes civil disagreement difficult and causes dialogue to degenerate quickly to an exercise in public shaming.
> 
> ...



The video is pretty funny, the journalist is serious...


----------



## granfire (Jul 13, 2013)

Incivility begets incivility...

next...


----------



## Big Don (Jul 13, 2013)

granfire said:


> Incivility begets incivility...
> 
> next...


When was the last time republicans were throwing jars of crap at people?
Or, setting up little marijuana scented tent cities on courthouse lawns...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 13, 2013)

Not a path of comparison that any rational person would relish setting their foot upon.  You fellows really need to get over this idea that there is a 'good' side and a 'bad' side in politics.  You particularly need to disabuse yourselves of the idea that the 'Right' is the 'good' side.  I've said it before and it bears repeating, that such an illusion is down to your indoctrination as American children with regard to the Cold War.  Shaking that instinct-level-bias off so your can use your intelligence to discuss political matters is no easy task.


----------



## granfire (Jul 13, 2013)

Big Don said:


> When was the last time republicans were throwing jars of crap at people?
> Or, setting up little marijuana scented tent cities on courthouse lawns...



sorry, abusing 50% of the population with laws is crap. And not glitter crap either.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 13, 2013)

granfire said:


> sorry, abusing 50% of the population with laws is crap. And not glitter crap either.



?


----------



## K-man (Jul 13, 2013)

I read all the links and not once did I see Democrats mentioned. I saw multiple references to protesters, pro-life, pro-abortion and the left. It is just possible that a fair proportion of Republicans may support abortion. I could support a right wing party and disagree with some of their policies and I could agree with some of the policies of the party on the left. If you are 100% behind everything one party does then you are nothing but a sheep and with probably less brains than a sheep because a sheep will cross the road to get to better feed.

*Suk *got it right (and I can't rep him for it even though he deserves the Brownie points  ).  There are two or more sides in politics and it is that very fact that makes the system work. All sides have their strengths and all sides have their weaknesses. The problem for the US is that they don't have a 'left' side. The Democrats are as far to the right as our Conservative party and probably Britain's as well. The bulk of Republicans are way out there with the likes of Ghengis Khan, ultra right wing. We have a couple of small parties (ultra right) like that in Australia but fortunately they are so small that they rarely get representation.

The Republicans lost the last election. The democratic thing would be to let the Democrats govern, but, as I keep hearing, you don't have a democracy. Such a pity really.  :asian:


----------



## WaterGal (Jul 14, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Not a path of comparison that any rational person would relish setting their foot upon.  You fellows really need to get over this idea that there is a 'good' side and a 'bad' side in politics.  You particularly need to disabuse yourselves of the idea that the 'Right' is the 'good' side.  I've said it before and it bears repeating, that such an illusion is down to your indoctrination as American children with regard to the Cold War.  Shaking that instinct-level-bias off so your can use your intelligence to discuss political matters is no easy task.



Thank you.  This.  If we can't get past this idea, our democracy is going to fall apart.  America, at it's heart, is an idea, that people of different backgrounds and beliefs and interests can come together and compromise to have a civil democratic government.  But that only works, America only works, democracy only works, if we can see the other side of the political debate as our brothers.  If we view our political rivals as our enemies, as evil even, it makes it impossible for democracy to work.


----------



## billc (Jul 14, 2013)

As has been stated numerous times, conservatives see liberals as being wrong on their ideas...liberals see conservatives as evil...that is where we are...


----------



## granfire (Jul 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> ?



the TSA, DHS and Internet Gremlins would not let me post....or was it the FBI....

considering that Ohio and North Carolina are trying very hard to following in Texas size footsteps....

The point being: When is the last time you read a law demanding men to undergo a mandatory prostate exam, or genital swab...
Oh goody....all things are just not being equal.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

billc said:


> As has been stated numerous times, conservatives see liberals as being wrong on their ideas...liberals see conservatives as evil...that is where we are...



_Current _conservatives--in the past it was just liberal vs. conservative and there were good points on both sides.


----------



## Steve (Jul 14, 2013)

billc said:


> As has been stated numerous times, conservatives see liberals as being wrong on their ideas...liberals see conservatives as evil...that is where we are...



Say it three times and it becomes the truth.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## granfire (Jul 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> Say it three times and it becomes the truth.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD




I think you are referring to clicking your heels...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 14, 2013)

granfire said:


> the TSA, DHS and Internet Gremlins would not let me post....or was it the FBI....
> 
> considering that Ohio and North Carolina are trying very hard to following in Texas size footsteps....
> 
> ...



