Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Tis the season to be bombarded by the  sometimes obscene and truly mythological lies of politicians wishing you to do them a solid by casting your vote for them, but we, the sons and daughters of former slaves, need to consider that we are not really citizens of this country. How can this be? First, ponder this. Why is it that we have to have our voting status reviewed every 20 years. They sure as hell don't do that with white folks. Why? Whites have real voting rights. We have voting "privileges". As such, they are not inalienable and are subject to legal scrutiny and that is why  every 20 years since the Voting Act of 1964, Congress has had to vote on if or not, we can continue to vote. Quite naturally, the bill is passed, but why is it that the vote about our 'vote' was even necessary if we were citizens. 

 

There are only two ways to become a US citizen:

1, Naturalization. All people who were free during the drafting of the US Constitution were deemed 'natural' citizens with all the rights and benefits accruing to them by way of the Constitution. Blacks, as slaves, were not protected by any provision of the Constitution and therefore were not deemed as citizens. I imagine it was legally hard to be a slave and a citizen at the same time.

 

2. Nationalization: This is what happens mainly on so called Independence Day where immigrants take the pledge of allegiance to this country and get sworn in as 'nationalized' citizens, but with the same rights as the natural-born citizens.

 

Blacks as a collective, owing to slavery, could not be classed as natural citizens and since they were never nationalized with the ceremony of allegiance, that still left them stateless or homeless by  definition even though we resided inside the confines of this country. To be fair, what occurred is that following Emancipation, along the time the Freedman Bureau was being established, a Great Registration was due to take place where we could be registered and given the opportunity to accept US citizenship. We had to choose. Know why" Well, the good old Constitution laid it out so that in the same way that 'servitude' could not be imposed on anyone, the same was true for citizenship which could not be imposed on another individual.

 

In any event, The Great Registration never happened and the reason it never happened is because the brother put in charge of it was bribed with money and a white woman to not do it! He got missing, taking his white woman with him, so nothing happened. And here we are. But, as a consolation prize, the federal government became our daddy which means that while we are not really citizens, we were made "residents" of the federal government. Essentially, we are 14th  Amendment babies. 

 

For clarity, what happened to the 13th Amendment which contained three sections. 1. EMANCIPATION. 2. NATIONALIZATION. COMPENSATION. Supposedly, we got so-called 'emancipated', but we never got the compensation, which was not to exceed one hundred dollars and for part 3, we were to be given land in what was then called The Great Interior. Number two and three never happened. Opponents in Congress vehemently opposed the compensation package although the Bill passed both the Senate and the House. Sections 2 and 3 became known as 'the concealed sections of the 13th Amendment which in, street terms, means we ain't get shit!

 

Oh yeah, the government broke the law by imposing citizenship upon us. And if you believe that the 14th solved the problem, it really didn't. All the 14th did was to remove the impediments of slavery, the so-called "Benevolent Protector Clause" but the law had no teeth since it wasn't provide with the power to 'enforce' the BS they were putting on paper.

 

However, despite all that------Next week is coming

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gibran said:

However, despite all that------Next week is coming

So I take it you didn’t vote yet? You wonderful history lesson is a perfect example of how to attempt to estrange Blacks from feeling like and fully enjoying our God Given Rights. 
 

This is the point which gets glazed over. The government doesn’t give us our rights. It only protects them. This was the great wrong of slavery. It stole from people there God Given rights by force of arms and law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Troy said:

Well I'm an American citizen at least until they give me my reparations check and a ticket back to Africa.

Black Americans are leaving America. I personally know two people who are considering it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting Day?

So who are you going to vote for:  SATAN or LUCIFER

 

 


No matter which devil ends up getting in, you're STILL gonna end up catching hell.

 

 

 

 

Retired priest: 'Hell' was invented by the church to control people with  fear


"Look on the bright side.
Atleast you no longer have to worry about social distancing!"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2020 at 4:06 PM, daniellegfny said:

So I take it you didn’t vote yet? You wonderful history lesson is a perfect example of how to attempt to estrange Blacks from feeling like and fully enjoying our God Given Rights. 
 

This is the point which gets glazed over. The government doesn’t give us our rights. It only protects them. This was the great wrong of slavery. It stole from people there God Given rights by force of arms and law.

 

I apologize if my intent was unclear and I must have missed the mark by a mile if you can assume my level of voter participation from the post. I merely conveyed a historical observation that relates to blacks and so-called voting rights, feeling that the truth about a matter should, in no way, detract from the veracity of the observation. If it is true, it is true.

 

Vote. But even so what if you find that the Electoral College does not share your views. Twice in recent memory has it happened that the voice of the people didn’t mean a thing since the candidate they legally chose by the casting of their vote was shunned for someone elected by The Electoral College who is the final arbiter of who goes to Washington, damned what the votes indicate. The country wanted Hillary. The country got Trump. Same thing in 2000. In both cases, the popular vote fueled by black voter turnout had no effect on the final outcome. Vote.

 

If, as you contend, the government does not give us rights, where do they come from? An argument can be made for God-given rights, but every right, real or imagined, in this country stemmed from either law or constitution. As such, they are enforceable due to the power of the government to punish. Laws must be accompanied with the power to enforce them. Otherwise ,they are meaningless. I can think of no law or right that wasn’t mandated by the government whereby they felt compelled to honor it. The us government despite its bluster is quite incapable of enforcing laws or rights that it didn’t establish into the law of the land, no matter how dressed up it is. A case in point is the so-called Emancipation Proclamation. Despite everything else, Lincoln didn’t possess the power to “free slaves held in rebel territory”. Lincoln controlled the North and though he talked that bullshit, he knew it wouldn’t cut one slave free in the south where he had no power. He couldn’t protect the slaves because there was no law to grant him the legal perquisite to do so.

 

And the beat goes on. In the same manner, we were influenced to believe that Lincoln freed the slaves is much the same we were influenced to believe we have citizenship and real voting power. I don’t care if blacks vote or not, and I’m not asking anyone not to vote. That would be as silly as trying to get people to leave NYC because I told them that the original Statue of Liberty was of a black woman with her chains broken to symbolize the freeing of slaves. The monument was a gift from France who wanted to welcome the US into the civilized world of being slave-free.

 

I wouldn’t ask black people to leave the church just because the portrait they worship of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus is as wrong as two-left shoes.

 

I wouldn't expect blacks to stop going to school because of the deliberate lies that doctor history.

 

I wouldn’t want blacks to burn the bible if they learned that practically everyone between the pages of the books are black.

 

But I do applaud those of us, like you, who question the status quo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Gibran


The country wanted Hillary. The country got Trump. Same thing in 2000. In both cases, the popular vote fueled by black voter turnout had no effect on the final outcome. Vote.
 

Another thing both elections had in common was the fact that BOTH Gore and Clinton refused to fight and readily decided to CONCEDE the election despite overwhelming evidence of voter suppression and fraud.

Which tells me that neither of them were sincere about seeking the office and it also gives me a pretty good indication of how they would easily capitulate to Republican demands had they GOTTEN in the office anyway.

 


If, as you contend, the government does not give us rights, where do they come from? An argument can be made for God-given rights, but every right, real or imagined, in this country stemmed from either law or constitution. As such, they are enforceable due to the power of the government to punish. Laws must be accompanied with the power to enforce them. Otherwise ,they are meaningless. 
 

Excellent point!

 


I wouldn’t ask black people to leave the church just because the portrait they worship of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus is as wrong as two-left shoes.
 

I would....lol.

I used to literally STAND OUTSIDE of various Black churches telling our brothers and sisters to stay the hell out of those brainwashing temples of doom.  Especially if they have a picture of a White "Jesus" and angels inside.  But even if there are no pictures, the brainwashing has the same effect.


 


I wouldn't expect blacks to stop going to school because of the deliberate lies that doctor history.

 

I wouldn't either.
But I WISH they would....lol.

 

They SHOULD stop going to public schools ran and/or designed by Caucasians because they're not helping our people for the most part but since so many of our peoplep have so much faith in the Caucasian's educational system....I don't expect them to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Gibran said:

Vote. But even so what if you find that the Electoral College does not share your views

It just means you have to strive harder next election. That’s why we don’t have lifetime political leaders except where people don’t get active and vote. 

18 hours ago, Gibran said:

But I do applaud those of us, like you, who question the status quo.

The issue I have is that if you don’t vote you have no moral weight in the conversation. You are perceived as a mechanism for voter suppression not political accountability. This is the biggest challenge we are facing. 
 

We are not participating in civil process as much as we can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, daniellegfny said:

It just means you have to strive harder next election. That’s why we don’t have lifetime political leaders except where people don’t get active and vote. 

The issue I have is that if you don’t vote you have no moral weight in the conversation. You are perceived as a mechanism for voter suppression not political accountability. This is the biggest challenge we are facing. 
 

We are not participating in civil process as much as we can.

And you know what, I AM GUILTY. Seriously. All my life and I don't mean my adult life. I mean, all my life I have wanted to be involved in any changes that would help us battle the oppression that has plagued our stay in this country, but the lure of the street was too strong. Therefore, in many cases, I was a part of the problem. It saddens me that when it came time to choose to do 'what I needed to do' or to do 'what I wanted to do' I chose to do what I wanted to do although I understood that I could contribute to the cause.  The good thing is that it is never 2 late.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FAS
On 10/26/2020 at 11:57 AM, Gibran said:

the sons and daughters of former slaves, need to consider that we are not really citizens of this country. How can this be? First, ponder this. Why is it that we have to have our voting status reviewed every 20 years. They sure as hell don't do that with white folks. Why? Whites have real voting rights. We have voting "privileges". As such, they are not inalienable and are subject to legal scrutiny and that is why  every 20 years since the Voting Act of 1964, Congress has had to vote on if or not, we can continue to vote. Quite naturally, the bill is passed, but why is it that the vote about our 'vote' was even necessary if we were citizens. 

 

This is so wrong it ain't funny. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 dealt with voter suppression, NOT "the right to vote." Modern day Congress has NEVER "voted on if blacks can or not continue to vote." They voted on whether it was necessary to continue to have federal officials MONITOR Southern states' voting laws, polling places and practices, such as Poll Taxes. The Voting Rights Act was gutted by the Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by a southern state almost 10 years ago, which is why the feds no longer oversee elections in the South and why VOTER SUPPRESSION is in our faces in this 2020 election year.

 

On 10/26/2020 at 11:57 AM, Gibran said:

Blacks as a collective, owing to slavery, could not be classed as natural citizens and since they were never nationalized with the ceremony of allegiance, that still left them stateless or homeless by  definition even though we resided inside the confines of this country. To be fair, what occurred is that following Emancipation, along the time the Freedman Bureau was being established, a Great Registration was due to take place where we could be registered and given the opportunity to accept US citizenship.

 

Where do you get everybody except those WEALTHY white MALES in this country at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence  - look it up! Broke whites, white women and landless whites could NOT vote in 1776 - are the only people who don't need to be 'naturalized' to vote? Have you never heard of "anyone born on American soil is an American citizen with all the rights and privileges thereof?" The above is utterly misinformed.

 

1776: John Adams' letter to James Sullivan

In a letter to Massachusetts Gov. James Sullivan, founding father and Declaration of Independence signer John Adams set the tone for the limited democracy that would define early America when he cautioned against enfranchising the masses. In 1776, voting was limited to only some land-owning white men over the age of 21, and Adams warned that if those standards were lowered, "there will be no End of it. New Claims will arise. Women will demand a Vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their Rights not enough attended to, and every Man, who has not a Farthing, will demand an equal Voice with any other in all Acts of State. It tends to confound and destroy all Distinctions, and prostrate all Ranks, to one common Levell."'

 

On 10/26/2020 at 11:57 AM, Gibran said:

And here we are. But, as a consolation prize, the federal government became our daddy which means that while we are not really citizens, we were made "residents" of the federal government

 

Yes, we are citizens. Whatever that "made residents" means, it is not real; it is not historical nor factual.

 

NOTE: When you read gross mischaracterizations like the above, you throw away your Black Card if you merely 'lurk.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FAS
On 10/27/2020 at 1:20 PM, Gibran said:

I merely conveyed a historical observation that relates to blacks and so-called voting rights, feeling that the truth about a matter should, in no way, detract from the veracity of the observation. If it is true, it is true.

 

Your observation is not true, as explained in the above post.

On 10/27/2020 at 1:20 PM, Gibran said:

so what if you find that the Electoral College does not share your views. Twice in recent memory has it happened that the voice of the people didn’t mean a thing since the candidate they legally chose by the casting of their vote was shunned for someone elected by The Electoral College who is the final arbiter of who goes to Washington, damned what the votes indicate. The country wanted Hillary. The country got Trump. Same thing in 2000. In both cases, the popular vote fueled by black voter turnout had no effect on the final outcome. Vote.

