"Administrative Fix"...Try ILLEGAL fix! - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: "Administrative Fix"...Try ILLEGAL fix!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Stengun View Post
    Howdy,





    Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    ...legislated law...
    As opposed to unlegislated law?

  4. #23
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by nosreme View Post
    Yes, I do, and explaining why all those things are legally OK (but politically dumb) would be easy to do. But the burden of proving illegality and unconstitutionality falls on those making the accusation. Assertions aren't true in the absence of disproof that the original asserter agrees with. Besides, trying to explain things like this rationally to those whose standard of proof is the loaded rhetorical question is a waste of time.



    Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

  5. #24
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    Quote Originally Posted by nosreme View Post
    Good luck with that.
    As we all thought...... So....




    Sent from behind Enemy Lines.

  6. I will explain any legal concept to anybody who is willing to listen and understand (even if they don't agree, but only if that disagreement is based on rational, informed analysis and thinking).

    I am not the slightest bit interested in even attempting to do so when somebody is obviously trying to set up an endless argument based on the standard and predictable right wing slogans by couching a challenge in the form of an innocent request for information. Demanding "links and cites" is a dead giveaway of that mindset, as well as an indication of conspicuous cluelessness as to how the law in general and constitutional and statutory construction (interpretation) in particular work. I suspect it also indicates a complete lack of interest in understanding it--just in having stuff to "refute" with the usual slogans.

    Still waiting breathlessly for proponents and supporters of the indictments of unconstitutionality and illegality to prove their assertions. Let's keep the onus where it belongs and not attempt to deflect that responsibility by using various forms of the simplistic argument that those statements are true because nobody can or will disprove them.

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by nosreme View Post
    I will explain any legal concept to anybody who is willing to listen and understand (even if they don't agree, but only if that disagreement is based on rational, informed analysis and thinking).

    I am not the slightest bit interested in even attempting to do so when somebody is obviously trying to set up an endless argument based on the standard and predictable right wing slogans by couching a challenge in the form of an innocent request for information. Demanding "links and cites" is a dead giveaway of that mindset, as well as an indication of conspicuous cluelessness as to how the law in general and constitutional and statutory construction (interpretation) in particular work. I suspect it also indicates a complete lack of interest in understanding it--just in having stuff to "refute" with the usual slogans.

    Still waiting breathlessly for proponents and supporters of the indictments of unconstitutionality and illegality to prove their assertions. Let's keep the onus where it belongs and not attempt to deflect that responsibility by using various forms of the simplistic argument that those statements are true because nobody can or will disprove them.
    I asked you personally for cites and/or links to prove YOUR statement that it is legal and Constitutional for a President to use executive orders to change a law. You responded that you have cites and/or links yet you continue to use excuses to avoid presenting them. And you arrogantly say that you will explain any legal concept to anyone willing to listen .. and then decree that there are conditions that others must meet before you will deign to explain.

    Dude... the only conditions that must be met are for you to man up and provide proof that YOUR statements are factual. Failure to do so... and it appears you, like all good little liberal progressives, are well equipped with excuses and attempts to avoid and evade actually providing proof... (and avoiding providing cites and/or links as proof) is a glaringly public display of the inability to prove any level of veracity to your statements.

    As for your attempt to avoid proving YOUR statements by hoping to redirect the "onus" onto those who said something other than what you said.... it doesn't work that way. Man up and provide the cites and/or links to actual facts that prove what YOU said... YOUR following statement to be true...

    Originally Posted by nosreme View Post
    "Obamacare" stinks. It will eventually collapse, and it will take Obama's reputation with it. But neither it, the Supreme Court decision upholding it, nor the president's desperate attempt to fix what he can fix by executive order is illegal or unconstitutional. To so label any of them is misguided and ignorant, or just more of the usual and predictable simplistic partisan rhetoric which affirms Obama-hater credentials to other Obama-haters.
    or understand that all the excuses, attempts at ridicule, misdirection, redirection, evasion, and avoidance just won't make the simple request for YOU to prove YOUR statement that the President using executive orders to change law is not illegal or unconstitutional is actual fact... go away.

    You even said in a previous post that you have cites and/or links as proof... so ... instead of 3 paragraphs of evasion and avoidance why not just post those cites and/or links?

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by nosreme View Post
    I will explain any legal concept to anybody who is willing to listen and understand (even if they don't agree, but only if that disagreement is based on rational, informed analysis and thinking).

    I am not the slightest bit interested in even attempting to do so when somebody is obviously trying to set up an endless argument based on the standard and predictable right wing slogans by couching a challenge in the form of an innocent request for information. Demanding "links and cites" is a dead giveaway of that mindset, as well as an indication of conspicuous cluelessness as to how the law in general and constitutional and statutory construction (interpretation) in particular work. I suspect it also indicates a complete lack of interest in understanding it--just in having stuff to "refute" with the usual slogans.

    Still waiting breathlessly for proponents and supporters of the indictments of unconstitutionality and illegality to prove their assertions. Let's keep the onus where it belongs and not attempt to deflect that responsibility by using various forms of the simplistic argument that those statements are true because nobody can or will disprove them.
    Attempts at ridicule, misdirection, redirection, evasion and avoidance are typical progressive liberal responses. I fully admit that Tea Party conservatives like myself don't have the capacity to understand any explanation given by you.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  9. #28
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north east Iowa
    Posts
    1,250
    For the most part progressives don't make sense, nor do they have to. To them the Constitution is no longer relevant; it is an anachronism by which they are no longer bound. It is better that we now have a government of men-superior, intellectual elitists. Plato would call it an oligarchy, but in reality it is still tyranny. As a tyrant, Obama can do anything he wants about changing laws passed by congress or selectively enforcing those laws. He and fellow intellectuals can maintain power by buying the votes of the useful idiots. And the useful idiots will never realize that they will eventually become expendable, when they become a burden on the collective.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast