Bush is a hero

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 4,194)

Showing posts 83,861 - 83,880 of171,520
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Troy

Saint Paul, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87185
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

2

1

1

FYI

i'm yellow star posting unregistered using my real name

now then, carry on

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87186
Oct 19, 2010
 
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably why they made it so easy to amend... NOT.
<quoted text>
If the founding fathers came back today, they would immediately line up every Congressman, the President, his entire cabinetand all his czars up against a brick wall a shoot evey last one of them.
Then they'd start our government all over again... kind of like the Tea Party wants to do.
Probably not. At least not unless they could undo the damage caused by the civil war.

So why did tyhey make it so easy to ammend and why were they so willing to ammend it themselves?
Kenosha

Harper, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87187
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

2

One thing for sure, GW is looking better and better, isn't he?

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87188
Oct 19, 2010
 
Robert2 wrote:
<quoted text>
"He plainly asserts that police departments (as opposed to sheriffs) are unconstitutional on a Federal basis"
No I do not,what I said was that there was "no constitutional mandate or basis for them".
Don't mis-quote to deflect from your errors in understanding.
And the difference between 'no constitutional mandate' and 'unconstitutional' is what, exactly?

“On a sailing ship to nowhere”

Since: Jun 07

Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87189
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I am a Christian and the Bible teaches many great lessons, but lets be realistic. It was compiled by men who had various "ideas" of what this "new" religion should be like. Further, it had to meet the approval of the Ruler of Rome which had his own desires. To complicate meatters further, there were several similar versions of some of the books and they were able to choose the version they wished.
And of course, then there is the issue of translations.
But, with all that you're a Christian? Why?
With all that said what does it mean to be a Christian?

“On a sailing ship to nowhere”

Since: Jun 07

Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87190
Oct 19, 2010
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>And the difference between 'no constitutional mandate' and 'unconstitutional' is what, exactly?
I am lost on what is being talked about with regards to police vs sheriff and why one is Constitutional and the other not. Can you or Berta 'splain for me? Thanks.

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87191
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Robert2 wrote:
<quoted text>
None. But it does not call for the establishment of Police agencies either. Ad hominem attacks. Typical. Sophomoric? The distinction between elected officials, and appointed officials is a great distinction, as it outlines those that have accountability and those that do not. The original statement that security was a right guaranteed by the Constitution was just plain wrong; and now you are deflecting.
I don't believe my use of the word sophomoric was either ad hominem or gratuitous - it really is what I think of the reasoning that tries to make a constitutional (or semi-constitutional) argument against the establishment of police departments as opposed to sheriffs.

At a minimum, the argument is sophomoric when it so much as MENTIONS the Federal constitution regarding local or state police departments. The attempt to invoke 46-48 state constitutions is a sweeping generalization.

That's just for starters, mind you. I won't even bother with the reasons most cities switched from elected sheriffs to police departments beginning in the late 1800s.

“On a sailing ship to nowhere”

Since: Jun 07

Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87192
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>Very shrewd, Bob, I think you're right.
This follows the story I heard regarding the firing of Shirley Sherrod

http://dailyhurricane.com/2010/07/shirley-she...

"Sherrod told CNN that the White House urged her to resign Monday afternoon after the video clip surfaced.

"They harassed me," she said. "I got three calls from the White House. At one point they asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it because you are going to be on Glenn Beck tonight."

[...]

Sherrod said the White House calls came from Cheryl Cook, USDA deputy undersecretary for rural development. "The administration was not interested in hearing the truth. They didn't want to hear the truth."

And this? From Cook's boss, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

"The controversy surrounding her comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia...Our policy is clear. There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA and we strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person."

“On a sailing ship to nowhere”

Since: Jun 07

Colorado

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87193
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably not. At least not unless they could undo the damage caused by the civil war.
So why did tyhey make it so easy to ammend and why were they so willing to ammend it themselves?
They made it "easy" to ammend the Constitution? Have you seen what it takes to ammend it?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/...

To Propose Amendments

•Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment, or

•Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments.(This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

•Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

•Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.

Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.
billybob

Ashland, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87194
Oct 19, 2010
 
Saddahm said he had weapons of mass destruction. Kind of stupid of him.. You liberal geeks had better learn how to speak arab if you want to concede defeat.. The women will have buy awhole new wardrobe.

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87195
Oct 19, 2010
 
Pernrider wrote:
<quoted text>
I am lost on what is being talked about with regards to police vs sheriff and why one is Constitutional and the other not. Can you or Berta 'splain for me? Thanks.
I can't explain his position to you.

I don't believe there are ANY 'constitutional' issues in the debate over whether an elected sheriff or an appointed police chief is best.

There are lots of reasons that many communities chose to move away from an elected Sheriff and to a commissioned police force, chief among them patronage and corruption.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87196
Oct 19, 2010
 
Slow day? Lol.

“What the hay”

Since: Mar 08

Florida

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87197
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

1

I wanted to check in and say hey to everyone. Your all good people and I wish all the best. I’m not around and sorry for that (matter of opinion):) It’s better for me tho.

Take care regulars! And best wishes.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87198
Oct 19, 2010
 
Pernrider wrote:
<quoted text>
But, with all that you're a Christian? Why?
With all that said what does it mean to be a Christian?
No mousetraps in there.....

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87199
Oct 19, 2010
 

Judged:

1

Ds Higgins1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats precisely why I said Obama did NOT start the Muslim outreach, because I know for a FACT, Bush was doing them. But you could never tell, as liberals like Obama pretends he initiated such overtures towards Islam.
Yeah, yeah, I heerd ya.....>grin<.......hey, I'm just here to help you and your brethren grasp your inner ASSumptive reactionary. Well done. Don't thank me, mine is servant ministry.

;)

“God Bless America”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87200
Oct 19, 2010
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>What the hell are you talking about?
First of all, there have been countless articles, books, news items, and who knows what else regarding Bremmer (Wallace) and Hinkley (Bremmer). You don't have to be a mental health expert to be aware of what they have to say regarding the motivations of the attempted assassins - you just have to be well read.
If you know of a reason to believe that Bremmer and/or Hinkley were motivated by more than a desire for publicity, please share. I've never seen anything that suggested it.
Second, the post you accuse me of 'reading something into' contained both 'Those forces were created by city and state ordinances with no mandate by the Constitutions of those entities at that time' AND 'appointed Police are basically mercenaries paid by the public to perform that function, with no accountability to Voters, or mandate by the Federal Constitution.'
He plainly asserts that police departments (as opposed to sheriffs) are unconstitutional on a Federal basis, and either are (or were when created) unconstitutional on a state basis.
You're making yourself look silly, Fearless.
Silly vs azz, i'll take silly.

Mental giant, not a chance you are more like a mental midget.

However, we all know your reading skills are not the best. You have a bad habit of reading into what you are attempting to read what you want it to say.

Also huckleberry, I do not believe your are that well read but are imbued with a ton of BS that would be better put out to pasture.

Regarding the police Dick Tracy, police are not covered by the Constitution but would fall under the Tenth Amendment. I didn't assuse you of anything about mercenaries as that was written by OKB. I do not agree with what our Eastern sage says about the police or much of anything he says.

Silly, no just don't subscribe to your BS and cockeyed vieiw if eventss.

"I've never seen anything that suggested it". Yep, really well read. Use your head to think and don't believe everything you read; oh I forgot you can always add what you want.

“God Bless America”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87201
Oct 19, 2010
 
Robert2 wrote:
<quoted text>
This might help him:
http://bibletab.com/t/truth.htm
Thanks, I added this to my favorites.

“God Bless America”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87202
Oct 19, 2010
 
BobLoblah wrote:
<quoted text>18Oct10.....Most of the panelists on the View are full of schidt.
Bob Loblah
Welcome back.

“God Bless America”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87203
Oct 19, 2010
 
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Probably not. At least not unless they could undo the damage caused by the civil war.
So why did tyhey make it so easy to ammend and why were they so willing to ammend it themselves?
Hey dude, The Constitutipn is not easy to ammend. as the poster said.

Damage by the Civil War?????

“God Bless America”

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87204
Oct 19, 2010
 
Pernrider wrote:
<quoted text>
I am lost on what is being talked about with regards to police vs sheriff and why one is Constitutional and the other not. Can you or Berta 'splain for me? Thanks.
Neither are Constitutional by the United States Constitution.

The election of a Sheriff is left up to the State and the State Constitution. I am familiar with the Indiana State Constitution which provides for each County to elect a Sheriff once every four years and limits the term to two four year terms. The Sheriff, because it is an elected office, is the highest Law Enforcement Officer in the County and is answerable to the electorate.

Police Departments are formsed by Municipalities and controlled by the elected Mayor. The Mayor is answerable to the electorate. Also the citizens of the Municipality can only vote for a Mayor. Outside City Limits citizens do not vote for the Mayor.

Now Marion County Indiana (Indianapolis) is totally different. They are governed by a UniGov system. The entire County is the city as of about four years ago. The Sheriff is still and elected official.

It is amazing the power of a Sheriff.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 83,861 - 83,880 of171,520
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••