Current Topics
its raining Russian assets
by pdx rick
8 minutes 46 seconds ago
Where have all the conservatives gone?
by rporter314
11 minutes 35 seconds ago
The Impeachment of Donald trump
by pdx rick
11 minutes 41 seconds ago
lynching
by Greger
Today at 12:44 AM
What is a far leftist, anyway?
by Greger
Today at 12:33 AM
What is "old"?
by Greger
Today at 12:30 AM
RoundTable for Fall 2019
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 11:32 PM
Fifty US nukes held hostage at Turkish air base
by Greger
Yesterday at 11:22 PM
Public option vs Medicare for All
by Greger
Yesterday at 10:56 PM
The Trump/Biden/Ukraine thing
by pondering_it_all
10/22/19 10:35 PM
If ISIS does the unthinkable...
by Jeffery J. Haas
10/22/19 06:51 PM
Politics - the art of using deception to get power
by Senator Hatrack
10/22/19 05:00 PM
auto industry, unions and strikes
by chunkstyle
10/22/19 04:41 PM
The Trump/Biden/Ukraine thing
by Jeffery J. Haas
10/22/19 12:13 AM
Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies
by pondering_it_all
10/19/19 02:26 AM
Hyper-partisanship and irrationality
by logtroll
10/19/19 12:47 AM
Are both "sides" equally corrupt?
by chunkstyle
10/18/19 12:18 PM
The Departed - 2019
by pdx rick
10/17/19 01:12 PM
Why do humans fight so much?
by Greger
10/15/19 02:13 PM
Global warming predictions
by logtroll
10/13/19 08:47 PM
Forum Stats
6282 Members
59 Forums
16720 Topics
291131 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 25 of 40 < 1 2 ... 23 24 25 26 27 ... 39 40 >
Topic Options
#315403 - 09/15/19 05:52 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17116
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it.
Thanks for that acknowledgment, my friend.

I wrote a little bit about this on another thread. Rather than cross-posting, I'll just note the relevant point, here: a government is given authorities and restrictions, as its denizens are. The Constitution gave the central/federal government certain powers, and left others to the States. Within its authority it can create requirements, prohibitions, restrictions and permissions. Examples might be: a requirement to file taxes; a prohibition on lying to Congress; a restriction on political donations; permission to drill on public lands.

Friend Hatrack has stated on several occasions that the Constitution was created "to limit government." I have also, on several occasions, pointed out the error of the statement as a generality. That there are "restrictions" on the power of the federal government has never been contested. It is the asserting that this was the "purpose" of the Constitution that is both erroneous and ridiculous. (The most succinct demonstration is the supremacy clause.) For example, the federal government is given authority to conduct foreign affairs. States can't do it, citizens can't do it. There are prohibitions with penalties (Logan act); there are limited authorizions (e.g., States given permission to negotiate trade compacts). But, in that sphere, federal authority is plenary.

In other areas the federal government shares authority. In some areas, it is specifically restricted (e.g., establishment of religion or prohibition thereof). Yet, even in those areas, the government may have some influence or impact. No such constitutional proscription is absolute, no matter how definitive the language may seem. For example "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom of speech" seems pretty definitive, yet time, place and manner restrictions are upheld, and some speech is actually prohibited (incitement to riot).

Top
#315404 - 09/15/19 06:10 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1616
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I see... there are no limits, then.
No, according to Madison, the author of it, the clause, like the rest of our government is limited. To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution.
I forgot to amend this note previously:* Madison did not write the Constitution. He proposed numerous provisions of it, many of which were debated, discarded, adopted and/or modified by a group of individuals at the Constitutional Convention, which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals. His opinion, therefore, of its meaning and purpose is... one opinion. Persuasive, perhaps, but most assuredly not definitive. There were literally hundreds of others whose opinions affected the adoption and interpretation of the words contained in it. (Remember the Federalist papers? What was that all about?)

I did not say that Madison was the sole author of our Constitution! What I did say was that he was the author of the general Welfare clause. Then you make the mistake of saying;
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
which eventually produced a proposal that was ratified by the legislatures of the various States.