Ohhh Abortions.  Yes because no Dem has ever been pro-life.  Got it


----------



## granfire (Jul 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Ohhh Abortions.  Yes because no Dem has ever been pro-life.  Got it



No. You are missing the point.
NC is following Texas trail, sure.

But Ohio has implemented a mandatory ultra sound and 24 hour waiting period to receive birth control...

Do answer me, if you do not mind: Have you ever heard of mandatory prostate exams or genital swabs for men. Ever.

I dare to say your answer is no. 

That is messed up. 
I mean not that guys are not subjected to it, but that women are. 

It's not - primary -  about abortion.
It is about curtailing female health care and, yes, bending democratic procedure to fit the agenda.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 14, 2013)

granfire said:


> No. You are missing the point.
> NC is following Texas trail, sure.
> 
> But Ohio has implemented a mandatory ultra sound and 24 hour waiting period to receive birth control...
> ...



Yes I've had mandatory physicals to do certain things or activities.  It doesn't stop anyone from getting anything.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Ohhh Abortions.  Yes because no Dem has ever been pro-life.  Got it



They're pretty well divided on this now, even if it isn't 100%.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Ohhh Abortions.  Yes because no Dem has ever been pro-life.  Got it



You mean like Harry Reid, pro-life and MORMON... dun dun DUN


----------



## arnisador (Jul 14, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes I've had mandatory physicals to do certain things or activities.  It doesn't stop anyone from getting anything.



That just isn't the same at all.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 14, 2013)

granfire said:


> No. You are missing the point.
> NC is following Texas trail, sure.
> 
> But Ohio has implemented a mandatory ultra sound and 24 hour waiting period to receive birth control...


 Gee, and birth control isn't even in the constitution like the right to bear arms, but, you are seemingly OK with those waiting periods... 





> Do answer me, if you do not mind: Have you ever heard of mandatory prostate exams or genital swabs for men. Ever.
> 
> I dare to say your answer is no.
> 
> ...


Except in exceedingly rare cases, abortion is not health care.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 14, 2013)

European style "health care" is the stated goal, so, lets look at European abortion laws:
EXCERPT BBC :
*AUSTRIA*

*Availability:* On request 

*Gestational limit:* First three months - in practice often before 12 weeks 

*Conditions:*  Must have medical consultation. May be performed after 12 weeks if  necessary to avoid serious danger to the woman's physical or mental  health; if the child is at risk of being born with a serious physical or  mental defect; or if the woman is under 14 years of age. 



*FRANCE*
*Availability:* On request 
*Gestational limit:* 12 weeks 
*Conditions:*  The woman must claim to be in a "state of distress" because of her  pregnancy. After 12 weeks, abortions are allowed only if the pregnancy  poses a grave danger to the woman's health or there is a risk the child  will suffer from a severe illness recognised as incurable. If this is  the case, two doctors must confirm the risk to the health of the woman  or foetus. 


*THE NETHERLANDS*
*Availability:* On request 
*Gestational limit:* 13 weeks 
*Conditions:*  A five-day waiting period is required between the initial consultation  and the performance of an induced abortion. The procedure must be  performed in a licensed hospital or clinic. Abortion is allowed after 13  weeks (up to 24 weeks) if she claims to be in a state of distress. 
END EXCERPT
Gee, much stricter than anything proposed in the US. Where is your outrage?
Not too many Republicans to rail against in Europe...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> That just isn't the same at all.


Sure it is.  Noone is beong refused treatment they are requiring further testing.  Happens for alot of things


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Sure it is.  Noone is beong refused treatment they are requiring further testing.  Happens for alot of things



The testing is unnecessary for the procedure. It's like if you had to have a hearing test before getting an appendectomy. If physicians don't do it preparatory to the procedure when not compelled by the state to do so, it's an unnecessary medical procedure.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The testing is unnecessary for the procedure. It's like if you had to have a hearing test before getting an appendectomy. If physicians don't do it preparatory to the procedure when not compelled by the state to do so, it's an unnecessary medical procedure.


So are 7 day waiting periods on gun buys,  so are showing my kids SSN card to register him for school when his 3 other siblings already go there, so is a hernia test for a 7 year old to play little league baseball.  We do lots of unnesscessary things everyday


----------



## Steve (Jul 15, 2013)

granfire said:


> I think you are referring to clicking your heels...


Ha.  "Say it three times and it becomes the truth" is something my grandma used to say about people who only see what they want to see.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> so is a hernia test for a 7 year old to play little league baseball.  We do lots of unnesscessary things everyday



This is the only one that's health-related, and while it may or may not be a poor use of time and money for the number of problems it detects, people shouldn't be playing baseball with an untreated hernia so it's relevant.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ha.  "Say it three times and it becomes the truth" is something my grandma used to say about people who only see what they want to see.



"...what I tell you three times is true." From Alice in Wonderland (Through the Looking Glass, that is).


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> This is the only one that's health-related, and while it may or may not be a poor use of time and money for the number of problems it detects, people shouldn't be playing baseball with an untreated hernia so it's relevant.


How many 7 year olds are running around with hernias?
You will get more sympathy from me when we remove pointless restrictions on a Constitutional protected right.  Then we can talk about removing extra precautions for an elective and unnecessary medical treatment


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 15, 2013)

> Gee, much stricter than anything proposed in the US. Where is your outrage?



  No, it isn't. The law that was ramrodded in Texas was not about the 20 week restriction, it was about the requirement that abortion clininc doctors were required to be hospital residents, and abortion clinics were required to have surgical centers for that .3% chance that complications resulted, even though a hospital may actually be next door. This is about "conservative" Republicans that refused to compromise on any of the excessively onerous requirements, even though the "liberal" Democrats agreed to back the law if they removed some of them. This is about the Republican majority pushing through what they hope will give them votes from the religious right, even though the Texas District of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists officially wrote up a letter of opposition to the bill.

  It isn't about stricter abortion time tables or about women's health. It's all about what they hope will get votes. Oh, and a little bit of nepotism from our fearless leader Mr. Perry. 

  [sarcasm]So, where is your outrage?[/sarcasm]


----------



## Steve (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How many 7 year olds are running around with hernias?
> You will get more sympathy from me when we remove pointless restrictions on a Constitutional protected right.  Then we can talk about removing extra precautions for an elective and unnecessary medical treatment


Children are not immune from a sports related hernia.  Are they?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How many 7 year olds are running around with hernias?



I don't know. It may not be worthwhile but it is on-target. Who mandates it--the school? Insurance?



> You will get more sympathy from me when we remove pointless restrictions on a Constitutional protected right.



Oh the irony. What do you think Roe v. Wade _means_?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I don't know. It may not be worthwhile but it is on-target. Who mandates it--the school? Insurance?


Im not sure its just something we have to get done so we do it.  Its not really a big deal just like getting an ultrasound is not a big deal



> Oh the irony. What do you think Roe v. Wade _means_?


What amendment is that?  Difference between a Constitutional Amendment and a court ruling is court rulings can be overturned


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

Steve said:


> Children are not immune from a sports related hernia.  Are they?


Im sure they are not immune but Ive played and coached youth sports my entire life and have never met a kid under high school age with one.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What amendment is that?  Difference between a Constitutional Amendment and a court ruling is court rulings can be overturned



Roe v. Wade said it's a right found in the 14th amendment. It's as much a right as carrying an assault rifle.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Roe v. Wade said it's a right found in the 14th amendment. It's as much a right as carrying an assault rifle.



Roe v wade can be overturned by any Supreme court in the future.  The 2nd Amendment can not the entire Constitution would have to be amended to get rid of the 2nd.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Roe v wade can be overturned by any Supreme court in the future.  The 2nd Amendment can not the entire Constitution would have to be amended to get rid of the 2nd.



Roe v. Wade interprets the 14th like Heller vs D.C. interprets the 2nd. Either could be overturned.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Roe v. Wade interprets the 14th like Heller vs D.C. interprets the 2nd. Either could be overturned.



yes but I dont get my right to own a gun from Heller


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

You get your right to own, and keep in your home, some types of firearms from Heller. Had it gone the other way you could've faced lots of restrictions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> You get your right to own, and keep in your home, some types of firearms from Heller. Had it gone the other way you could've faced lots of restrictions.



And Roe v wade only made abortions legal states can put restrictions on them as well


----------



## Steve (Jul 15, 2013)

So, ballen, if the supreme court ruled that a national registry of weapons and a prohibition on your right to own any hand guns was constitutional, you'd be okay with it?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

Steve said:


> So, ballen, if the supreme court ruled that a national registry of weapons and a prohibition on your right to own any hand guns was constitutional, you'd be okay with it?



Nope not at all.  They would be wrong.  Just like I believe Roe v Wade is wrong and will be overturned someday.


----------



## Steve (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Nope not at all.  They would be wrong.  Just like I believe Roe v Wade is wrong and will be overturned someday.


Okay.  I'm struggling to understand.  You think that abortions should all be illegal, and that the interpretation of the 14th amendment by the SCOTUS is just wrong?

So, it's not the idea of restricting constitutional rights that you disagree with.  What I mean is, you don't have any philosophical objection to placing caveats on a constitutional right.  Correct?  

