• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Art Bell

Started by sillydog, April 07, 2008, 11:21:45 PM

akwilly

Quote from: rekcuf on June 14, 2016, 05:11:01 PM
I still on the bench and make poses for Twitter memes.
bwaaaaa

jazmunda

RED and I will be interviewing Art on the final episode of The Bell Philes on Thursday 9pm ET/6pm PT.

Listen and chat LIVE @ http://thebellphiles.com/live-show/

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

As our show is a retrospective on classic shows from the 90s and early 00s we will be focusing on this time period and those classic shows so if you have any questions you have always wanted to ask Art about those classic shows send me a PM or just respond here.

MV/Liberace!

Quote from: jaz on June 14, 2016, 06:15:01 PM
RED and I will be interviewing Art on the final episode of The Bell Philes on Thursday 9pm ET/6pm PT.

Listen and chat LIVE @ http://thebellphiles.com/live-show/

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

As our show is a retrospective on classic shows from the 90s and early 00s we will be focusing on this time period and those classic shows so if you have any questions you have always wanted to ask Art about those classic shows send me a PM or just respond here.


final episode?  well, this is at least a great way to wrap it up.

jazmunda

Quote from: MV on June 14, 2016, 06:24:34 PM

final episode?  well, this is at least a great way to wrap it up.

George Noory paid for a new pair of spectacles so we'll be back next week with our new show The Noory Biles.

GravitySucks

Quote from: jaz on June 14, 2016, 06:15:01 PM
RED and I will be interviewing Art on the final episode of The Bell Philes on Thursday 9pm ET/6pm PT.

Listen and chat LIVE @ http://thebellphiles.com/live-show/

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

As our show is a retrospective on classic shows from the 90s and early 00s we will be focusing on this time period and those classic shows so if you have any questions you have always wanted to ask Art about those classic shows send me a PM or just respond here.

Recipe for pizza punch

ACE of CLUBS

Quote from: MV on June 14, 2016, 06:24:34 PM

final episode?  well, this is at least a great way to wrap it up.

Praise Barbara Streisand .....

Redwolf

Art,

Um, you do know there is a Libertarian candidate right?

His name is Gary Johnson. You don't have to vote for Clinton or Trump!

You keep saying for years and years you are a Libertarian...then actually vote that way!!

Vote for Gary Johnson...otherwise you are just another wanna be Libertarian who is really a Republican.

You are too smart to vote for Trump or Clinton...They are both terrible and yet you say you will vote for Trump...what a joke of a statement that is. You don't have to endorse one or the other...there are other options and even if there wasn't, why come out for either one of them? Why not just say they both are terrible...at least that would be honest and true.

Worst candidate choices...EVER!!!!


chinaclipper

Quote from: jaz on June 14, 2016, 06:15:01 PM

As our show is a retrospective on classic shows from the 90s and early 00s we will be focusing on this time period and those classic shows so if you have any questions you have always wanted to ask Art about those classic shows send me a PM or just respond here.

what REALLY happened to Buggs' bigfoot map?

Element 115

Quote from: chinaclipper on June 14, 2016, 09:07:02 PM
what REALLY happened to Buggs' bigfoot map?

Great choice. Please ask this Jaz. I'll be tuning in, calendar set.

Value Of Pi

Quote from: jaz on June 14, 2016, 06:15:01 PM
RED and I will be interviewing Art on the final episode of The Bell Philes on Thursday 9pm ET/6pm PT.

Listen and chat LIVE @ http://thebellphiles.com/live-show/

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

As our show is a retrospective on classic shows from the 90s and early 00s we will be focusing on this time period and those classic shows so if you have any questions you have always wanted to ask Art about those classic shows send me a PM or just respond here.

I hope you're not going to confirm that RED means redacted, minus a few letters and parentheses. If so, I can see the marketing genius in making that at least a little unclear. Also, please break it to me gently if it is in fact "she who must be ignored."