 

The Electoral College did not decide who would be president in 2000. The Republican-packed Supreme Court made that determination.

 

As for black voter turn out - people need to stop acting like black people are king-makers in national elections. We're only 14% of the population so it's not like the other 86% don't count.

 

Third thing - The U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE, not a "pure" democracy:

 

A representative democracy is a system of government whereby eligible members of the public are empowered to elect representatives amongst themselves to enact laws and oversee and protect their interests in government. It is the opposite of direct democracy.

 

https://www.worldatlas.com/what-is-a-representative-democracy.html

On 10/27/2020 at 1:20 PM, Gibran said:

A case in point is the so-called Emancipation Proclamation. Despite everything else, Lincoln didn’t possess the power to “free slaves held in rebel territory”. Lincoln controlled the North and though he talked that bullshit, he knew it wouldn’t cut one slave free in the south where he had no power. He couldn’t protect the slaves because there was no law to grant him the legal perquisite to do so.

 

You're joking, of course. Or are you unaware of "Executive Privilege?" Or are you unaware that the North never accepted the succession of the South, thus Lincoln had every authority to "free slaves held in rebel territory".... that belonged to the United States of America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FAS
41 minutes ago, daniellegfny said:
On 10/28/2020 at 7:33 PM, Guest FAS said:

The Republican-packed Supreme Court made that determination.

Packing means expanding the court’s size. It’s the duty of the president and senate to fill empty seats.

 

And yet the Senate refused to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia when he died in February, 2011. Pres. Obama "fulfilled" his duty; the Republican-majority Senate refused to fulfill theirs, saying Scalia died in an election year. So did Ruth Ginsberg, who died NOT 9 months before the election, but DURING the election where almost 50 MILLION Americans had ALREADY voted.

 

I stand by my statement - the Republican packed Supreme Court of 2000 SELECTED George Bush, Republican, over Al Gore, Democrat who won the popular vote in Florida. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Guest FAS said:

 

And yet the Senate refused to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia when he died in February, 2011. Pres. Obama "fulfilled" his duty; the Republican-majority Senate refused to fulfill theirs, saying Scalia died in an election year

The Republicans did what they were supposed to do. But, that’s not Court Packing. This was a perfect example of why we have different parties. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On point I agree. The democrats should have pushed their nominee through when they had a chance. Crying about the Republicans pushing theirs through now is a waste of time.

 

I guess we will be seeing more Supreme Court justices if Biden wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2020 at 8:05 PM, Guest FAS said:

 

This is so wrong it ain't funny. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 dealt with voter suppression, NOT "the right to vote." Modern day Congress has NEVER "voted on if blacks can or not continue to vote." They voted on whether it was necessary to continue to have federal officials MONITOR Southern states' voting laws, polling places and practices, such as Poll Taxes. The Voting Rights Act was gutted by the Supreme Court in a lawsuit brought by a southern state almost 10 years ago, which is why the feds no longer oversee elections in the South and why VOTER SUPPRESSION is in our faces in this 2020 election year.

 

 

Where do you get everybody except those WEALTHY white MALES in this country at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence  - look it up! Broke whites, white women and landless whites could NOT vote in 1776 - are the only people who don't need to be 'naturalized' to vote? Have you never heard of "anyone born on American soil is an American citizen with all the rights and privileges thereof?" The above is utterly misinformed.

 

1776: John Adams' letter to James Sullivan

In a letter to Massachusetts Gov. James Sullivan, founding father and Declaration of Independence signer John Adams set the tone for the limited democracy that would define early America when he cautioned against enfranchising the masses. In 1776, voting was limited to only some land-owning white men over the age of 21, and Adams warned that if those standards were lowered, "there will be no End of it. New Claims will arise. Women will demand a Vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their Rights not enough attended to, and every Man, who has not a Farthing, will demand an equal Voice with any other in all Acts of State. It tends to confound and destroy all Distinctions, and prostrate all Ranks, to one common Levell."'

 

 

Yes, we are citizens. Whatever that "made residents" means, it is not real; it is not historical nor factual.

 

NOTE: When you read gross mischaracterizations like the above, you throw away your Black Card if you merely 'lurk.'

For certain, the Emancipation Proclamation was itself an Executive Order. Still even as such, it had no teeth as Lincoln had no control over any of the states in rebellion as they were under the control of  the confederacy. In actuality, no slaves were freed. It only made it easier to escape to Union-controlled cities where even then they could not be legally accepted as free so they had to be treated as “contrabands of war.” If they were freed, they could have merely walked away from Massa. Nope, they had to escape which meant they still could be captured or killed while trying to honor a phantom freedom. The most annoying thing about The Emancipation Proclamation was that it did nothing to even free any of the slaves where Lincoln did have control. If he had been trying to free slaves, then he could have easily done it with those who were already in territory he controlled. But he didn’t. The same kind of thing happened with the Executive Order of Tom Jefferson who issued The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves in 1807, but it had no power and slavery continued and flourished. So much for the power of Executive Orders.

 

Yes, the 14 Amendment did declare that we were free and the section following provided the federal government power to enforce the provisions of the Amendment, but the feds could not force the states to honor it. It’s like right now that the fed government does not have the power to force individual states to enact a mask mandate. Even in the middle of a pandemic where the life of the country is at risk, the federal government cannot compel individual states to pass such a mandate if they don’t want to. People are dying and the feds can’t force the states to comply with an mandate that will save lives. That is because the feds cannot force the states. And that was why during desegregation, no matter what the feds legislated, the states still had the power to keep us out of school. And when the federal government wanted to enforce the laws that the states refused to honor, federal troops were sent in.  Despite being deemed citizens by the federal government, southern states still passed the Black Codes, which contradicted citizenship and actual freedom.  The Black Codes were the law of the south and we were forced to live by them and the feds were powerless to stop them from doing it despite the 14th Amendment. To fix the matter, the feds passed  The Enforcement Act in 1870 to scare the south into doing right by us, and despite the enormous power of the feds to punish the south for noncompliance, the maximum penalty for violating the 14th   Amendment would be to subject the offender to ‘a proportional reduction of representation in the House of Representatives”. No doubt, this didn’t work so the very next year in 1871, they passed a second ENFORCEMENT ACT to add more bite to the 14th because the states still didn’t comply with it. Anyway, that act must not have worked very well because in 1901, none other than Booker T Washington, the most beloved brotha of his era, protested to the president that blacks were still not ALLOWED TO VOTE in Alabama, which like other southern states, implemented their own laws to prevent blacks from voting.  The major reason the 14th  was opposed so much was because the south felt that the end of slavery by the  Amendment would violate the right/powers clause  reserved exclusively for the states which prohibited them from being compelled to follow the instructions of the federal government.

 

Perhaps, the greatest feat of the 14th Amendment is the event that we never hear about which is that the 14 Amendment prevented the US from exiling and deporting us. As soon as Roger Taney, Supreme Court Justice, ruled that blacks had no rights that whites had to respect, his brother Octavius, proposed laws to remove us from the country just like they had done the Indians, if need be. The Forced Removal Act forced the National Colored Convention to demand birthright privileges so the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed. But it wasn’t enough to stop the forced removal of blacks from the country. Blacks were given the choice of self-deportation or forced removal. This was remedied by the 14 Amendment which guaranteed that we couldn’t be removed, but since the states could pass laws that went against the federal government, the beat went on. Why? Because black folks were still stateless and because the states could enact their own laws to remove immigrants, aliens, black people from their borders. Now, when we were ‘made’ residents of the government, we became ‘national citizens’ of the federal government. This, strange as it may seem, afforded us residency which prevented the states from shipping us out.

 

In those days, there was no such thing as a citizen of the US. Men were citizens of the state where they lived. And since there was no such thing as a citizen-at-large, men’s allegiance was to their respective states. To vote, you had to be a citizen of a state. Men derived all their protections and rights from their states so what was legal in one state might be illegal in another. Since we were not citizens of any state, the 14th Amendment made us resident/citizens of the federal government. Why can’t people in DC vote? Simply because DC in not a state. People in DC are legally stateless. It is the federal government and those under the authority and jurisdiction of the fed government cannot vote. Consider Puerto Rico. Why can’t they vote. They’re citizens. Same thing. They are citizen or residents of the federal government and since they are not residents of any state, no vote is allotted them. They, like us, were ‘made’ citizens.

 

In answer to another quote: It is true that this country is not a so-called ‘true democracy’ as mentioned. That’s puzzling. If it is not true---what is it. Half true, quarter true, false. Nonetheless, this country is a Republic. The Founding Folks decided a republic would be better than a true democracy because they wanted a safeguard against the fickleness of public sentiment. They felt that passion and emotion, rather than common sense would decide most popular majority decisions. And that was the exact reasoning for the Electoral College. They needed this as a defense to check the will of the people who may not know what’s good for them. They felt they couldn’t afford a government driven by the short-sightedness of popular public sentiment. In a Republic, such as this, common rule draws upon the voice of the people but does not identify the majority with the whole of the population. The founders conceded that popular rule could not by itself secure liberty and it was to this very end that the Electoral College was established. The people couldn’t be trusted to be responsible with the vote. And what about this. The delegates that represent your vote in the Electoral College do not have to vote the way of the popular vote. They can vote their conscience. Even if that state’s popular vote was for candidate A, and they liked B better, they could legally go against the wishes of the popular votes of their state and vote for B. That’s how it goes.

 

In fact, all of this info is in a book I wrote exactly 20 years ago, and the reason I mention this is, is because it was due to that book that I met Troy. Bro. Troy, you getting old!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FAS

@Gibron

 

When you respond to another, you need to paste the part of the post that you are quoting. I would have no problem in dialoguing with you about your last post, but I have no intention of looking through all previous posts to decide which, if any, part of each post that you are referring to.

Thanx.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FAS
On 10/30/2020 at 4:34 AM, daniellegfny said:
On 10/29/2020 at 8:12 PM, Guest FAS said:

 

And yet the Senate refused to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia when he died in February, 2011. Pres. Obama "fulfilled" his duty; the Republican-majority Senate refused to fulfill theirs, saying Scalia died in an election year

The Republicans did what they were supposed to do. But, that’s not Court Packing. This was a perfect example of why we have different parties. 

 

 

What is court-packing to you? And please, don't come back with the nonsense of EXPANDING the court. Expanding the court is making it larger; it is not "packing it." Your contention oxymoronic on its face.

 

As for the Republicans did what they were supposed to do, I agree. The Republicans are thieves, liars and cheaters whose word only a fool would think they would honor:

 

WASHINGTON – In February 1988, mere months before a contentious presidential election, the Senate confirmed Anthony Kennedy as a new Supreme Court justice after his nomination by President Ronald Reagan.

The Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats, voted 97-0 to approve the Republican president's nominee during his final year in office. Among those voting in favor was Mitch McConnell, a GOP freshman from Kentucky.

Nearly 30 years later, in 2016, McConnell seemed to take a different view when he blocked Democratic President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, saying voters should be able to express their views at the ballot box before the Senate votes in the final year of a president's term.

 

These are Mitch McConnell's words:

 

“It’s clear that concern over confirming Supreme Court nominations made near the end of a presidential term is not new," McConnell said on the Senate floor in February 2016, nearly a month before Obama chose Garland to fill the seat of the late Antonin Scalia.

"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process ... I believe that it is today the American people who are best-positioned to help make this important decision 

 

Liars, cheats, charlatans, Republicans have no honor, and they did what dishonorable pigs smeared in lipstick do, they went against their word and packed the court with a republican as shady as themselves.

 

I'm not going to waste my time repeating in different ways the above; the truth is the light. Not interested in any 'spin' on truth, either - I reject Republican Trumpery. Thus, the last word is yours.

 

Peace out.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FAS
On 10/30/2020 at 7:41 AM, Troy said:

On point I agree. The democrats should have pushed their nominee through when they had a chance. Crying about the Republicans pushing theirs through now is a waste of time.

 

I guess we will be seeing more Supreme Court justices if Biden wins.

 

 

The Senate was Republican-controlled at the time of Obama's nomination. He had NO "chance" of pushing through a nominee in the Republican controlled Senate. None whatsoever. Why? Because unlike the Democrat controlled senate that confirmed Ronald Reagans nominee based on qualifications rather than fealty to Party under pain of death, the Republicans neither honor nor fealty to the American Democracy.

 

As for more justices, only if some more DIE while Biden is POTUS. These are jobs for life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Guest FAS said:

What is court-packing to you? And please, don't come back with the nonsense of EXPANDING the court. Expanding the court is making it larger; it is not "packing it." Your contention oxymoronic on its face


The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, frequently called the "court-packing plan", was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled...

 

The reason the Democrats are seeking expansion is to circumvent their political failures and transfer power from the Legislative Branch to the Judicial Branch.

 

 The Republicans were better strategists and Trump was the executor of the will of Republican voters. I was expecting RBG to have vacated the seat a year ago. ACB is an excellent replacement. 

15 hours ago, Guest FAS said:

The Senate was Republican-controlled at the time of Obama's nomination. He had NO "chance" of pushing through a nominee in the Republican controlled Senate. None whatsoever.

President Obama had two appointments to the bench Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Celebrate that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FAS
12 hours ago, daniellegfny said:
On 11/1/2020 at 3:33 PM, Guest FAS said:

What is court-packing to you? And please, don't come back with the nonsense of EXPANDING the court. Expanding the court is making it larger; it is not "packing it." Your contention oxymoronic on its face


The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, frequently called the "court-packing plan", was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled...

 

Do you seriously believe I was referring to a JUDICIAL bill created before I was born? I never even heard the term. I was just short-cutting "Republicans PACKING THE COURT with other Republicans," i.e., court-packing. Now if you had previously referred to this obscure 1937 bill, we could have saved/not WASTED time. At any rate, I have explained what I meant when I short-handed "court-packing." The rest of your passage is.... balderdash.

 

12 hours ago, daniellegfny said:
On 11/1/2020 at 3:41 PM, Guest FAS said:

The Senate was Republican-controlled at the time of Obama's nomination. He had NO "chance" of pushing through a nominee in the Republican controlled Senate. None whatsoever.

President Obama had two appointments to the bench Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Celebrate that.

 

 

 

Your "answer" has no relevance to my CORRECT statement. D, unlike Troy and Pioneer, I will not be drawn into your double-speak (FROM THE NOVEL, 1984... so there's no confusion about what I mean). I will not address your trumpery.

 

And so there is no "confusion" about my use of the very apt word "trumpery":

 

trumpery
[ˈtrəmp(ə)rē]
 
NOUN
  1. attractive articles of little value or use.
    synonyms:
    trinkets · baubles · cheap finery · knickknacks · ornaments · bibelots · gewgaws · gimcracks
ADJECTIVE
  1. showy but worthless.
    "trumpery jewelry"
    synonyms:
    showy · gaudy · garish · vulgar · tasteless · worthless · valueless · cheap · tawdry · shoddy · meretricious · Brummagem · flashy · flash · trashy · tacky · rubbishy
     
     

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Guest FAS said:

Do you seriously believe I was referring to a JUDICIAL bill created before I was born? I never even heard the term. I was just short-cutting "Republicans PACKING THE COURT with other Republicans,"

Short cutting prevents you from having a serious conversation. Having agreed upon terms is an important part of the communication process. 
 

No it’s not Court Packing for Republicans to pick conservative judges. That’s how our system is designed. 

 

Two the current National Conversation about the size of the Court is centered around this Obscure legislation. You sound ignorant if you don’t know what people are talking about. They will nod and smile but think you don’t know anything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FAS
11 hours ago, daniellegfny said:

Short cutting prevents you from having a serious conversation. Having agreed upon terms is an important part of the communication process. 
 

No it’s not Court Packing for Republicans to pick conservative judges. That’s how our system is designed. 

 

Two the current National Conversation about the size of the Court is centered around this Obscure legislation. You sound ignorant if you don’t know what people are talking about. They will nod and smile but think you don’t know anything. 

 

 

And you sound like a foxed. pretentious cult member assuming a position of intellectual superiority you can only dream of.

 

But it's all good.... cause today is Tuesday, 11/3/20.

 

ROFLMBAO!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, daniellegfny said:

Trump has emerged Victorious.


Man you sound like the main stream media.

Only 20% of the votes are counted and you already go the WHOLE STATE painted "red" and in Trump's pocket, lol.


image.png.4b21e053995581eddccf774c988ece34.png

"Well folks, with 20% of the votes
tallied, we predict that it looks as if
Trump's got Indiana sewn up!"



I know it's all one big game, but you can atleast wait until the shit is over BEFORE declaring victory....lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FAS

Biden  `238

 

Trump   213

 

Trump follower, full of his trumpery and calling the electio....,, oops! Cult guy  zero

 

 

I'm going for a run. My head hurts, Been up all night watching. Didn't mean to, but.... there you have it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...