And in the mean time, you'd register your rifles and shotguns, and turn in your pistols?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

Steve said:


> Okay.  I'm struggling to understand.  You think that abortions should all be illegal, and that the interpretation of the 14th amendment by the SCOTUS is just wrong?
> 
> So, it's not the idea of restricting constitutional rights that you disagree with.  What I mean is, you don't have any philosophical objection to placing caveats on a constitutional right.  Correct?


In my opinion Abortions are not a constitutional right. They are however legal. The courts we wrong just like when they said slavery was OK and Japanese internment camps were legal.  Courts can and do reverse themselves. 
 A spelled out in black and white Amendment to the constitution like the 2nd Amendment can't be reversed at the whim of a few justices on a Court.  I think the Constitution is clear and all branches of Govt and all parties have been stretching it beyond its intent.  There is a clear and legal way to add or subtract rights and privileges and change the Constitution.  You want Abortions legal amend the Constitution or pass an actual law don't use a few justices to backdoor it.


> And in the mean time, you'd register your rifles and shotguns, and turn in your pistols?


What choice would I have?  If the law says it then I'd either comply or violate it.  I'd violate it and deal with the outcome.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

The militia part of the 2nd is far from clear--it's not unreasonable to read it as militia-only.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The militia part of the 2nd is far from clear--it's not unreasonable to read it as militia-only.



Its clear to me.  Who makes up the militia?  The people.  Where do the militias get their weapons?  The people. Who owned all the weapons during the time the document was written?  The People.  Its very clear to me


----------



## Steve (Jul 15, 2013)

Ballen, the 2nd amendment has been clarified over the years through  challenges decided by the scotus.  Every amendment has.  That's a big part if their job.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is contrary to fact.  In the same way I could say that my opinion is that your handgun isn't a right.  My opinion would be wrong because the supreme court says so.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

Steve said:


> Ballen, the 2nd amendment has been clarified over the years through  challenges decided by the scotus.  Every amendment has.  That's a big part if their job.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but it is contrary to fact.  In the same way I could say that my opinion is that your handgun isn't a right.  My opinion would be wrong because the supreme court says so.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


Difference is one is a spelled out constitutional amendment and is protected and the other is a court order that can be overturned at any time.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its clear to me.  Who makes up the militia?  The people.  Where do the militias get their weapons?  The people. Who owned all the weapons during the time the document was written?  The People.  Its very clear to me



So...Supreme Court decisions you agree with are correct, but the ones you disagree with are just errors to be overturned?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 15, 2013)

arnisador said:


> So...Supreme Court decisions you agree with are correct, but the ones you disagree with are just errors to be overturned?



Well Duh......... If you agree with something you think its right if you dont agree its wrong thats kinda what the term Agree and Disagree with mean.


----------



## billc (Jul 15, 2013)

Supreme Court justices are not all knowing and all wise creatures of a divine nature...they are people who went to school for a long time...and often haven't the wisdom of the local grocery store owner...


----------



## billc (Jul 15, 2013)

New demonstration of incivility from the left since the trial...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/15/c...-in-oakland-slugged-me-kicked-me-in-the-head/



> &#8220;One young man chanted &#8216;There&#8217;s gonna be some violence tonight!&#8217;&#8221; Hartsock said. &#8220;He then came up to me and demanded I erase the footage from my phone &#8212; another request I declined.&#8221;
> &#8220;As two other young men interrogated me, their friend behind them came up and a young man then slugged me in the face about three times &#8212; hard &#8212; and demanded that I leave,&#8221; Hartsock said. &#8220;Then I began getting clocked by others in my left temple and jaw by other assailants and was mowed to the ground by about half a dozen of them.&#8221;
> Hartsock feared the worst. &#8220;For a couple minutes I was pinned down to the ground &#8212; one gentleman on top of me slugging me across the face repeatedly as an indeterminable number of others kicked me in the side of the head, and tried to get my phone out of my hand&#8230; The harder my grip tightened, the harder their punches to my face became,&#8221; he said.





> Hartsock says he doesn&#8217;t see a racial angle at play in his assault. &#8220;Some of my assailants were white. Some black, some mixed race. There were civilized people there who were black and very kind to me at first.&#8221;
> &#8220;I had no problems with anyone until two thugs came up to me and gave me ****,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Others got involved simply because they saw two thugs giving me **** and immediately [started] taking their side,&#8221; he said.
> &#8220;It turned into a Domino effect,&#8221; says Hartsock. &#8220;It didn&#8217;t matter what I had to say. Everyone decided the thing now was to pile up on me.&#8221;


----------



## Steve (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Well Duh......... If you agree with something you think its right if you dont agree its wrong thats kinda what the term Agree and Disagree with mean.