EDIT:
I might know the answer if  I'd been listening lately, but I haven't. The last show I heard was with you and the Mudking, which I thought was a good combo.

jazmunda

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 14, 2016, 09:19:23 PM
I hope you're not going to confirm that RED means redacted, minus a few letters and parentheses. If so, I can see the marketing genius in making that at least a little unclear. Also, please break it to me gently if it is in fact "she who must be ignored."

RED is themudking.

Value Of Pi

Quote from: jaz on June 14, 2016, 09:22:32 PM
RED is themudking.

Thank you, thank you. What a relief. I would ask why he would want to be called by the same nickname as she who is affectionately called "Red" by a dwindling few, but I'm happy just to know that he is not she is not he.

Quote from: Art Bell on June 13, 2016, 12:06:28 AM
We only have two choices in the real World

Yes, simple as that.  It's an unfortunate reality that ultimately we have to choose the "lesser of evil" when it comes to our next President.  For me, I just can't morally vote for Hillary knowing what an evil, scandalous person she is and the fact that she's under an FBI probe.  Now it's coming out that she used our government to raise millions for her own "foundation" while IN OFFICE, electing someone as corrupt as her would be devastating.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/22/1489369/-Hillary-s-aides-cheer-F-15-Christmas-present-for-Saudis-after-10-million-to-Clinton-Foundation

And for those afraid of Trump - Relax, courts will block half the shit he wants to do.  At least he has a spine and has new solutions and ideas, though, and that's better than what we have now.

Value Of Pi

Quote from: creepygreenlight on June 14, 2016, 10:25:22 PM
Yes, simple as that.  It's an unfortunate reality that ultimately we have to choose the "lesser of evil" when it comes to our next President.  For me, I just can't morally vote for Hillary knowing what an evil, scandalous person she is and the fact that she's under an FBI probe.  Now it's coming out that she used our government to raise millions for her own "foundation" while IN OFFICE, electing someone as corrupt as her would be devastating.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/22/1489369/-Hillary-s-aides-cheer-F-15-Christmas-present-for-Saudis-after-10-million-to-Clinton-Foundation

And for those afraid of Trump - Relax, courts will block half the shit he wants to do.  At least he has a spine and has new solutions and ideas, though, and that's better than what we have now.

To paraphrase the famous quotation, "How many divisions has the Pope?", how many divisions has the courts?

albrecht

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 14, 2016, 10:52:29 PM
To paraphrase the famous quotation, "How many divisions has the Pope?", how many divisions has the courts?
Yes, hopefully our next President will stop the autocracy of the Court and bring back some semblance of actual division of powers. And some balance between the Federal areas, but more importantly, the balances of State and local against Federal.


Quote from: albrecht on June 14, 2016, 11:34:27 PM
Yes, hopefully our next President will stop the autocracy of the Court and bring back some semblance of actual division of powers. And some balance between the Federal areas, but more importantly, the balances of State and local against Federal.

The Court has usurped more power than the rest of them.  A handful of judges were never empowered to decide our social issues, they've managed to seize that for themselves.

Value Of Pi

Quote from: albrecht on June 14, 2016, 11:34:27 PM
Yes, hopefully our next President will stop the autocracy of the Court and bring back some semblance of actual division of powers. And some balance between the Federal areas, but more importantly, the balances of State and local against Federal.

Not what I meant, actually. If we follow the Constitution, SCOTUS has the last word and the executive branch must enforce its rulings. SCOTUS has the authority but not the actual power to enforce its rulings. That power (meaning hard power) is in the hands of the executive branch as well as its state and local equivalents. IOW,  if the guys with the firepower decide not to obey the legal authority of the courts, it's no contest. The courts lose.

So if you want to change the kind of rulings coming from the courts legally, you put in different judges. If you don't care about doing it the legal way, you attack the power and legitimacy of the judicial branch and refuse to enforce its rulings. In the second case, the judicial branch loses the battle very quickly because it has no divisions (as per the quotation). Just a bunch of namby-pamby gavels.

Mind you, this wouldn't even be worth talking about if Trump wasn't so close to being CIC. He's perfectly capable of refusing to obey a SCOTUS decision, even if the people who made it happen to be his own appointees. That's because he's, well, a wacko.

