|
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Cynth, can you summarize your main questions? I don't want to create a monster post.
|
More intellecual dishonesty.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
While the thread is clearly heated, I don't recall anyone breaking rules. I'm even trying to get it back on topic by tying the big mess back into the OP (from whence it came). If it were closed, I would hope it were closed for a reason other than "I completely disagree with Willravel".
|
More intellecual dishonesty.
You know that a thread isn't closed for disagreements. It's closed because another user is being attacked or flamed. It's closed because the discussion no longer relates to the OP in any manner shape or form. If you believe it's heated, that's because the heat is directed at you. I don't really care at all about this topic. I don't care if Hillary is offered this spot as part of a deal to quit campaigning. I also don't care if you are being intellectually dishonest at this point. You've had ample time to address my questions. You've chosen NOT to address them.
But my question has been simple, explain how you understand the seperation of power and the checks and balances provided by the United States Constitution. I've been asking this since it seems that the fundamental foundation of this discussion has been the point of your arguments where you've said they were fucking stupid. You've even stated that the Constitutional provisions outlines "flies in the very face of checks and balances."
Post #91
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Edit: BTW, mea culpa about the checks and balances thing. I wasn't communicating what I was thinking correctly. It is proper checks and balances. I don't think two branches choosing the leadership of a different branch is a good idea, but it is checks and balances. If you'd like further clarification, I'll be glad to respond.
|
Post #92
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Yes, please respond. You've had plenty of opportunity as I have asked over and over and over and over to explain how and what you understand the separation of powers and the checks and balances to be. Yet I got crickets and have been asking and explaining the differences since your post #13 But will, you didn't state you think it is a good idea, you stated it's stupid, sorry not strong enough, you stated it's FUCKING stupid in post #15. In post #20 you stated it was stupid to allow the exectuive and legistlative to choose the jucicial, this means you clearly understand what the framers meant and the actions happening. In post #24 you stated that it's the opposite of checks and balances and that the 3 seperate branches need to remain seperate to stop a runaway branch.
There's a GLARING big difference between all your statements, sentences, and words you've used.
|
END OF POST #92
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
So please do explain.
|
Post #97
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
so now you're editing your posts 8 minutes after someone else responded so that your thoughts are buried and lost inland in the thread. Again, being intellectually dishonest in your posting. You've not bothered to edit your other posts, but this one you decide to do so after people have commented on them? Seriously...why let reality based information distort, correct, or change your point of view.
You've stated you'd explain how you see the seperation of powers and checks and balances, I've requested you explain yourself better, and this is the best you've posted?
Will, you really don't know what you are talking about at all. Each time you post, you prove it yet again.
See you can't just go back 6 years, you've got to go back 232 years of case law to compare and contrast to state hypothesis. It's not as simple as stating "The past 6 years have been politically biased...." No your statement is that the SCOTUS as a whole is broken. It didn't just break, it has to have been broken from day 1. You've stated that the process was fucking stupid from the beginning.
Still waiting for your explanation as to how you understand the seperation of powers and the checks and balances.
|
I've even given you a couple places for you to read in the thread as to learning aids to the seperation of powers and checks and balances in post #39 Entire US Constitution Articles I-III, post #41 soclialstudieshelp.com and post #84
My point of placing them in was to make sure that we are talking from the same starting point. You've clearly demonstrated that it was different. You offered "If you'd like further clarification, I'll be glad to respond."
You are welcome to use those to explain how you believe and understand the seperation of power and checks and balances, and then compare them to your belief.
After that bonus questions are:
Post #16
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
how is it stupid?
|
post #50
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
how are they representing the said party?
|
Post #73
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
How are the justices partisan?
|
Post #80
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
What does it mean when a judge is a swing vote? What does it mean "swing more"?
|
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
|