Well, if nothing else, I respect that you acknowledge your inconsistency.  

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Jul 15, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Well Duh......... If you agree with something you think its right if you dont agree its wrong thats kinda what the term Agree and Disagree with mean.



But you're judging by what matches your previously held beliefs, and saying ones you don't like the outcome of were not just bad news for you but wrong and should be overturned on legal grounds. I don't like it = they were wrong.


----------



## WaterGal (Jul 16, 2013)

billc said:


> As has been stated numerous times, conservatives see liberals as being wrong on their ideas...liberals see conservatives as evil...that is where we are...



You're either deeply naive or have your head deep in the sand, man.  There absolutely are liberals who demonize conservatives, but much, if not most, of the hate is blowing the other way.  

The right has guys like Newt Gingrich and Darrell Issa, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - the left rarely gives microphones to people like that, at least not for long.  Keith Olbermann was an ***, and he lost his show.  Rush is much more so, and is still on the air.

But your posting history leads me to believe that nothing in the world would convince you that the sky was blue if Rush Limbaugh said it was green, so, not much point in me responding to this, is there?


----------



## WaterGal (Jul 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Difference is one is a spelled out constitutional amendment and is protected and the other is a court order that can be overturned at any time.



Decades - centuries - of Supreme Court rulings cannot just "be overturned at any time".  They've become part of Constitutional law, almost as much as if they were written in the Constitution.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> Decades - centuries - of Supreme Court rulings cannot just "be overturned at any time".  They've become part of Constitutional law, almost as much as if they were written in the Constitution.


Sorry your wrong a future courts can and has overturned past courts rulings.  A ruling becomes the standard until its overturned.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> But you're judging by what matches your previously held beliefs, and saying ones you don't like the outcome of were not just bad news for you but wrong and should be overturned on legal grounds. I don't like it = they were wrong.



What do you think your doing?  You disagree with the rulings you don't like and agree with the ones you do.  Your OK with banning certain guns and view the 2nd Amendment differently then I do.  

Everyone even the Justices use personal beliefs to make choices and rulings.  That's why its so important for the left to stack the court with liberal judges and the right to stack the court with Conservative judges.  If everyone just looked and read what it said then it wouldn't matter what political affiliation a judge has.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> You're either deeply naive or have your head deep in the sand, man.  There absolutely are liberals who demonize conservatives, but much, if not most, of the hate is blowing the other way.
> 
> The right has guys like Newt Gingrich and Darrell Issa, Rush Limbaugh and genn Beck - the left rarely gives microphones to people like that, at least not for long.  Keith Olbermann was an ***, and he lost his show.  Rush is much more so, and is still on the air.
> 
> But your posting history leads me to believe that nothing in the world would convince you that the sky was blue if Rush Limbaugh said it was green, so, not much point in me responding to this, is there?



Are you serious?  Have you ever listened to left wing talk radio?  Ed Shultz is one of the most vial humans I've ever listened too.  Mike Malloy made fun of tornado victims in the bible belt laughing that they were turned into little greese spots .


----------



## arnisador (Jul 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Are you serious?  Have you ever listened to left wing talk radio?  Ed Shultz is one of the most vial humans I've ever listened too.  Mike Malloy made fun of tornado victims in the bible belt laughing that they were turned into little greese spots .



I've never heard of these guys, but the right-wing ones are everywhere.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I've never heard of these guys, but the right-wing ones are everywhere.



Really?  Ed Schultz has the #1 progressive raido show in the nation hes nationally broadcasted. Hes on MSNBC TV shows as a guest all the time


----------



## arnisador (Jul 16, 2013)

OK, now that I googled him I recognize him.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 16, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Really? Ed Schultz has the #1 progressive raido show in the nation hes nationally broadcasted. Hes on MSNBC TV shows as a guest all the time



  To me, that sounds like an excellent reason to avoid him. In fact, I avoid all extremists, because I believe there's something intrinsically wrong with anyone that believes that life is black and white. Zero tolerance is the voice of Satan speaking through our "leaders". Unfortunately, this is what our modern society is leaning more and more towards. No compromise, no greater good, no thinking about things for yourself, simply X is wrong, Y is right. That's the sort of thinking that leads to zealots sacrificing themselves to blow up the "enemy". 

  Sorry about the rant, it just slips out sometimes!


----------



## arnisador (Jul 16, 2013)

The Daily Show is back on the air. I'm set.


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The Daily Show is back on the air. I'm set.


Ha!  That's funny.


----------