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 15, 2016, 12:21:06 AM
Not what I meant, actually. If we follow the Constitution, SCOTUS has the last word...

They were never meant to. 

First off, the Federal government as a whole was meant to be small and limited.  The states created the central government and granted it very limited powers, which were listed.  All other legislative and governing power was retained by the states.  That included a limit to issues the Supreme Court was to be involved in.  The Supreme Court was named third, after the Congress and the President, it was expected to have the least power among the three.

And Congress was to have the Final Say. 

The Congress has the ability to withhold funds.  They have the ability to remove justices.  More than that, they create the lower Federal Courts (and implicitly define their jurisdiction) (Article I, Section 1 and Article III Section 1).  They have the power to limit what the Supreme Court may rule on ''...In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'' (Article III, Section 2).  Appellate jurisdiction is hearing appeals and making rulings on lower federal court cases - federal courts the Congress creates and whose jurisdiction they define.

We were never meant to be ruled by a handful of unelected justices, serving lifetime appointments, making decisions in private.  That's silly on the face of it.

Value Of Pi

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 15, 2016, 12:49:51 AM
They were never meant to. 

First off, the Federal government as a whole was meant to be small and limited.  The states created the central government and granted it very limited powers, which were listed.  All other legislative and governing power was retained by the states.  That included a limit to issues the Supreme Court was to be involved in.  The Supreme Court was named third, after the Congress and the President, it was expected to have the least power among the three.

And Congress was to have the Final Say. 

The Congress has the ability to withhold funds.  They have the ability to remove justices.  More than that, they create the lower Federal Courts (and implicitly define their jurisdiction) (Article I, Section 1 and Article III Section 1).  They have the power to limit what the Supreme Court may rule on ''...In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.'' (Article III, Section 2).  Appellate jurisdiction is hearing appeals and making rulings on lower federal court cases - federal courts the Congress creates and whose jurisdiction they define.

We were never meant to be ruled by a handful of unelected justices, serving lifetime appointments, making decisions in private.  That's silly on the face of it.

According to you, the Congress has a whole lot of power that they not only are not using but don't even appear to recognize. They can simply get rid of all those pesky justices they don't like and tell the SCOTUS what cases they can and can't rule on, thereby having the power to make the laws and also effectively decide on how they're interpreted. Someone should tell them about all this.

The executive branch also sounds fairly powerless, since it can't do anything without money and Congress controls that. Except, as Ted Cruz and others have shown in recent years, shutting down the government or cutting off funding is ineffective and a lousy way to govern.

As for the SCOTUS, voters elect the presidents who nominate these justices and the senators who confirm them. So we and those two branches (executive and legislative) have some say about what kind of justices end up on the court. If the judiciary has taken on too much power, we already have the ability to change that.

All the same, I suggest telling your representatives about any power they have but are not, for some reason, using. They're always looking for that kind of help.


CornyCrow

Quote from: Who on June 14, 2016, 08:18:08 AM
The ability to criticize one's leaders is essential in any free and open society.

To keep it legitimate, however, criticism needs to based upon facts, things we can verify.  Where do they stand on issues that are important to us.  Bigotry has no place in American politics.  There were people who were against Kennedy because he was Catholic, Romney because he was Mormon, Obama because he's black.  Colin Powell was the most admired man in America in 2000.  The GOP nomination and the Presidency were probably his for the taking.  According to media reports, he declined because his wife Alma was concerned there might be attempts on his life by white supremacists.  If that's true, then the bigots won and America was denied a potentially great president.
Before Bush and Cheney's little trick, Powell probably would have been our first black President, and a great win for Republicans.   

CornyCrow

Quote from: From Somewhere Out There on June 14, 2016, 09:58:06 AM
This is utter Bullshit. Powell didn't run because his wife had been fighting depression for at least ten years at the time and did not want this to become a campaign issue.

You are obviously a member of the left goon squad to post something like this.

Do you have a fucking conscience?
No, Who is speaking the truth.  There was that issue that made his wife SO concerned.  I remember that.  The thing that later stopped him dead in his tracks is when Bush and Cheney lied to him about Iraq and the 'weapons of mass destruction' that turned out not to have been there.  Powell made the mistake of trusting the snake, Cheney, and his minions.  Powell is such a good man and a horrible thing was done to him.  He did not expect to get stabbed in the back like that. 

CornyCrow

Quote from: JesusJuice on June 14, 2016, 09:58:54 AM

Only white people can be racist. Racism is abuse of institutionalised power against another race. Denial of employment for example. Black people don't have any power to abuse so they can't be racist. They can be prejudice against white people but not racist. Racism and prejudice are two different things.
You are SO very wrong.  Just look at the word.  Race concerns genetics.  It's a predisposition about a people because of their genetic makeup.  I'm shocked to hear something so silly on this forum which is composed of such intelligent people.  You've been listening to the wrong people.

CornyCrow

Quote from: Redwolf on June 14, 2016, 08:56:16 PM
Art,

Um, you do know there is a Libertarian candidate right?

His name is Gary Johnson. You don't have to vote for Clinton or Trump!

You keep saying for years and years you are a Libertarian...then actually vote that way!!

Vote for Gary Johnson...otherwise you are just another wanna be Libertarian who is really a Republican.

You are too smart to vote for Trump or Clinton...They are both terrible and yet you say you will vote for Trump...what a joke of a statement that is. You don't have to endorse one or the other...there are other options and even if there wasn't, why come out for either one of them? Why not just say they both are terrible...at least that would be honest and true.

Worst candidate choices...EVER!!!!
I think a lot of people say they are libertarian because they like what they say on the media.  If they actually studied the platform of the movement as defined by its founder, Ayn Rand, they might think otherwise.  Libertarian is capitalism on steroids.  No government regulation at all of business.   If you don't like business and the wealthy controlling government today, those things are the foundations of Libertarianism.  There are great things about capitalism, but Libertarians pick out the worst parts and embrace them.  Read Ayn Rand - not the novels, but her philosophy. 

CornyCrow

Quote from: creepygreenlight on June 14, 2016, 10:25:22 PM
Yes, simple as that.  It's an unfortunate reality that ultimately we have to choose the "lesser of evil" when it comes to our next President.  For me, I just can't morally vote for Hillary knowing what an evil, scandalous person she is and the fact that she's under an FBI probe.  Now it's coming out that she used our government to raise millions for her own "foundation" while IN OFFICE, electing someone as corrupt as her would be devastating.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/22/1489369/-Hillary-s-aides-cheer-F-15-Christmas-present-for-Saudis-after-10-million-to-Clinton-Foundation
And for those afraid of Trump - Relax, courts will block half the shit he wants to do.  At least he has a spine and has new solutions and ideas, though, and that's better than what we have now.
If he has the ability to pick the latest Supreme there may not be a check on him.   

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 15, 2016, 01:32:58 AM
According to you, the Congress has a whole lot of power that they not only are not using but don't even appear to recognize. They can simply get rid of all those pesky justices they don't like and tell the SCOTUS what cases they can and can't rule on, thereby having the power to make the laws and also effectively decide on how they're interpreted. Someone should tell them about all this.

The executive branch also sounds fairly powerless, since it can't do anything without money and Congress controls that. Except, as Ted Cruz and others have shown in recent years, shutting down the government or cutting off funding is ineffective and a lousy way to govern.

As for the SCOTUS, voters elect the presidents who nominate these justices and the senators who confirm them. So we and those two branches (executive and legislative) have some say about what kind of justices end up on the court. If the judiciary has taken on too much power, we already have the ability to change that.

All the same, I suggest telling your representatives about any power they have but are not, for some reason, using. They're always looking for that kind of help.

Well, not according to me, according to the Constitution of the United States.  I think this is important, so lets go through it

>> ''They can simply get rid of all those pesky justices they don't like'' >>  Well, yes, justices are removed the same way presidents are removed - by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate.  I consider the ongoing destruction of our form of government cause for removal.  It is a political act, there would have to be a movement in favor in order for it to actually happen, so 'simply get rid of' may be an oversimplification.  'Simple'?, no - it's not meant to be simple.

>> ''The executive branch also sounds fairly powerless, since it can't do anything without money and Congress controls that'' >>  Again not exactly, but yes to a certain extent.  The Congress must pass spending bills and the president signs them.  Nothing is to be funded without those spending bills being passed. 

And again, this is a political act.  You mentioned 'shutting down the government' as if it is the worst thing possible somehow.  It isn't - political pressure becomes intense and forces the Congress to get together and reach some compromise.  Whoever has the strongest position or the public backs has the upper hand.  As messy as that is, it IS what the Framers intended, or at least expected.  Separation of powers is essential, and sometimes differences between different office holders are going to be large.  The Congress is not a rubber stamp for whatever the president proposes, and vice versa. 

>> ''The executive branch also sounds fairly powerless'' >>  It is far from 'powerless', see above

>> ''and tell the SCOTUS what cases they can and can't rule on, thereby having the power to make the laws and also effectively decide on how they're interpreted'' >>  The references and quotes are from the Constitution.  I didn't make them up.  Go read it for yourself.  Article I Section 1 & Article III Section 1 regarding the creation of lesser federal courts.  Article III Section 2 regarding exceptions the Congress can make. 

It would be very difficult politically, and it was meant to be, for the Congress to make these exceptions.  At most what could actually get passed would be limited to one or two or a handful of large issues of the day where an intransigent Court is standing in the way of the will of the people.  It would likely not get to the point where the Congress hijacks the power of the Court.  If it did, House members can be removed every two years, and they are very aware of it.

Again, these are political acts, there would have to be public support for them to do anything so drastic.  It is long overdue.


But take a step back and think about it.  Do you really believe the Framers set this country up to ultimately give a handful of unelected justices, serving lifetime appointments, ultimate power? 

After so carefully drafting a document to limit overall federal power?  After allocating some power to the people (through direct elections of representatives every 2 years - the House), to the states (the state legislatures originally appointed Senators to 6 year terms, and they represented the state's interests in DC), to an executive (elected not directly, but through an electoral college created to ensure more fair representation), and to a Supreme Court (whose members were to be furthest from the daily political back and forth, by being appointed rather than elected & given lifetime terms, so as to be somewhat immune from political pressures)? 

They set this intricate balance up, only to really give ultimate power to a handful of people who cannot be removed?  Does that sound right to you?  Again, go read those clauses for yourself and let me know.

Quote from: Segundus on June 15, 2016, 04:00:53 AM
I think a lot of people say they are libertarian because they like what they say on the media.  If they actually studied the platform of the movement as defined by its founder, Ayn Rand, they might think otherwise.  Libertarian is capitalism on steroids.  No government regulation at all of business.   If you don't like business and the wealthy controlling government today, those things are the foundations of Libertarianism.  There are great things about capitalism, but Libertarians pick out the worst parts and embrace them.  Read Ayn Rand - not the novels, but her philosophy.

It's fashionable to claim to be Libertarian, a way to set oneself apart from the two unacceptable parties and somehow above the fray.  Beyond that, it seems to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

I think we can agree what is has never meant is anything Obama stands for.

Quote from: Segundus on June 15, 2016, 02:56:26 AM
Before Bush and Cheney's little trick, Powell probably would have been our first black President, and a great win for Republicans.

I think he ultimately didn't want it.  What sane person would?


73s

Quote from: jaz on June 14, 2016, 06:15:01 PM
RED and I will be interviewing Art on the final episode of The Bell Philes on Thursday 9pm ET/6pm PT.

Listen and chat LIVE @ http://thebellphiles.com/live-show/

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

Very cool.

So, MV, does this mean Art won't be joining your upcoming show(s) or is this still on the table as well?

Quote from: 73s on June 15, 2016, 07:48:10 AM
Very cool.

So, MV, does this mean Art won't be joining your upcoming show(s) or is this still on the table as well?

Art never said he would be on MVs show. Just so there is no confusion.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod