web analytics

Better insight than you would think

By Patrick Van Roy On July 9th, 2018

Dennis Miller

169 Responses to “Better insight than you would think”

  1. Is there such a thing as Democrat Derangement Syndrome pat? and what would that look like ?

  2. phantom maybe you can explain it
    over here when the gov’t of the day is in office , the concentration is on them , whether that would be labour or Tory. we rarely even bother with the opposition.
    Over there it seems Fox news etc spend most of their time talking about the out of office party. Its hard to understand from this side of the pond
    Reasons?

  3. Fox’s entire business model is based on keeping their older, white audience scared all the time. It’s been the case since the day they were created. They’re a de facto Republican Party Station.

    Most Americans never watch FNC, but those who do watch it are very loyal viewers. Many would have it on for hours every day

  4. thanks phantom i mean that
    you’ve helped me to understand a verse in revelation that talks about those who will not enter the New Jerusalem, the obvious sexaully immoral, murderers, liars all have their part in the lake of fire, but the unbelieving and the fearful are also there. For years I’ve questioned what is meant by the fearful, as we all have fears. But now I see that the revelation verse is referring those who “deliberately” choose to live in a state of fear , not hope or faith and would feed off that fear. Imagaine just for a sec what that does to you, its crippling , we see how a few on here ATW are self-afflicted in that way . The fearful .. sad but true and that has consequences which are very unpleasant for your soul.

  5. Fox was seen as an antidote to what came before their creation in 1996. There used to be only limousine liberal news channels.

    Fox has occasionally done good work. They ran with the ( racist Obama pastor ) Reverend Wright story when the other stations would have been happy not to report it or to underreport it.

    My main criticism of Fox is the same as my main criticism of the US version of CNN – they don’t report meaty news much, don’t report international news in any good way at all.

    Fox’s entire focus has always been Democrat vs Republican politics. If you get you news from Fox, you’ll have a slanted view of that, and you will have hardly any understanding of the many more important stories in the world and in the US.

  6. i spoke to some republican supports in an online game i play, they all listen 24/7 to the likes of rush limbaugh and FOX news . twenty-four seven !!! Sad.

  7. FOX is the only channel that you get both true Liberal and true Conservatives on with both given a fair chance to say what they want.

    and the rest of the country agrees only loons watch cnn msnbc etc

    https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/january-2018-ratings-fox-news-is-now-cable-newss-most-watched-network-for-16-straight-years/356285

    Fox News has just set another milestone: it’s now been the most-watched cable news channel for 16 consecutive years.

    but listen to the all knowing NYr

  8. Rush, Fox, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity radio and TV, and now increasingly Alex Jones.

    This is their ecosphere.

  9. never listened to Michael Savage, or Alex Jones.

    I don’t do crazy.

  10. Is there much insight in it? Just the same old nonsense that has been peddled by nonsense peddlers since Trump arrived on the scene.

    Wasn’t the result narrow? Firstly Trump got 304 electoral votes (or 306 if you discount the faithless electors). That is 57% of the electoral college. In the 58th Presidential election that was the 44th highest. He is in the bottom quarter of Presidents when it comes to their electoral college win. Worse than both of Obama’s results. So yes. A relatively narrow result, even in the electoral college, never mind the popular vote (which he lost).

    Additionally it takes only a minor swing from Trump to Clinton for Trump to lose the election. 0.39% is what I calculated. 0.39%. Put 10,000 people in a room (stadium probably) and get 39 of those 10,000 people to change their mind and the election outcome is different. That is a close election. That is a narrow win.

    Also in terms of alientating voters. In January 2017 when Trump was inagurated his approval ratings where on average about 4% higher than his proportion of the vote. Some places it was higher, some places it was lower. There are only 3 states where is approval is higher now than where it was in January 17 (Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota – all 1% better now than then). In the Rust Belt his approval is down (3% in Pennsylvania and Indiana, 5% in Ohio, Michigian and Wisconsin, and 12% in Illinois). In all six states his net approval (approval minus disapproval) where positive in January 2017 (22% in Indiana, 14% in Ohio, 10% in Pennsylvania, 9% in Illinois, 8% in Michigan, and 6% in Wisconsin). Now only one of those states has positive approval (Indiana – 8%). The rest all have negative approval ratings.

    Given his current approval ratings (and ultimately a second presidential election is normally a referendum on the first presidential term) then Trump would likely not pick up any new States but would likely lose Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, for the most part the States that won him the election.

    Also the whole Rust Belt being sick looking after people who have just arrived in the United States? Absolute bollocks. Average foreign born population of the United States 13.4%. Of the six rust belt states 5 of them have below average immigrant populations (Michigan has 6.6%, Pennsylvania has 6.4%, Wisconsin has 5%, Indiana has 4.8% and Ohio has 4.3%). Only Illinois (which rejected Trump) has higher than average at 14.2%.

  11. especially Jones…..

    This sums my attitude towards him the best

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ4YyPPOREY

  12. Seamus it was a close race. Trump won it on the Union Vote.

    Also don’t EVER pay any attention to approval ratings, they mean absolutely nothing for anyone.

    They are bogus surveys done by the news to create news when they have none.

  13. haha pat I like your improptu links ( like the preverts ones )
    “we’re all stocked up here” .. but uhh ohh that FOX new link was Jan 2018 its JUly 2018
    lol but you’re not as bad as many posters on ATW try to slip in 1/2 truths with between 10 and 3 year old links, to support their arguments — nice try pat . have a cigar anyway

  14. your numbers on “immigration” are also completly off because you are looking at LEGAL immigrants.

    Big difference.

    Obama dumped ILLEGALS all over the country. There is one town here in pa where the Spanish population went from 3% to 56% because of it and the town is collapsing.

  15. Jude…… 16 YEARS the most watched……

  16. They don’t mean absolutely nothing. They shouldn’t be taken as gospel but they are pertinent. What is more interesting is reading the state by state results, that can give a wider picture than simply approval up or down. That Trump is doing relatively well in safe Republican areas (the South (inc. for what it is worth Florda), the Dakotas, Montana, etc…), doing very badly in safe Democratic areas (New England, the Pacific Coast etc…), while doing not so well (down a bit) in the swing state areas is notable.


  17. Patrick Van Roy, on July 9th, 2018 at 1:37 PM Said:

    never listened to Michael Savage, or Alex Jones.

    I don’t do crazy.

    That’s fine, but millions do listen to them, and one of those millions is the president of the United States.

  18. The estimated rate of illegal immigration (per the Pew Research Centre) is 11,100,000 (or 3.5% of the population). No Rust Belt state has a population of illegal immigrants of higher than 3.5%. Illinois is at 3.5%, while Indiana is at 1.6%, Pennsylvania is at 1.4%, Michigan and Wisconsin are at 1.3% and Ohio is at 0.8%.

  19. Fox News and MSNBC programming dominated the May 2018 cable news rankings.

    Hannity was the No. 1 show across cable news for the month of May, averaging nearly 3.3 million total viewers.

    Arrrghhhh .. I want to punch him in face repeatedly , but i am not advocating violence
    as that might mean others joining in and i want to be the only one 🙂

  20. Michael Savage is only crazy 25% of the time.

    Alex Jones is crazy 90% of the time. He’s brilliant but he is barking at the moon insane.

    Both of them are conspiracy guys, one of the things that binds them so closely to Donald Trump.

  21. I wonder how many republicans would like to shoot stephen colbert or at least hit him with a baseball bat? I love the guy, the only thing apart from dead ringers on bbc radio that is a MUST watch per week . He is literally from Heaven sent to us to make sense of crazy ..

  22. AS FOR tRUMP AND POLLS AND THE PRESS AND ALL THE TALKING HEADS THIS SAYS IT ALL… sorry caps lock was on

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=monFrbRDa6w

  23. I wonder how many republicans would like to shoot stephen colbert or at least hit him with a baseball bat?

    NONE Jude

  24. Jude

    The important thing to not is how small the entire audience is for cable tv ” news ”

    Fox News is number one with an average audience size of less than 3 million.

    The average American never watches Fox, MSNBC or CNN.

  25. once again WRONG….. Phantom knows NOTHING outside his little unprofessional bubble

    CNN and Fox News lead the pack among the cable news networks: 23 percent regularly watch Fox and 22 percent regularly watch CNN, down from the early ’90s, when 35 percent of Americans reported regularly watching CNN.

  26. Pat what are your personal thoughts on Colbert’s show? not the lame artcile you posted a while back saying he’s losing ratings lol he’s averaging 4 million for late night TV shows:
    https://news.avclub.com/stephen-colbert-is-still-crushing-jimmy-fallon-in-the-r-1825336857

  27. Fox News is number one with an average audience size of less than 3 million.

    The average American never watches Fox, MSNBC or CNN.

    ahh I see, so you might say Fox News is King of the Dunghill then
    Bullshit Mountain I think Jon Stewart referred to it as. Yes?

  28. In January, FOX News Channel garnered an average of 2.8 million viewers, up 35 percent from the previous year. Also in January, the network topped basic cable as the highest-rated network in total day viewers, beating ESPN.

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/01/31/fox-news-channel-marks-ratings-milestone.html

    The source? Fox News.

    But of course the ignoramus from Ignoramusville knows better.

  29. He’s a comedian Jude I don’t watch comedians pretending to be News people.

  30. from gallup

    PRINCETON, NJ — Television is the main place Americans say they turn to for news about current events (55%), leading the Internet, at 21%. Nine percent say newspapers or other print publications are their main news source, followed by radio, at 6%..

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/163412/americans-main-source-news.aspx

  31. Colbert talks about Trump for the entire show now.

    Way way way too much.

    He is king of the ratings but I can’t watch it too much.

    Trump is way too easy a comedy target, all this has been heard a million times before.

  32. Tom you’re an ill informed unprofessional that lives in a bubble who knows nothing outside that bubble

  33. There ya go he gets his news from a comedian….. and it shows

  34. In your haste to write something, you don’t read anything.

    I just said that I don’t watch Colbert much, less than ten minutes ago. Which is a long time ago for you, but not for most people.

  35. not really interested in what you say Phantom except to correct the lies and bullshit you feed people on this site.

    Like I’ve said I’ve tried to be cordial.

    If you had any professionalism you would have responded to my email the other day. There was a reason I reached out to you. There were things that should not be discussed in public. I was cordial and polite and you were just obnoxious.

  36. Why is Fox news never on at any American airport, just CNN? If I was a conspiracy guy…

    Seamus, do you have a link for that Pew research on illegals? I would like to see where Texas ranks.

  37. During the prime time ( when airports are busy ) Fox does not report the news at all.

    It’s nonstop Republican National Committee and Trump Lock Her Up spin from Hannity Laura Ingraham and the others. What would be the purpose of having that at airports?

  38. Phantom, for angry, scared, old white people like me! 🙂

  39. Tom you’re an ill informed unprofessional that lives in a bubble who knows nothing outside that bubble

    and the further rude comments of

    not really interested in what you say Phantom except to correct the lies and bullshit you feed people on this site.

    finally the killer blow

    Like I’ve said I’ve tried to be cordial.

    you couldn’t make it up!

  40. If I ran a big airport, I’d put BBC World on some TVs, CNN International on others, and ESPN on others.

    Fox and the US version of CNN don’t report the news.

  41. Phantom, a mythical Texas broadcast goes thusly:

    “Breaking News!” Five states affected by nuclear fallout……..Texas not included!”

  42. God bless Texas

    I actually watched a one hour interview on Fox last night that was very good – of “Doctor Phil” McGraw.

    A seriously intelligent guy. And a Texan from head to toe.

  43. Jude don’t involve yourself in things where you don’t know half the story.

  44. CNN has a contract with the airports

  45. Phantom, for angry, scared, old white people like me! 🙂

    lol nonsense charles you must be packing some weapons at home, quick on the draw, unless the old hip packs up 🙂

  46. Jude, all I’m packing now is my Bible!

  47. You are well armed Charles.

  48. CNN, which was created in 1980, was the first 24 hour national news channel in the US and they were the first to offer their services to the airport industry.

    It’s not surprising that they are in all the airports. They invented the airport news monitor industry.

  49. Bless you charles that is good news , warfare not flesh and blood in that book.

  50. As this thread so rightly shows, you just can’t argue with stupid.

    Continue supporting and defending the indefensible behavior of the Left and the overwhelming left-bias of most of the news networks (BBC, CNN international for example) and never actually address real issues and concerns.

    That’s such a winning recipe!

  51. Continue supporting and defending the indefensible behavior of the Left and the overwhelming left-bias of most of the news networks (BBC, CNN international for example) and never actually address real issues and concerns.

    Someone woke up on the wrong side of the dungeon today.

  52. Just the other day, I saw a BBC documentary on the Brexit vote and they interviewed those in favor of Brexit and their legitimate concerns with the EU. THis was followed by a documentary on the EU and climate change and how the climate change BS got started with a political action committee called IPCC, highlighting the inherent bias towards governmental control. Such an eye opener! You might not believe it, but at least the BBC was giving a voice to the “other side.”/ sarc.

    And CNN showcased late term abortion and why so many want to ban this practice since the advent of the ultrasound. Another eye opener! /sarc.

  53. Phantom: Fox News and Right wing radio thrives because most of the news is Left-wing hard bias.

    People don’t like to be gaslighted ALL the time.

  54. You are combatting bias with a bias from the other side that is ten times greater in intensity.

    And again, Fox pretty much doesn’t even report the news outside the US, unless there is a terrorist incident someplace, or some kids are trapped in a cave.

  55. “Seamus, do you have a link for that Pew research on illegals? I would like to see where Texas ranks.”

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

    Texas are second in overall percentage (6.1%, behind Nevada’s 7.2%), and second in overall numbers (1,650,000, behind California at 2,350,000).

  56. I have so enjoyed the BBC coverage of the Rape Gangs popping up in and around the UK and the EU and the balanced debates the BBC hosts on assimilation, Western values and the trials of assimilating the misogyny of the Muslim refugee culture…also, the coverage of “free speech versus inciting riots” in the context of the Tommy Robinson jailing has been so edifying!

    The BBC’s dulcet tones and reasoned debate is so educational! Only rivaled by the CNN panel discussions of the Russian influence in the 2018 election!

  57. The NEWS on Fox which airs at 6pm ALWAYS has a fair balance of democrats, republicans, and never trumpers.

    Not the 3 to 1 ratio on the other channels. The American Public watches it consistently for 16yrs for just that reason.

  58. I really love the BBC coverage of bureaucratic tyranny as Teresa May rolls back the Brexit vote in full sight of the voters.

    Long live the Free Press!!

  59. Seamus did you look at the map you linked to?

    Did you read the numbers and the states?

    Look at those numbers, think of each state that has been flooded with over 100,000 ILLEGALS.

    How would your country handle 100,000-500,000 people relocated to it without your country having a say in it?

  60. https://www.statista.com/statistics/530119/tv-networks-viewers-usa/

    All four true networks ( ABC, NBC, CBS plus Fox ) have much higher ratings than Fox News.

    The legacy three have two to three times as many viewers as Fox News.