Our Constitution was not ratified by the state legislatures! Natioonal Archives
Quote:
On September 17, 1787, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May. After a farewell banquet, delegates swiftly returned to their homes to organize support, most for but some against the proposed charter. Before the Constitution could become the law of the land, it would have to withstand public scrutiny and debate. The document was "laid before the United States in Congress assembled" on September 20. For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect. He participated in most of the convention along with fifty or so other individuals.
Our Constitution was not ratified by the state legislatures! It was ratified by special conventions called for the purpose of ratifying our Constitution. Madison did not participate in most of the convention, he participated in ALL of it! He was one of the few delegates to it that was there every day that the convention met. Was Madison persuasive? Of course he was. He was the author of the Virginia Plan, which was the plan that our Constitution is based on. Yes, I do remember The Federalist Papers. I also remember that they were written to convince the people of the various states, originally New York but then were used in other states, to support the ratification of our Constitution. It was in 1810 that The Federalist Papers as we know them today were published as a book. It was after The Federalist Papers were published as a book that there use to interpret our Constitution began. That is what The Federalist Papers were all about.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Which brings me to my second point: Apparently, friend, you didn't follow the link I provided, so don't understand the definition of "sophistry". It is a fallacious mode of argumentation; specifically, "the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving." It is sometimes referred to as "specious reasoning." When you say, "To determine what they are it is best to read what the author of the clause, James Madison, said about it." and that "In that [Hamilton] did not participate in the debates of the clause his opinion of it not relevant." - that is an example of specious reasoning or sophistry. It is full of logical fallacies (e.g., appeal to authority), and omissions (e.g., that the only discussions/debates were those recorded by Madison).
That Madison did write the general Welfare clause is not a fallacious argument, it is a fact. That Hamilton didn't participate in the debate of the general Welfare clause means that he did not have any influence on the writing of it. That is not a fallacious argument, it is a fact. Is not asking about The Federalist Papers an appeal to authority? Why, yes it is! There were other delegates to the Constitutional Convention who took notes. Robert Yates also took notes of the convention. His notes are informative but since he did not attend the entire convention they are not a complete record of the convention. Madison did attend the entire convention which makes his notes a complete record of it.

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Now, I will also admit that I love it, which is not charitable of me, when you write things that prove my point, but disprove your own. It's a habit of yours that I take guilty pleasure in.
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
What you apparently cannot comprehend is that our Constitution was written to create a limited central government! They realized that the weak central government of the Articles of Confederation wasn't working. Did our Constitution expand the role of the central government? Yes, but not as much as you erroneously think it did. [.]
https://uslawessentials.atavist.com/the-constitution-and-the-distribution-of-power-clone-19pbj
Quote:
To each branch, the Constitution assigns certain powers. No branch of government may exceed the powers granted to it by the Constitution. By assigning powers to each branch, the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government and also tries to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful.
The checks and balances in our Constitution were put there to limit the power of our government.
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Which was exactly my point. You then reload the shotgun and point it at your... well, you get the metaphor - and assert "They were extremely reluctant to give the new central government any power." Who is this "they", Kemo sahbee? And why did they do exactly that, if it was not their intention? Maybe you meant to say, "some of them"? Or, "some argued against it"?

The "they" I was referring to were the members of the Constitutional Convention. Those men had just lived through a war to get rid of the powerful British government. The idea that they would create a powerful government for them to live under is ludicrous!

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
What chaps my hide is your broad generalizations and surety that you are "right" about things, when you are not, and even when you are proved in error, refusal to recognize it as such. Yes, there are limitations on the central government - I've never argued elsewise - but the argument that "To limit our government is why they wrote our Constitution." Is. Just. Not. True.

My "broad generalizations" have been backed up with citations. My "surety" that I am right is also backed up with citations. In this reply I have shown, with citations, where you were in error NW. Your "proof" that I am in error is your claim that you are. Your error in saying the state legislatures ratified our Constitution shows that you are not as knowledgeable about it as you think you are. Then my link to and quote fromThe Constitution and the Distribution of Power shows that our Constitution was written to limit the power of our government. So, yes my saying our Constitution was written to limit the power of our government
IS TRUE!

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
* I originally mistyped that as "Peeviously". I thought that was an apt descriptor, and a freudian slip. Made me laugh.

I see you are still riding your high horse, NW. Perhaps you should get off your horse before you fall and hurt yourself.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#315405 - 09/15/19 06:33 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1616
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it.

That comment was written around 2 AM after having been up since 7 AM the previous day. When I wrote it I was tired and the tedious process of writing a reply and quoting it caused me to make a mistake. Had NW quoted the second sentence that I wrote he would not be thanking me for it. Here are both of the sentences.
Quote:
His so called expertise on our Constitution is supported by the authors of it. Thus he is not the expert on it that he thinks he is.

Because I was tired I forgot to put the word "not" between the words is and supported. With the word "not" in the sentence its meaning is changed. NW omitted quoting my second sentence because it reinforces what my first sentence meant to say but didn't due to my leaving out a very important word.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
#315406 - 09/15/19 06:43 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17116
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
As someone who has been a member of the Republican Party for over 50 years, and whose family has been members of the party since 1910, my knowledge of it is better than someone who has never been a member of it.
Well, not really. Sometimes the view from inside (of one element) can be just a little bit skewed. It could, perhaps, even be infected with a bit of bias. Sometimes the best observers are those from the outside. In my humble opinion, this is such a case.

Top
#315407 - 09/15/19 07:09 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: NW Ponderer]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

It's the Despair Quotient!
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 14349
Loc: Whittier, California
Example of Republican thinking today:

"Liberals believe that the government should make all of your health care decisions for you, but when socialism came to Cambodia, it resulted in the deaths of millions."

Never mind that the Khmer Rouge only came to power because Tricky Dick (whom the Rethugs would worship had he not resigned) overthrew Cambodia's government and started bombing the countryside. As a matter of fact, Anthony Bourdain remarked, "To visit Cambodia is to want Kissinger tried for war crimes."
_________________________
The only people pushing the Athenian Straw Man Nonexistent Threat of Slippery Slope Windyfoggery (ASMNSSW) RE DEMOCRACY are people who have a misunderstanding/problem or hatred of democracy. (See AUTHORITARIANS)

Top
#315411 - 09/15/19 07:29 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: NW Ponderer]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41849
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: Senator Hatrack
And no, healthcare does not fit under the general Welfare clause.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

promote - support or actively encourage.

general - affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread

welfare - the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.

Any society that aspires to nothing, will lose everything. Through an insidious devaluation of curiosity and intellectualism, lost empathy and abandoned governance, it will eventually fall victim to its self-engenderizing.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#315413 - 09/15/19 07:31 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: NW Ponderer]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41849
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Make a note of this post, my friends. This is a shining example of what is known as "sophistry".

Right-wingers are known for this intellectually dishonest device in online forums. Happens ALL of the time. Hmm
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#315415 - 09/15/19 07:43 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: Senator Hatrack]
logtroll Offline
veteran

Registered: 04/26/10
Posts: 9482
Loc: One of the Mexicos
I wonder why Hatrack seldom responds to Logtroll's simple observations and questions?

I am finding the long and convoluted lectures in response to NWP to be impenetrable. Blenderized concoctions of opinion, history, dogma, alternative fact, and the occasional true fact, are unappetizing and hard to swallow.

My construction company (yes, I am a bona fide capitalist) has been engaged in a lawsuit with a crazy (former) client for a year and a half over a payment dispute. The problem arose when she decided that she wanted to shitcan us because we wouldn't allow her to micro-manage a fixed-price contract project. Several months into the job we submitted a progress payment application (stipulated by her lender), which she refused to authorize, saying she "felt" had already overpaid us (but with no documentation). At the same time, she refused to follow the contractual disbursement procedure that required a 3rd party professional to inspect the job, compare the AIA G702 pay app to the schedule of values for work completed, and certify the amount requested.

In short, she breached the contract by not performing her obligation to follow the progress payment approval process. The cure was simple - have the 3rd party professional inspect the job and certify that payment is due.

However, she started making up tons of other reasons to accuse us of breaching the contract by stopping work until we got paid (we were $45,000 into the job and out of funds to continue). She locked up the jobsite (with some $60,000 of our tools and materials inside), and got an unethical lawyer to write a "Notice of Termination" of the contract, that was filled with specious claims and libel, coupled with extortive demands (one was that we'd get our tools back when all of her demands were met).

We finally got into court 8 months later, where she and her second sleazeball attorney poured a blenderized concoction of crap onto the judge (who was not the brightest bulb in the room and was on his final day at the bench having recently lost an election), including a new story claiming that she didn't know who the tools belonged to and needed to determine the rightful owners were before releasing them.

The judge was so confused that he declined to rule on the case, except to order the client to give us back our tools (some of which had been stolen during the period of her protective custody).

She is now on her 3rd lawyer (from her insurance company, who is only defending covered claims) and is attempting to represent her company pro se on a raft of new claims against us. She has been so bold as to contradict the new judge after he told her that unless she is an attorney she can't represent a LLC or a corporation. He was unconvinced by her arguments, so now she is busy trying to justify pressing the claims on the basis she has been injured as a result of her company being injured. But of course, if there is no ruling that we injured her company, there is no basis for her alleged injury. She can't argue personal injury without first succeeding at arguing company damage.

Quite the stinking muddle - we are now 1-1/2 years in, she has spent an estimated $50,000 and has forced us to spend $20,000 - and the core issue is still simple and without a hearing... she didn't follow the contract in certifying the pay app. When that little step in the process is finally performed, we will get a judgement awarding the payment, interest, and damages. She will still blame us bitterly, and what should have been a normal and friendly project that would have been completed on time (June 2018) and on budget (it was a fixed-price contract) will be a smoking wreck, possibly putting her out of business.

In case you are wondering what the point is here, it's that arguing with Hatrack reminds me of our dispute with the crazy lady client. You just can't get anywhere with a Blenderizer on the other side of the table.
_________________________
You canít solve a problem without first understanding what the problem is.

Top
#315416 - 09/15/19 07:45 PM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: NW Ponderer]
pdx rick Offline
Member
CHB-OG

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 41849
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Quote:
I wonder why Hatrack seldom responds to Logtroll's simple observations and questions?

Mebbe you're on ignore. coffee
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#315428 - 09/16/19 12:12 AM Re: Where have all the conservatives gone? [Re: logtroll]
Senator Hatrack Offline
member

Registered: 08/14/07
Posts: 1616
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I wonder why Hatrack seldom responds to Logtroll's simple observations and questions?

I am finding the long and convoluted lectures in response to NWP to be impenetrable. Blenderized concoctions of opinion, history, dogma, alternative fact, and the occasional true fact, are unappetizing and hard to swallow.

My construction company (yes, I am a bona fide capitalist) has been engaged in a lawsuit with a crazy (former) client for a year and a half over a payment dispute. The problem arose when she decided that she wanted to shitcan us because we wouldn't allow her to micro-manage a fixed-price contract project. Several months into the job we submitted a progress payment application (stipulated by her lender), which she refused to authorize, saying she "felt" had already overpaid us (but with no documentation). At the same time, she refused to follow the contractual disbursement procedure that required a 3rd party professional to inspect the job, compare the AIA G702 pay app to the schedule of values for work completed, and certify the amount requested.

In short, she breached the contract by not performing her obligation to follow the progress payment approval process. The cure was simple - have the 3rd party professional inspect the job and certify that payment is due.

However, she started making up tons of other reasons to accuse us of breaching the contract by stopping work until we got paid (we were $45,000 into the job and out of funds to continue). She locked up the jobsite (with some $60,000 of our tools and materials inside), and got an unethical lawyer to write a "Notice of Termination" of the contract, that was filled with specious claims and libel, coupled with extortive demands (one was that we'd get our tools back when all of her demands were met).

We finally got into court 8 months later, where she and her second sleazeball attorney poured a blenderized concoction of crap onto the judge (who was not the brightest bulb in the room and was on his final day at the bench having recently lost an election), including a new story claiming that she didn't know who the tools belonged to and and needed to determine the rightful owners were before releasing them.

The judge was so confused that he declined to rule on the case, except to order the client to give us back our tools (some of which had been stolen during the period of her protective custody).

She is now on her 3rd lawyer (from her insurance company, who is only defending covered claims) and is attempting to represent her company pro se on a raft of new claims against us. She has been so bold as to contradict the new judge after he told her that unless she is an attorney she can't represent a LLC or a corporation. He was unconvinced by her arguments, so now she is busy trying to justify pressing the claims on the basis she has been injured as a result of her company being injured. But of course, if there is no ruling that we injured her company, there is no basis for her alleged injury. She can't argue personal injury without first succeeding at arguing company damage.

Quite the stinking muddle - we are now 1-1/2 years in, she has spent an estimated $50,000 and has forced us to spend $20,000 - and the core issue is still simple and without a hearing... she didn't follow the contract in certifying the pay app. When that little step in the process is finally performed, we will get a judgement awarding the payment, interest, and damages. She will still blame us bitterly, and what should have been a normal and friendly project that would have been completed on time (June 2018) and on budget (it was a fixed-price contract) will be a smoking wreck, possibly putting her out of business.

In case you are wondering what the point is here, it's that arguing with Hatrack reminds me of our dispute with the crazy lady client. You just can't get anywhere with a Blenderizer on the other side of the table.
Did you ever consider the possibility that for the people here I am automatically wrong? That a long diatribe comparing me to a crazy former client of yours is not a good way to have a conversation. That every thing I say is meet with derision. The Rant is no longer a place for a friendly discussion between conservatives and liberals. It is now a place where the idea that someone might disagree with the liberals here, even if they are business owners, and what they have to say is valid. As William F. Buckley once said
Quote:
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.
_________________________
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary

Top
Page 25 of 40 < 1 2 ... 23 24 25 26 27 ... 39 40 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 12 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Snarky_Politics, Moot, Ikari, perotista, ttwtt78640
6282 Registered Users
A2