If you're sitting with a bunch of guy friends, to watch this, you might want to get up to get a beer first. Cuz, you know, it's a total turn on. And, you might not be able to stand once it starts.
Notice the winner is NOT ALLOWED TO WEAR HER FUCKING CROWN.
She can carry it, but she can't wear it.
If she actually got crazy and put it on her head, would they chop her fucking head right there on the stage?
God, I wish Nancy Pelosi would be forced to move to Saudi Arabia.
19 comments:
Pastorius,
I don't think Nancy Pelosi has done anything evil enough to deserve that.
Really?
Being elected to serve the will of the people, but ignoring the will of the people isn't evil enough?
Pastorius,
No its not, and I don't want may leaders to blindly do what ever their constituents want anyway. What if the people who elected them actually wanted them to do violated the constitution for example. There was once a time in the south when the majority (at least of white southerners, who were in the majority there anyway) supported segregation laws and elected leaders who would enforce them. If one of our leaders gets a elected on a certian platform and than does a one eighty, than just kick them out of office.
Saudi Arabia is a Hell Hole as far as I'm concerned, and given the way they treat women, it would be an incredibly inhumane punishment.
Pasto, Pelosi (nor any other congress-critter or sinator) was not elected to serve the 'will of the people.'
They were elected to uphold the law and the Constitution of the United States.
The mess we have now is the 'will of the people.' The majority being all in for the goodies the gov't has for them and theirs. The Constitution be damned.
Oh really.
So, if 75% of the people oppose Obamacare, then it's still ok for Pelosi and Reid to shove it down our throats?
Do you really believe that, Sameno?
And, the arrogance with which these jerks have treated their constituents at the town hall meetings, you think that's reasonable as well, right?
What!?!? Read my comment again or again again. I don't see how you got any of your 2 comments from what I posted.
The Constitution provides no mechanism for Congress to pass mandatory HealthCare, anymore than it does to pass mandatory car purchases.
Ergo, if Congress followed the Constitution, the 75% of the people against HealthCare would not have a problem.
And if 99.99993% of the people had the will to pass it, it would still be unConstitutional. Even if it passed. Passing a law doesn't automatically make it right or Constitutional.
Congress has for yrs operated outside of the constraints of the Law. Pelosi/Reid/Odama just being the current manifestation of the arrogance.
We are not a nation of majority rule or of the will of the people. This is a nation of law based on the Constitution.
Maybe my 'Constitution be damned' comment wasn't clear. That referred back to the previous sentence.
SamenoKami,
I agree with you, in total on this. The constitution is the one thing that has to always be put above the will of the people. If something violates it, than it should not be done, no matter how much people want it, unless they are willing to go through the amendment process and even than it may not be a good idea. The majority can be and has been wrong.
No, we are not a nation of majority rule, and we, as individuals, can not expect our Representatives to do everything we want them to do.
But, Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the House of Representatives. They are called "Representatives" for a reason.
Nancy Pelosi was not elected to take polls and vote according to polls.
However, our Representatives are supposed to elect us. The less democratic Senate is supposed to be more removed from the Will of the People. In fact, for quite a long time, the Senators were not elected, but were instead appointed.
The Representatives are supposed to serve the will of the people, Sameno. That's why they are up for election so often.
One could say that we ought to elect these people out, but it is becoming pretty clear that no matter who we elect to represent us, they do not concern themselves with actually representing what we the people want.
Obamacare and the Illegal Immigration issue are just two of the issues on which our Reps do not rep us.
Pastorius,
Hey, I wish they would serve us in those two areas as well, but that still wouldn't justify forcing Nancy Pelosi or any other of our representatives to live in a dreadful place like Saudi Arabia.
""The Representatives are supposed to serve the will of the people, Sameno. That's why they are up for election so often.""
OK. The House is the people's house and originally the Senate represented state's interests (up until the 17th(?)amendment). The Senate is supposed to be a check valve for the rashness of the House. Agreed again.
BUT, Congress can only represent the people w/in the confines of the Constitution. Or at least that's what it's supposed to be.
So from your point of view IF the people of the US can persuade the House that it's in our best interest and it's our will to give everyone in the US $1million, it's OK. Then if we get the Senate to OK it (it's the much vaunted 'will of the people' and if the Senate doesn't vote for it they could lose their gravy job) and the SCOTUS refuses to hear a challenge and the POTUS veto is over-ridden, it's law?
Well, no the crap it ain't. Up until FDR-ish it was understood that the Const. forbade the transfer of US tax $$ to individuals.
Of course the POTUS and Congress didn't represent us on OdamaCare and immigration. But it wasn't the 'will of the people' they violated. It was the Constitution. They had to step outside those limits placed upon them in order to rape us.
I think we're sorta saying the same thing. It's just that I'm framing it w/in Law and you are framing it as the people always wanting what's best for the country ie "the will of the people." I personally don't trust 'people' to always do the right thing, which is why I default to the Law aka the Constitution.