    Even HBO has three times as many viewers as Fox News. And HBO ( Vice ) does do journalism that is much better than anything you will see on Fox News Channel

    The TV audience is very splintered now. No channel attracts huge audiences any more. The average American never watches FNC.

  61. Most news programmes and papers have editorial slants. Some are more biased than others. People like Fox News and right wing talk radio because they agree with it because it is a right wing echo chamber that in no way challenges their opinions.

    And ultimately Fox News is heavily biased, more so than most left wing publications.

    http://www.allgeneralizationsarefalse.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Media-Bias-Chart_Version-3.1_Watermark-min.jpg

  62. I did read the numbers. Did you? 3.5% is the average. Too many? Depends on your definition. But hardly breaking the backs of the Rust Belt. If it is breaking the backs of the Rust Belt how the hell is California or Texas still existing?

  63. Sean Hannity use to share his show with a liberal guy Alan Colmes.

    They kicked Holmes off the show ( he has since passed away ) and you now have ” Lock Her Up ” screaming for the whole Hannity show. And he is FNC’s number one prime time star. The Trumpers think that he is one of the founding fathers. He is an uncritical friend to Trump who hangs out with him.

  64. So, in the eyes of the Tangled Web intellentsia, Fox News is hopelessly right wing biases while the other news networks carry more balanced fare.

    ok.

    And Hillary will win the 2016 election by a landslide. And Trump/Russian collusion is a fact.

  65. People like Fox News and right wing talk radio because they agree with it because it is a right wing echo chamber that in no way challenges their opinions.

    So balaced panel of that includes an equal number of hardcore Democrats and hardcore republicans is an echo chamber……

  66. Hannity is an opinion show, Phantom. You need to distinguish between editorial, opinion and what is called “news.”

  67. I did read the numbers. Did you? 3.5% is the average.

    3.5% of 350 MILLION……..

    If it is breaking the backs of the Rust Belt how the hell is California or Texas still existing?

    Neither Texas or California are in the rustbelt…. you have no clue about what you speak.

  68. Pat: I am thinking that it best if the Left be allowed to remain in their bubble of self-congratulation and opinion affirmation. This tendency to ignore reality makes the Left (and their policies) easy to beat in the voting booth.

    I remember lying low during the run-up of the Trump election when it became obvious that he could win – I, and others like me, didn’t want to tip our hand – feared that Hillary might actually wake-up and campaign.

    Now, I realize that the Left is too far gone. They believe their own press. and exhibit no real desire to look at the world around them with open minds.

  69. Thanks Seamus. Interesting stuff.

  70. Yes 3.5%. A nation the size of the US can make even small proportions look big in raw terms which is why proportions are more telling.

    And I at no point said that Texas or California are in the rust belt.

  71. Welcome Charles

  72. THe thing is, we gave Obama and his ideas a chance. When he campaigned, it was obvious that he would win. He had such support and enthusiasm thrown his way. He was given a legitimate chance (8 years) to try his ideas and the result was a terrible economy, corruption, and general malaise.

    SO, along comes Trump and anyone who watched his rallies would realize that the man could, would win. He had such support and enthusiasm thrown his way. Now, he has the chance (despite The Resistance) to try his ideas and the result is that the economy is booming and people are happy!

    If the Left wing bureaucrats are unhappy at their loss of power, so what.

  73. Yes Patty

    No Seamus when you dump 100,000 ILLEGALS into a town with a population of less than 100,000 like they have done to multiple towns those NUMBERS mean everything.

  74. Yes that would result in 50%. Not 3.5%

  75. Barack Obama : 52.9% and 51.1%
    Donald Trump : 46.1%

    Don’t think you can adequately compare the levels of support that where given to the two men.

    And Republicans spent most of the Obama presidency trying to frustrate or defund Obama’s initiatives. So they hardly given a chance by the Republicans.

  76. name one policy the republicans blocked Obama from doing

  77. Gun regulations, legislation on Dreamers, his Jobs plan, cap and trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants, minimum wage law, and equal pay laws.

    Also his Supreme Court nominee.

  78. After ObamaCare, Obama didn’t take a lot of his policies to the Legislative branch because the Republicans took over the House and the Senate and most likely, he would have been blocked.

    Instead, Obama enacted most of his policies through Executive signing papers.

    This is one reason why Trump has been so successful in reversing his policies. Live by Executive fiat, die by Executive fiat.

  79. Obama did have two years with the Democrats in control of all branches of the government.

  80. Also his Supreme Court nominee.

    I agree with that. McConnell did ice his nominee.

  81. Obama over saw the gutting of the Democrat/Progressive party – the dems/progs. lost the House, the Senate and an overwhelming number of Governorships and State Legislatures.

    Now that the Supremes have ruled that the Unions can’t take dues from workers without workers permission, expect to see further hallowing out of the Dems/Progs power. The dues from unions were a large source of funding for the Dems./Progs on a federal and state level.

  82. none of those are things that Obama had the authority to do, and he gave pseudo amnesty to a boat load of illegals anyway.

    The more you write the more you prove you have absolutely NO CLUE how our system works… please continue.

    His last Supreme Court Nominee is NOT a policy.

  83. I understand why the Dem/Prog elites are so mad. They are losing power.

  84. They where his policies that were either gutted or rejected by a Republican Congress or filibustered by a Republican minority. And it is not Congress’s job to decide what authority the President has or not. There is another branch of government for whom that is the job of.

    “His last Supreme Court Nominee is NOT a policy.”

    And?

  85. Mitch McConnell and his cabal flat out refused to meet their constitutional responsibilities to consider the judicial appointment, a stance supported by their presidential nominee.

    Yet these are the same gombeen men and grifters who blather about the Constitution, pretending that it is somehow important to them.

  86. Irony:

    Under the Obama Administration, the middle/blue class in America was gutted.

    With Trump, the middle class/blue collar is once again finding employment. \

  87. They where his policies that were either gutted or rejected by a Republican Congress or filibustered by a Republican minority. And it is not Congress’s job to decide what authority the President has or not. There is another branch of government for whom that is the job of.

    Congress creates the Bills that control Gun regulations, legislation on Dreamers, his Jobs plan, cap and trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants, minimum wage law, and equal pay laws. NOT the President.

    And it is not Congress’s job to decide what authority the President has or not. There is another branch of government for whom that is the job of.

    NO lmao… no Branch decides what the other branch does. THE CONSTITUTION does. All 3 Branches are EQUAL. lmao… keep typing the comedy is great.

  88. Under the Obama Administration, the middle/blue class in America was gutted.

    Unemployment steadily fell for the last seven years of ” the dictator ”

    After the bank driven crash that happened on your boy’s watch in an era of deregulation.

    Two things that you never hear from the Fake News Trumpers.

  89. Actually, I applaud Seamus’s knowledge of our government workings. It’s better than my working knowledge off Irish politics.

    The Republicans played hardball with Obama’s SCOTUS nominee. We have to own that as a party. The Senate is supposed to advise and consent, not stonewall.

  90. The American middle class has been in decline since at least the 1970s

    For many reasons, including automation and trade with very low wage countries. Factors that some of us have been speaking about for years here. The Trumpers have heard about the second factor in the last 18 months, and now they think that they’re onto something.

    If the guy in Texas making $15 an hour is in competition with a guy in China making $1 who is just as smart and just as hard working, who has the competitive advantage?

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html

  91. Seamus seems to know the US federal system better than anyone here, and it’s not even close.

  92. he’s a maroon and a pat on the back from Phantom who knows nothing about how his own country works proves it.

    If you know nothing about Irish politics Charles you still no more about Irish politics than seamus does ours.

  93. Simple question on Seamus’s statement.

    And it is not Congress’s job to decide what authority the President has or not. There is another branch of government for whom that is the job of.

    What Branch?

  94. Democrat NYr in action

    http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/09/new-york-man-martin-astrof-arrested-after-threatening-kill-supporters-rep-lee-zeldin

    NY Man Arrested for Threatening to Kill GOP Lawmaker’s Volunteer, Trump Supporters

  95. waiting for an answer……

    Simple question on Seamus’s statement.

    And it is not Congress’s job to decide what authority the President has or not. There is another branch of government for whom that is the job of.

    What Branch?

  96. America is a Constitutional Republic.

    The Supreme Court does not pass laws. The Supreme Court judges whether laws are constitutional, or not.

    Therefore, ongoing discussion regarding whether or not a Supreme Court judge favors abortion or not is irrelevant.

    A Supreme Court Justice could favor abortion and yet rule that a pro-abortion law is un constitutional.

  97. don’t talk logic or truth to them Patty it ruins their lack of reality

  98. “What Branch?” Trick question. Answer: none.

    the Constitution decides the authority of the President. The Supreme Court is the arbiter.

  99. Not according to Seamus…. and Phantom agrees with him.

  100. Pat: I know.

    They are awash in the assumptions and arguments presented by the MSM that seeks to dumb us all down.

  101. it’s just sad

  102. Phnatom’s greatest strength is his ability to repeat truisms and the conventional wisdom that he reads/hears from the MSM.

    Phantom’s greatest weakness is his inability to question assumptions that comprise “conventional wisdom.”

    That is why he doesn’t see what’s in front of him regarding the Progressives and/or Trump.

    He is not alone.

  103. Not sad – very useful. If the Progs/Dems wish to remain ignorant and continue to lose power, then I am not unhappy.

  104. lol

  105. Trump will choose a judge for the Supremes who is a constitutionalist.

    The MSM will continue to worry that the judge is pro-life or pro-choice etc. – but, none of that matters. Elections and legislators choose whether or not we have laws for or against abortion and as long as such laws are not unconstitutional, the laws will stand.

  106. Patty

    The US is a constitutional republic that is a democracy.

    We know what the Supreme Court is.

    La dee dah dee dah. What a revelation

  107. Both the libs and the Trumpers / Republicans try to game the Supreme Court picks so that those appointed will make rulings that you prefer.

    Both sides are trying to get what they want and that is it. The Constitution has very little to do with any of it.

  108. Charles and Phanton,

    Cheers guys.

    “Congress creates the Bills that control Gun regulations, legislation on Dreamers, his Jobs plan, cap and trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants, minimum wage law, and equal pay laws. NOT the President.”

    True. But then it would be Affordable Care Act, or Rangelcare. It certainly wouldn’t be Obamacare. Except the fact is that the President largely sets the agenda. And has since the dawn of the United States. The original Congress aligned itself into two factions, those who were in favour of the policies of George Washington/Alexander Hamilton (which eventually evolved into the Federalist Party) and those who were opposed to the policies of George Washington/Alexander Hamilton (and subsequently evolved into the Democratic-Republican Party). They where even named the Pro-Administration and Anti-Administration parties. So while the legislating is done by Congress, subject to Presidential veto, the agenda has since the creation of the United States been the purview of the President.

    “What Branch?”

    The Judicial Branch. Whether you like it or not the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, and in their interpretation of said constitution decides where the limits on federal power are, and who exercises power within the federal sphere.

    “The Supreme Court does not pass laws. The Supreme Court judges whether laws are constitutional, or not.

    Therefore, ongoing discussion regarding whether or not a Supreme Court judge favors abortion or not is irrelevant.”

    And something that both of you, Patty and Pat, need to get your head around is there is often a distinction has to how something happens in theory and how something happens in practice. So yes the Supreme Court is supposed to judge whether a law is constitutional or not and so their opinion on certain issues shouldn’t matter. But this is the real world…

    And the two of you have the gall to the lecture other people about ‘reality’.

    “They are awash in the assumptions and arguments presented by the MSM that seeks to dumb us all down.”

    I have a BA in Legislative Studies, the study of legislatures, and their constitutional position. A large part of that degree involved the study of constitutions and how they operate, including multiple courses on the US political system. I wrote my entire dissertation on the Irish constitution for example. But yeah I get all my arguments from the media in a different country from where I live.

  109. “Both sides are trying to get what they want and that is it. The Constitution has very little to do with any of it.”

    Both sides don’t agree. The Left would like to legislate from the bench.

    But the Right believes – still – in the Constitution and believes the Legislature writes the laws – if you want your way, then you need to write good laws.

    The Constitution has everything to do with it.

  110. “But this is the real world…”

    this is such a fallacious, empty argument.

    it reminds me of Phantom claiming that California is too big to govern itself.

    such emotional tripe – and from you! a supposed constitutional scholar. well…Obama was a constitutional scholar as well and we saw what that resulted in…..executive orders

  111. The Left would like to legislate from the bench.

    You guys do that all the time, too. On guns, on the ” money is speech ” nonsense, on all kinds of things.

    You and Michael Moore are the same thing, only from the other side of the crooked nickel.

    And no, that is not an invite to some stupid ” debate of the deaf ” on these matters.

  112. The Right legislates from the bench all the time. Take the recent decision over union fees. Now I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that if someone doesn’t want to be part of a union they shouldn’t have to be, and shouldn’t have to contribute. I think there is a First Amendment argument that forcing them to contribute to the union’s political fund is wrong. However, that is not what the Illinois law said. It said that the union can force funding of collective bargaining, not the political funding. Now again there is an argument against that. But it isn’t a constitutional one. So the Supreme Court decided to ignore the constitution on that one and vote for their party line.

    So the Right isn’t in a position to lecture the Left. They do it plenty themselves.

  113. The US is a constitutional republic that is a democracy.

    wrong

  114. “this is such a fallacious, empty argument.”

    It isn’t. But for the slow readers in the group I went further later on in my response by saying that there is often a distinction between how a system operates in theory and how it operates in practice.

  115. “What Branch?”

    The Judicial Branch. Whether you like it or not the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, and in their interpretation of said constitution decides where the limits on federal power are, and who exercises power within the federal sphere.

    wrong

  116. it reminds me of Phantom claiming that California is too big to govern itself.

    Only I never said that.

    Did you take the same memory course that Patrick took?

  117. Just saying wrong isn’t an argument. You kind of have to point out where it is wrong other wise you just look like a clown.

  118. Phantom, we legislate from the bench “on guns”

    Look, if you don’t like the Second Amendment, then seek to amend the Constitution.

    but you can’t say that upholding the constitutional 2nd amendment is “legislating from the bench.”

    your side is intellectually bankrupt. reevaluate your premises.

  119. The 2nd Amendment? The one that mentions well regulated? The one that was actually about given the state’s the ability to form state militias to eventually fight the US Army if need be? That amendment?

  120. “Only I never said that”

    actually you did.

  121. I don’t have a problem with the Second Amendment.

    You Bobbsy twins have no idea what it says.

  122. “Bobbsy twins”

    Git off my lawn!!! said the old guy in the t-shirt to the hooligans down the street.

    this argument is going nowhere – reevaluate your assumptions, Phantom. and turn off CNN

  123. I actually watch more of Fox News that I do CNN

    I told you, CNN sucks, it has declined, it does not report the news much.

    You need to read more carefully what people say.

  124. in their interpretation of said constitution decides where the limits on federal power are, and who exercises power within the federal sphere.

    this is total stupidity.

    Did you know the Congress can overturn supreme court rulings by changing the Law.

    The SC has NEVER decided who exercises power within the federal sphere…. that’s not how it works.

    The SC seized additional power with Marbury vs Madison they took control of deciding if something is constitutional.

    All they can do is reject they can make no rules, no changes to the rules, they can not create who has what duty.

    All they can do is interpret the Constitution…. only the Congress with the President and the the ratifying of the change BY THE PEOPLE can change the Constitution.

    You have no clue….

  125. Phantom, on July 9th, 2018 at 7:00 PM Said: Edit Comment
    I don’t have a problem with the Second Amendment.

    You Bobbsy twins have no idea what it says.

    Want to debate it?

  126. No.

    You don’t listen to anyone and are prone to flying off the handle and making personal attacks when things don’t go your way.

    And besides, this has been discussed for more than 15 years on these pages. Nothing will be revealed today that has not been revealed already.

    Now if you excuse me, I have to return to watching CNN in the bubble.

  127. If one would step back you would see that this video is sadly representative of the trend in politics in the US. Two C list television celebrities free associating on topics of the day. Miller from Saturday Night Live and Kennedy from MTV. On a channel dedicated in great part on presenting a skewed view of politics.

  128. true except the last line Mahons

  129. Besides if I wanted to debate a constitutional matter, I’d aim higher and challenge Seamus to a debate.

  130. MSNBC is no better by the way. The Democrats are guilty of the same fawning of celebrities.

  131. Dennis Miller is a smart guy. He used to have a radio show, maybe he still does.

    He was pals with O’Reilly, who would have him on, now that O’Reilly is toast, Miller has fallen off the face of the earth.

  132. Phantom

    You’re an insurance salesman, I am a Licensed firearm salesman, a licensed trainer, a competitive shooter, and an expert on the topic.

    As for my demeanor you’re totally unprofessional and still the only person here to ever write a Post attacking another poster.

  133. That segment involved no challenge of Miller by the interviewer on anything. In fact the only tension was how quickly thy would agree with each other.

  134. Selling fish does not make one a marine biologist.

  135. “The SC has NEVER decided who exercises power within the federal sphere”

    Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Little v. Barreme
    The Prize Cases
    Clinton v. City of New York

    Plenty of other cases have also judged the constitutionality of the President’s power, on Executive Orders etc…

    “All they can do is interpret the Constitution…. only the Congress with the President and the the ratifying of the change BY THE PEOPLE can change the Constitution.”

    Nonsense. Only Congress, the President and the People can change the constitutional source text. The constitution goes far beyond that. Every judicial decision is part of the constitution. Thus when the Supreme Court issue a new opinion they issue a new amendment to the constitution.

  136. Very good, so best not ” debate ” me then as I’m so terrible.

    But you have made hundreds of errors in math, language, and on facts, including on matters pertaining to guns, every year here, so perhaps you can debate with yourself as to why this is so.

    When you start being right more often, you can then debate people on things.

  137. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
    Little v. Barreme
    The Prize Cases
    Clinton v. City of New York

    Moe is playing chess with Boris Spassky

  138. Phantom, on July 9th, 2018 at 7:17 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Very good, so best not ” debate ” me then as I’m so terrible.

    But you have made hundreds of errors in math, language, and on facts, including on matters pertaining to guns, every year here, so perhaps you can debate with yourself as to why this is so.

    When you start being right more often, you can then debate people on things.

    then debate me

  139. I invite you to debate Patty on the effectiveness of dental floss in rural Cambodia

  140. Seamus those cases don’t say what you think.

    You don’t understand the difference between define and interpret.

  141. And you seemingly don’t understand the difference between de jure and de facto.

  142. Mahons, on July 9th, 2018 at 7:16 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Selling fish does not make one a marine biologist.

    being licensed to sell fish makes that person more knowledgeable on fish than someone who manages people that sell screws.

  143. Seamus the only definition of the Presidents powers is the Constitution.

    Not the Supreme Court and case Law doesn’t change that.

  144. Nonsense. Because power is the ability to make someone do something that they would not ordinarily have done. The President’s ability to make someone do something that they would not ordinarily have done has changed dramatically over the history of the United States. Sometimes, though not always, that was because the Supreme Court defined Presidential Power in a manner that their predecessors had not.

  145. I knew you were going to say the SC was the “the branch” because you are clueless in regard to how our system works, and what the definition of powers are. Your mistake is a common one, but it is a mistake.

    Where did you study constitutional law? I carried it as a minor for 4yrs at the University of Pennsylvania and did a thesis on it.

    Did you?

  146. Case Law can not change the Constitution.

    The cases you cite determined if the president acted in or out of their defined powers… it did not define them.

  147. I didn’t actually say the Supreme Court. I said the Judicial Branch. Goes beyond the Supreme Court. And if I am mistaken show me where. With evidence, not just statements with no factual content.

    I studied it at the University of Hull and did what Americans would call my major on it.

  148. Case law is the main bulk of the constitution. The constitution is not simply the source document. While the Constitutional document is the source it isn’t the constitution in its entirety and is only one small part. Supreme Court rulings, legislation, the Federalist Papers etc are all part of the US Constitution.

  149. lets look at one of your cases

    Clinton v. City of New York

    Summary of Clinton v. City of New York (1998) Relevant Facts: The Line Item Veto Act gave the President the right to veto any one part of a bill which landed on his desk, as long as the President provided that his veto was for the good of the country.

    Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress.

    Please look at what they based their decision on…..

    the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution

  150. Seamus, on July 9th, 2018 at 7:40 PM Said: Edit Comment
    Case law is the main bulk of the constitution. The constitution is not simply the source document. While the Constitutional document is the source it isn’t the constitution in its entirety and is only one small part. Supreme Court rulings, legislation, the Federalist Papers etc are all part of the US Constitution.

    roflmao

  151. Should a man of your age be rolling about on the floor? You might break a hip if you keep that up.

  152. And 3 justices, including Antonin Scalia, reading the same Presentment Clause, said it did not violate the constitution. So the Presentment Clause stayed the same. But 3 judges thought it was constitutional and 6 didn’t. The difference wasn’t the Presentment Clause but the judges. So the Supreme Court determined it, not the Presentment Clause. If it was the Presentment Clause it would have been 9-0.

  153. Then according to the federalist papers I can carry my firearm everywhere in every state. Because the Federalist states NO RESTRICTIONS can be placed on that right…..

    You defeat your own argument

  154. Seamus, on July 9th, 2018 at 7:47 PM Said: Edit Comment
    And 3 justices, including Antonin Scalia, reading the same Presentment Clause, said it did not violate the constitution. So the Presentment Clause stayed the same. But 3 judges thought it was constitutional and 6 didn’t. The difference wasn’t the Presentment Clause but the judges. So the Supreme Court determined it, not the Presentment Clause. If it was the Presentment Clause it would have been 9-0.

    wrong both sides were basing what they wrote on different parts of the constitution.

  155. Where do the Federalist Papers state that no restrictions can be placed on personal gun ownership and use?

  156. “wrong both sides were basing what they wrote on different parts of the constitution.”

    But if it was clear, and they where basing everything on the constitution, then it would have been a 9-0 decision. The text doesn’t change.

  157. This can lead to an endless Dungeons and Dragons secret handshake discussion.

  158. no Politics plays into their interpretation….

  159. I’ll role a 99 on the hit dice

  160. I’m not near my books Seamus, but you can start with Federalist 46 I believe and I’ll pull others for you later.

  161. “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”– Thomas Jefferson,

    “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
    — Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution� under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian� in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).

    “The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
    — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

    “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
    — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
    –Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    “The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
    — Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

    and I can go on and on

  162. charlesintexas, on July 9th, 2018 at 2:30 PM Said:

    Why is Fox news never on at any American airport, just CNN? If I was a conspiracy guy…

    Charles – if you only see CNN at airports then it’s not a ‘conspiracy theory’ but a confirmed fact. But the very fact of making your observation moves you into ‘conspiracy’ on Phantom’s gauge

    Phantom, on July 9th, 2018 at 4:22 PM Said:

    Sean Hannity use to share his show with a liberal guy Alan Colmes.

    They kicked Holmes off the show ( he has since passed away )

    Phantom – was Colmes kicked off the show? A link below does not support your assertion and neither do others

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Colmes

    Colmes left Hannity & Colmes, with Fox replacing it with Hannity, in January 2009.[10] Colmes continued as a commentator on Fox News, most often on The O’Reilly Factor where he frequently appeared with his conservative sister-in-law, Monica Crowley.[11] He was also an occasional guest-panelist on Fox News’ late-night satire program Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld.

    So, the “kicked off the show”: what’s the basis?

  163. Patrick – some of those quotes have dubious attribution and/or have been taken out of context.

  164. Allan

    Alan Colmes is understood to have been quietly encouraged to leave.

    He could barely get a word in edgewise with Hannity shooting his mouth off

    And you notice that eight years later, no liberal or moderate has been added to balance Hannity’s nonstop lock her up bullshit

    Fox doesn’t even try to be fair and balanced. They used to pretend to be fair.

  165. TLDR

    That terrible Obama economy
    https://imgur.com/a/NN7r3
    https://imgur.com/a/wQbn1

  166. Phantom, on July 9th, 2018 at 11:30 PM Said:

    Alan Colmes is understood to have been quietly encouraged to leave.

    Understood by whom – links please. Colmes did not leave Fox so he must have been reasonably happy.

    As for Fox being ‘fair and balanced’, clearly Fox decided that there is a gigantic demographic not being catered for by the leftist MSM so it decided that there’s no need for ‘fair and balanced’

  167. Here’s ‘fair and balanced’: CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC vs Fox

    It’s not fair, but it’s balanced. Remove Fox, and it’s Orwellian

  168. Allan

    You protest too much

    Fox is completely unbalanced, It does not report the news And their audience of 3 million in a country of 300 million is not a gigantic anything

    They have more viewers then CNN does, so Lah dee dah Let’s have a parade

  169. Phantom, on July 10th, 2018 at 12:26 AM Said:

    Allan

    You protest too much

    No protests – I’m just asking by whom is Alan Colmes understood to have been quietly encouraged to leave? After all, you wrote this…..

    Phantom, on July 9th, 2018 at 11:30 PM Said:

    Alan Colmes is understood to have been quietly encouraged to leave.

    If I had written that, you would rightly ask the same of me as I ask of you.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.