Cancel Culture

[mowood3479]

Then you suffer from either cognitive dissonance or you are lacking in understanding of how our government works. If all it took was one party to hold a majority then a bill would have passed yesterday to establish a bipartisan commission to investigate.....
....Of course like before you're likely just going to skim thru all that and end up ignoring it so I realize I've wasted my time explaining all this to you. I realize you are content to continue political existence in your little echo chamber and as such all of this will be lost on you. Of course since I knew that going in, I didn't explain all that just for you but rather for any thoughtful individual that might take the time to read it and engage in meaningful discussion. Have a wonderful day.

I read ur considerable post and to paraphrase ur saying you don’t like the filibuster component of our senate.
there is a lot I don’t like about the senate either.
still my point about majority stands unless ur redefining the meaning of majority...
Make better arguments and they won’t get torn down as easily

 

[Absolem]

Did I say anything about banning cigarettes'? Nice strawman comeback there.

Yea everybody knows banning cigarettes and booze and liquor and drugs is how you help black folks.
oh and make sure to send lots of cops to enforce these bans...
iTs fOr tHeIr oWn gOoD
(when dear lord will people stop arguing for prohibition or sin tax which is prohibition via taxation)

adults (of any skin color) can make their own choices... increase freedom and increase prosperity for all

 

[mowood3479]

Did I say anything about banning cigarettes'? Nice strawman comeback there.

If you read my post (that you’ve quoted) I say raising taxes on something like booze or tobacco (sin tax) is prohibition via taxation...
so yea raising taxes on a product is a financial prohibition on that product
thanks please come again

 

[Cannavore]

 

[Microbeman]

If you read my post (that you’ve quoted) I say raising taxes on something like booze or tobacco (sin tax) is prohibition via taxation...
so yea raising taxes on a product is a financial prohibition on that product
thanks please come again

As is the restriction on travel and upwards financial/business mobility which freedoms the US brags about so unabashedly.

 

[Cannavore]

Another poor victim of cancel culture...... lmfaooooo. you know you have next to no brain cells left when you compare vaccinations with the holocaust.

 

[mowood3479]

As is the restriction on travel and upwards financial/business mobility which freedoms the US brags about so unabashedly.

I don’t know if I follow ur logic here please clarify
are u saying the government restricts travel and upward financial mobility by raising taxes on these things? (Which is true enough iMo)
I don’t brag about any freedoms in the USA... we do not score well on free market metrics (because we have a giant fascist crony corporatist state imho)

 

[HempKat]

I read ur considerable post and to paraphrase ur saying you don’t like the filibuster component of our senate.
there is a lot I don’t like about the senate either.
still my point about majority stands unless ur redefining the meaning of majority...
Make better arguments and they won’t get torn down as easily

My argument hardly got torn down by your incorrect interpretation of them. I didn't say anything about whether I liked or didn't like the filibuster, I merely discussed how it's gotten perverted from what it was originally meant to be. Also you made no actual point about majority you merely demonstrated your inability to actually grasp my point about majority as it applies to the senate.

Learn to actually understand what people are saying if you wish to be taken seriously in a debate.

 

[mowood3479]

My argument hardly got torn down by your incorrect interpretation of them. I didn't say anything about whether I liked or didn't like the filibuster, I merely discussed how it's gotten perverted from what it was originally meant to be. Also you made no actual point about majority you merely demonstrated your inability to actually grasp my point about majority as it applies to the senate.

Learn to actually understand what people are saying if you wish to be taken seriously in a debate.

Ok buddy... to paraphrase your 5000 word thesis a majority is more than 50%.. but because of the filibuster in effect a super majority is needed to pass laws.
im really impressed that you have a working knowledge of how things were intended to be by the founders.
you must be a very old cat if u knew them guys personally and new their intentions better than the Supreme Court

 

[HempKat]

Ok buddy... to paraphrase your 5000 word thesis a majority is more than 50%.. but because of the filibuster in effect a super majority is needed to pass laws.
im really impressed that you have a working knowledge of how things were intended to be by the founders.
you must be a very old cat if u knew them guys personally and new their intentions better than the Supreme Court

Obviously I'm not old enough to have known the founding fathers personally but one does not need to know them personally all they need to do is study history and the writings of the Federalist papers which was a way the founding fathers tried to provide us written references of what exactly their intentions were. For example if you read Federalist No. 22 written by Alexander Hamilton you will find that he clearly described the requirements of super majorities as one of the main problems with the earlier forms of government in the Colonies and went on to identify a number of evils that arise with such requirements. The only things ever meant to require super majorities were conviction on impeachment charges, expelling a member of Congress, overriding presidential vetoes, ratifying treaties and proposing constitutional amendments. Everything else such as passing bills, and judicial nominations was intended to be done by a simple majority.