At the risk of starting a blogwar, slavery makes my point. The 'will of a very large # of people' wanted it. The SCOTUS said it was OK. POTI (plural of POTUS?) said it was OK up til Lincoln (or at least never pushed it real hard.)
Your 'will o'the people' almost sounds like democracy aka mob-rule.
Sameno says: Congress can only represent the people w/in the confines of the Constitution.
I say: Yep, that's true.
Sameno says: So from your point of view IF the people of the US can persuade the House that it's in our best interest and it's our will to give everyone in the US $1million, it's OK.
I say: No, that's not what I think. In fact, that's what I'm arguing against. The people did not want Obamacare, and yet Pelosi, Reid, and Obama rammed it down our throats anyway.
Sameno says: At the risk of starting a blogwar, slavery makes my point. The 'will of a very large # of people' wanted it. The SCOTUS said it was OK. POTI (plural of POTUS?) said it was OK up til Lincoln (or at least never pushed it real hard.)
I say: I agree.
I guess we agree. I don't know what we're arguing about.
:)
I'm back again. I just love to be punished.
""The people did not want Obamacare, and yet Pelosi, Reid, and Obama rammed it down our throats anyway.""
Yes, we didn't and they did. My whole argument is about that phrase 'the will of the people.' Had this comment ""Being elected to serve the will of the people, but ignoring the will of the people isn't evil enough?"" had 'Law' or 'Constitution' in place of 'wotp' my boxers would not be in this bundle. 'wotp' sets up a dangerous scenario where as long as it's the 'wotp' it's what Congress should do and screw the Law.
I'm seeing the negative side of the argument (in my role as Mr. Sunshine) ie the 'will of the people' could want something bad for the US - slavery or anything else bad for the US. You are taking the positive side ie the
'will of the people' wanted something good - let's not pass OdamaCare.
I have no faith that people (includes Congress etc.) will not use gov't to get what the want, so I want them severely limited by the Constitution.
Your point is not based on the Law, but upon the fact that Congress should have listened to the majority 'will of the people.' That 'will' can and does change. You can't argue for the 'wotp' in this instance which you (and I) agree they were/are right and the next time argue against the 'wotp' when you disagree if you want to be consistent about that phrase.
You CAN say this time and the next time it's unConstitutional thus the 'wotp' does not enter into it. Unfortunately, we are always at the mercy of Congress/POTUS until the next election.
Do I really put my tho'ts across that badly?
No, I guess I wasn't paying attention.
I see your point and I agree.
My point is, Congress, the President and the Courts are not only ignoring law, and the Constitution, they are also ignoring the will of the people on the issues of immigration and Obamacare.
So, they put themselves into a dangerous "pre-revolutionary" position, if you want my opinion.
It is not a good thing to keep inflaming a large group of people, especially when they know they are right, and they are constantly being told they are wrong.
This is the situation of the people of America vs. their Reps and Judiciary. We know we are right, and we are being told we are wrong.
Really, at that point, your point is moot.
If our Reps do not Rep us, by the Constitution or the law, or by our will, and they prove through their behavior over a very long period of time that they have no intention of doing so, then what matters OTHER than the will of the people.
See what I mean?
I understand your point now.
You are making a legal/Constitutional point. It is valid.
I'm saying it is being rendered invalid by those who are supposed to protect and serve the exact system of Constitutional law they are consistently violating.
So now, as Epa always asks, "what are you willing to do about it?"
Yep.
The big question is indeed - What to do?
Everybody says 'vote' but that is not working because I am less and less free w/each passing day Congress is in session. We have politicians and not statesmen. I have emailed my Senators and told them their job is to make me more free when they leave office than when they entered. Paul Broun is my Congressman and he's a good guy.
As C.Wolfe has said "We're at that awkward stage. It's too late to vote them out and too early to start shooting."
I think we are at the opening stages of a massive violent uprising. Too many have been screwed over. Too many are supported only by gov't, using too few producers. Taxes are too high. People have played by the rules and lost everything. There are not enuf jobs.
The pot is boiling and we are starting to see people splash out of the pot and go 'postal.' I think this will continue.
At some point one of three things will happen. Problems will be fixed and the gov't will do what it's supposed to; the gov't will back the people into a corner and they'll come out shooting or the country will collapse after which it's anyone's guess.
Sameno,
You wrote: Everybody says 'vote' but that is not working because I am less and less free w/each passing day Congress is in session.
I say: Yep. That's what I mean. Our vote doesn't seem to mean much of anything anymore.
You wrote; I have emailed my Senators and told them their job is to make me more free when they leave office than when they entered.
I say: That's a really good way of putting it. I had never thought of it that way before.
You said: As C.Wolfe has said "We're at that awkward stage. It's too late to vote them out and too early to start shooting."
I say: Yep.
As for the rest of what you wrote, I agree. But, I have no opinion on what is actually going to happen.
Thanks Pasto,
I always enjoy IBA discussions.
Thanks to you too.
Post a Comment