In actuality there never was anything specifically in the Constitution about filibusters so it really would be difficult to have the Supreme Court rule on the Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality of the filibuster since their rulings are supposed to be based on what is in the Constitution. The reality is that the filibuster came to be by accident around 1806 after former vice president Burr argued that a recently established senate rule to move to a previous question by simple majority in order to end debate was redundant. In 1806 after Burr had left office the senate agreed with Burr and removed the rule to end debate by moving to the previous question after a simple majority vote. However the forgot to put some other mechanism in it's place to end debate which made filibusters theoretically possible. The first actual filibuster didn't occur until 31 years later in 1837. After that and thru the 1840's up to the 1960's the filibuster became a tactic used randomly and during those days was when all a senator needed to do to keep a filibuster going was to keep continuously talking about virtually anything. One example from the 1930's was when a Louisiana Senator used the filibuster as a way to promote his populist policies and to help extend it even long to over 15 hours he read from works of Shakespeare and recipes for what are known as pot-likkers. Perhaps the longest filibuster came in 1946 where a group of six senators managed to keep a filibuster going for several weeks to block a proposed bill to prevent discrimination in the workplace. The senator from New Mexico who proposed the bill finally backed down and the bill fail even though he actually had enough votes to pass the bill if it weren't for being blocked by the filibuster. This sort of thing continued thru the 60's and 70's with other rule changes being added that made it easier to sustain long term filibusters. It wasn't until about 1975 when the requirement for a "Talking Filibuster" was removed which led to what we now know as a filibuster and essentially made it where in order to accomplish anything in the senate, required a Super Majority of 60 senators. Then during the Obama administration democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the super majority requirement created by the filibuster to stop the republicans from holding up executive branch and judicial nominees (except Supreme Court Justices). Then in 2017 the republicans used the nuclear option to remove the super majority requirement on Supreme Court nominees so that Trump could appoint Neil Gorsuch and have the senate confirm him with just a simple majority. This brings us to where we are now where the only thing still requiring super majority votes are just newly proposed bills.

There are only two options currently moving forward. One we've already seen used called budget reconciliation which allows a simple majority to push thru a bill against stiff opposition but there are strict rules on what can and can't be passed this way. Additionally this can only be done for a maximum of three times a year and historically speaking it usually only happens once a year when used. The only other option would be to eliminate the filibuster altogether which ironically would return the government to how the founding fathers intended the system to operate. However, like I stated before some democrats are reluctant to do that for fear that if/when republicans regain a majority in the senate they would use simple majority passage of laws to punish the democrats.

Another point of irony is that the founding fathers saw simple majorities as a way to force parties to work in a bipartisan fashion because if they didn't the majority party could just force something thru. Of course back then there was less hyper partisanship and politicians paid closer attention to the actual will of the people. Now that the country is so hyper partisan and politicians pay closer attention to their donors instead of the voters super majorities are thought to be a way of forcing bipartisanship.

My final point will be that I never said the democrats hold a majority and then turned around and said they didn't. What I said was that they hold too slim of a majority to force something thru like this special commission on Jan. 6th that was recently blocked. It was then that you accused me of saying they did hold a majority and then turned around and said they didn't. This is why I say you are obtuse, because I'm fairly certain you understood that I was talking about simple majority vs super majority.

 

[mowood3479]

Obviously I'm not old enough to have known the founding fathers personally but one does not need to know them personally all they need to do is study history and the writings of the Federalist papers which was a way the founding fathers tried to provide us written references of what exactly they....

some historians will tell you that the constitution was imposed by coup (it certainly wasn’t by democratic means) and that it goes against the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence...

what the “founding fathers” created turned into the biggest most powerful empire/ government the world has ever seen... in my view they failed.
their checks and balances have been over run.... the judicial system is full of crony corporatists as are the executive and legislative branches...

the late great Lysander Spooner said it best...
“But whether the constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain... it has either authorized a government such as we have had or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist”

 

[HempKat]

some historians will tell you that the constitution was imposed by coup (it certainly wasn’t by democratic means) and that it goes against the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence...

what the “founding fathers” created turned into the biggest most powerful empire/ government the world has ever seen... in my view they failed.
their checks and balances have been over run.... the judicial system is full of crony corporatists as are the executive and legislative branches...

the late great Lysander Spooner said it best...
“But whether the constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain... it has either authorized a government such as we have had or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist”

Well when you start saying things like "some historians", "some experts", etc., when debating a topic you're really not saying a whole lot usually because for most any topic there are a wide spectrum of viewpoints even among those most qualified to make statements about the topic at hand.

Now all that being said I will agree that the government as it is today is a far cry from what the founding fathers intended and if they were here to see what it has become would most likely be very upset. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say it is unfit to exist. I would however go so far as to say it shouldn't be allowed to continue to exist as it currently is. Much of the things people point to in the constitution as justification for their actions or beliefs have been twisted way out of shape to service an agenda that is not the agenda of the majority of this country's citizens.

 

[mowood3479]

When I say some some historians will tell you... the point I’m making is that there are alternative viewpoints out there from people with phds..

it’s not all cut and dry like we learn in social studies in govt school

 

[CosmicGiggle]

CANCELLED!

Former NYC mayor and 9/11 Saint Rudi

New York SUSPENDS Rudy Giuliani's law license for backing Trump's 'failed effort at reelection' and 'threatening the public interest'


Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law in New York after an appellate court suspended his law license Thursday for making 'demonstrably false' statements about the 2020 election.

 

[Gry]

TLTR (too long to read) but I skimmed through.

So your telling me Trump supporters planned an illegal insurrection but they didn't want to break the law and bring their guns? Lol OK bro.

A fifth person was just convicted of having firearms in the Capitol Building.
The deckstackers multi faceted assault on our democracy is ongoing and relentless.

 

[audiohi]

Not sure what those guns are from... the head of the capitol police testified before Congress that no (zero) guns were found on persons inside the capitol on Jan 6...
so unless dude is lying to Congress, I’m gonna have to take his word for it...
unless you have evidence to the contrary? (I’m which case after showing us you should prob turn it over to the capitol police)

In first, U.S. charges Jan. 6 defendant with bringing firearms to Capitol under controversial federal rioting law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...bef4ec-cf94-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html

“I did bring a weapon on property that we own. Federal grounds or not. The law is written, but it doesn’t mean it’s right law. The people that were around me were all carrying, too,” prosecutors quoted Reffitt saying in a court filing.

Four defendants in the Capitol riots have now been charged with firearms offenses. They have been accused respectively of bringing five loaded guns and 11 molotov cocktails in a truck; carrying a loaded semiautomatic handgun and large-capacity magazine at the entrance of the Capitol Visitor Center; and threatening elected officials after arriving in Washington with a semiautomatic rifle, Glock handgun and more than 2,500 rounds of ammunition.

Many charged defendants allegedly carried knives, bats, crowbars and other weapons to the Capitol.

They also discussed bringing firearms and planned for the District’s strict gun laws, the FBI and prosecutors have said in charging papers. But how many actually carried firearms is likely to remain unknown, as police were unprepared to make mass arrests at the scene and focused on clearing the Capitol building instead, authorities have said.

 

[Cannavore]

CANCELLED!

Former NYC mayor and 9/11 Saint Rudi

New York SUSPENDS Rudy Giuliani's law license for backing Trump's 'failed effort at reelection' and 'threatening the public interest'


Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law in New York after an appellate court suspended his law license Thursday for making 'demonstrably false' statements about the 2020 election.

 

[CosmicGiggle]

..... so yer sayin' that Rudy's just a senile old fool who's too old to be practicing law/giving advice and cancelled himself?

That sounds like a perfect 'Get Out of Jail Card' for what's coming for him and his friends who listened, bad legal advice defense!

 

['Boogieman']

A fifth person was just convicted of having firearms in the Capitol Building.
The deckstackers multi faceted assault on our democracy is ongoing and relentless.

Five out of thousands of people is expected but that doesn't convince me an insurrection took place. It was a riot.

 

[member 505892]

Well when you start say things like some historians, some experts, etc. when debating a topic you're really not saying a whole lot usually because for most any topic there are a wide spectrum of viewpoints even among those most qualified to make statements about the topic at hand.

Now all that being said I will agree that the government as it is today is a far cry from what the founding fathers intended and if they were here to see what it has become would most likely be very upset. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say it is unfit to exist. I would however go so far as to say it shouldn't be allowed to continue to exist as it currently is. Much of the things people point to in the constitution as justification for their actions or beliefs have been twisted way out of shape to service an agenda that is not the agenda of the majority of this country's citizens.

A recent study claims that 3 out of every 4 people make up 75% of the human race.... some scholars reject the results.