• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Art Bell

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

CornyCrow

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 15, 2016, 07:44:33 AM
I think he ultimately didn't want it.  What sane person would?
You have a good point.  What decent person who is not power and money mad would actually run for office these days?  My husband is British and it's a LOT easier to dump a Prime Minister there.  I think our politicians do a lot more dirty deals because they get to keep their jobs usually. 


Quote from: Segundus on June 15, 2016, 07:56:15 AM
You have a good point.  What decent person who is not power and money mad would actually run for office these days?  My husband is British and it's a LOT easier to dump a Prime Minister there.  I think our politicians do a lot more dirty deals because they get to keep their jobs usually.

The flood of personal attacks alone... I give Obama a lot of credit for the way he protects his family and handles that.

73s

Quote from: nooryisawesome on June 15, 2016, 07:54:28 AM
Art never said he would be on MVs show. Just so there is no confusion.

Got it. Just wanted to know if Art ever got back to him about a possible show, or a possibility of a possible show.

CornyCrow

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 15, 2016, 08:16:21 AM
The flood of personal attacks alone... I give Obama a lot of credit for the way he protects his family and handles that.
Yes, and he maintains his personal dignity, gives good speeches, and appears to be very approachable. 

bobo17

folks

we have settled into our new life toghether
i would like to thank all the  inbox messages congratulating me
we are very happy.
I have to put off calling art and the MEETING for a few weeks while we
get use to each other

bobo

MV/Liberace!

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?

all i did was tell art he should come on.  i haven't heard back from him about it, and i might not, so as of now it's not set to happen.  i think it would be fun to have art on the trainwreck show because he'd be co-hosting rather than answering questions about himself.

Robert

Quote from: FightTheFuture on June 14, 2016, 09:18:34 AMArt is a legend and nobody can question what he has done for talk radio. But do we really care what he thinks about anything these days? I love the guy and wish him well and his family. But I don't really care what he thinks about anything. ::)
I do, because I care what most people think about anything, but also because the more I know of someone's thinking, the more additional details are interesting.  Instead of diminishing returns, they're increasing, because it invites thinking about how the various thoughts connect in 1 mind.
QuoteI can tell you what my uncle Guido thinks about things. I promise he's a lot smarter than Art.
Even if he weren't, you'd probably be more interested in what Uncle Guido thinks, because of the above effect.  Because you already know a lot of things Uncle Guido thinks, that context makes learning even more of those things more interesting.

Quote from: bobo17 on June 15, 2016, 11:32:26 AM
folks

we have settled into our new life toghether
i would like to thank all the  inbox messages congratulating me
we are very happy.
I have to put off calling art and the MEETING for a few weeks while we
get use to each other

bobo


Robert

Quote from: Who on June 14, 2016, 10:42:22 AMSelf-talk used to be seen as a sign of mental instability or even schizophrenia.  It's now regarded by most mental health professionals as a healthy thing.
I've always done it a lot.  Sometimes I shout to myself as a mnemonic, thought I invented that practice, then heard a friend do it, "Oven on at 5 o'clock!"  The loudness makes it more memorable.  On other occasions, to focus my mind in ways other than memory, only not so loud; like if I'm eliminating things on a list.

Sometimes I do it deliberately for the possibility of being overheard, so as to be less suspicious.  For instance, when looking for people at a house I'm not familiar with, I'll say fairly loudly as I walk around the side or back, "Maybe there's an entrance here."

Sometimes I'll do it to seem less scatterbrained.  I think it was David Brenner who said we do things like snap our fingers or say "oops" or the like when we have sudden reason to walk back the way we came, so we don't look like the bear in the shooting gallery.

Sometimes it's just self-admiration, as in liking the sound of a turn of phrase.  So proud of myself for thinking of it.  Or just love to hear my great delivery.

Robert

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

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!!
For many years I voted as a Libertarian.  Now I vote as a libertarian.

AZZERAE

Quote from: FightTheFuture on June 14, 2016, 09:18:34 AM
Art is a legend... I love the guy and wish him well... But I don't really care what he thinks about anything.

Yeah.

WOTR

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.
Have you considered making Art the new official host of the Bell Philes? This way people could complain louder when the show goes off the air and "Art quits".  ;D

I hope that you manage to keep it about the "golden age" of coast and enjoy the show.

WOTR

Quote from: FightTheFuture on June 14, 2016, 09:18:34 AM
Art is a legend and nobody can question what he has done for talk radio. But do we really care what he thinks about anything these days? I love the guy and wish him well and his family. But I don't really care what he thinks about anything. ::)
I don't get this.  I can say that I don't give his opinion any more weight than I do the opinions of others- but why state that what he has to say cannot matter... That what he thinks cannot be thought out and contribute to your understanding either of politics and events, or at least how others perceive them?

While there are a few people on the politics board here whose opinions I pretty much discount, most people have something interesting to say and to contribute regardless if I agree with them or not.

It's telling that you type that you do not care what Art thinks while putting your opinions out there at the same time.  Give the man's opinion the same weight and consideration that you would anybody else's (and that you expect them to give yours) I don't remember him saying that you should believe as he does... He just puts his thoughts out there the same as anybody else- how you interpret them and what you do with them is completely up to you.

Value Of Pi

Quote from: Paper*Boy on June 15, 2016, 07:08:09 AM
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 posszible 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.

The bolded sections are good examples of why I find your viewpoint on the Constitution and our system of government, no matter how high-minded and inspired by patriotism, way too radical for me. I pointed out initially that the courts have "no divisions" and, by implication, are vulnerable to attacks on their authority. I then pointed out that elections and appointments are the traditional means by which the voters and other branches of government can address any errors they believe the courts have made.

But, for those like you, things are so far out of control in terms of abuses by the courts that more drastic measures are called for. I just don't agree. If you want the "will of the people" to be better reflected by the courts, I suggest making it happen the old-fashioned way. By voting.

Also keep in mind that the founders were equally respectful and leery of the "will of the people." On a good day, "the people" may be a bunch of wise old sages. On a bad day, they are an unruly mob who would happily torch the Constitution on the way to eliminating their enemies of the moment. It might be prudent to fear the mob as much as you seem to fear the courts, or the government in general.


Value Of Pi

Quote from: Robert on June 15, 2016, 03:39:31 PM
For many years I voted as a Libertarian.  Now I vote as a libertarian.

I'm considering voting as a Librarian, or librarian. This represents my values, and considering all the late fees I have paid in my lifetime, I feel like I already am invested in the cause. Maybe Arnie -- Conan the Librarian, as he was known -- should be the spokesman.

jazmunda

Quote from: WOTR on June 15, 2016, 04:22:03 PM
I hope that you manage to keep it about the "golden age" of coast and enjoy the show.

That's the plan. After all that is what our show was about.

The Bell Philes series finale featuring Very Special Guest Art Bell airs Thursday at 9pm ET/6pm PT ....

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

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

ge30542

Quote from: bobo17 on June 15, 2016, 11:32:26 AM
folks

we have settled into our new life toghether
i would like to thank all the  inbox messages congratulating me
we are very happy.
I have to put off calling art and the MEETING for a few weeks while we
get use to each other

bobo
#IgnoreBobo17

albrecht

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 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.
The Court created much of their jurisdiction and power and the People, States, Congress, and Executive have, over the decades, have come to think of some Justices as godlike when, they are just another branch. Marybury itself was a bad decision. A Court can rule on itself and on its own jurisdiction? Sounds logical.

bateman

Quote from: jaz on June 15, 2016, 05:21:27 PM
That's the plan. After all that is what our show was about.

The Bell Philes series finale featuring Very Special Guest Art Bell airs Thursday at 9pm ET/6pm PT ....

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

Skype: LiveShow 99
Phone: 317-708-4500

https://youtu.be/XhTuYKR-ejo

:P

Value Of Pi

Quote from: albrecht on June 15, 2016, 05:27:42 PM
The Court created much of their jurisdiction and power and the People, States, Congress, and Executive have, over the decades, have come to think of some Justices as godlike when, they are just another branch. Marybury itself was a bad decision. A Court can rule on itself and on its own jurisdiction? Sounds logical.

Logical or not, the rest of us are free to criticize, change by appointment the outlook of the court and, if necessary, amend the Constitution to correct any overreach of power. If Supreme Court justices are gods, their powers as gods are certainly limited.

ItsOver

Quote from: bobo17 on June 15, 2016, 11:32:26 AM
folks

we have settled into our new life toghether
i would like to thank all the  inbox messages congratulating me
we are very happy.
I have to put off calling art and the MEETING for a few weeks while we
get use to each other

bobo
Eh, where was the honeymoon, or are you still working on scheduling that, too?

albrecht

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 15, 2016, 06:46:44 PM
Logical or not, the rest of us are free to criticize, change by appointment the outlook of the court and, if necessary, amend the Constitution to correct any overreach of power. If Supreme Court justices are gods, their powers as gods are certainly limited.
But the court(s) or Court could simply overrule it. Actually they recently have said the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in their building as a nice bit of irony*. And getting a Article V Convention going would be a big undertaking (I know some have been trying) and would likely do more harm than good considering.
*https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/protesters-have-no-free-speech-rights-on-supreme-courts-front-porch/2015/08/28/f79ae262-4d9e-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html

Value Of Pi

Quote from: albrecht on June 15, 2016, 07:23:06 PM
But the court(s) or Court could simply overrule it. Actually they recently have said the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in their building as a nice bit of irony*. And getting a Article V Convention going would be a big undertaking (I know some have been trying) and would likely do more harm than good considering.
*https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/protesters-have-no-free-speech-rights-on-supreme-courts-front-porch/2015/08/28/f79ae262-4d9e-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html

It's only ironic on a very superficial level. The right to free speech never extended to speech that would disrupt a court proceeding. It also doesn't extend to private property or business. Or a number of other circumstances. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution. Every one of them is limited, often by another right.

albrecht

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 15, 2016, 07:51:02 PM
It's only ironic on a very superficial level. The right to free speech never extended to speech that would disrupt a court proceeding. It also doesn't extend to private property or business. Or a number of other circumstances. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution. Every one of them is limited, often by another right.
Contrary to your, and Obama's idea, of a limited Constitution the document doesn't give us our rights but, somewhat controversially at the time, expressing our natural rights. It wasn't, at least as our original Framers thought, "positive law." They aren't granted to us by the government, a Court, or a document. Some, like Jefferson were against. Patrick Henry especially was suspicious of it because he foresaw your and Obama's view. The Bill of Rights portion was likewise controversial but unlike you and Obama's interpretation was not intended to be some "granting" of rights, which assumes the government or sovereign can take them away, but an expession of rights that all human have.

Value Of Pi

Quote from: albrecht on June 15, 2016, 09:35:48 PM
Contrary to your, and Obama's idea, of a limited Constitution the document doesn't give us our rights but, somewhat controversially at the time, expressing our natural rights. It wasn't, at least as our original Framers thought, "positive law." They aren't granted to us by the government, a Court, or a document. Some, like Jefferson were against. Patrick Henry especially was suspicious of it because he foresaw your and Obama's view. The Bill of Rights portion was likewise controversial but unlike you and Obama's interpretation was not intended to be some "granting" of rights, which assumes the government or sovereign can take them away, but an expession of rights that all human have.

What is true is that the founders didn't simply invent out of thin air a list of rights. They looked at the Bible, Judeo-Christian ethics, Natural Rights, the current Enlightenment thinking and a whole lot of history books for inspiration. They also looked for divine guidance.

So, the Bill of Rights in particular derives its legitimacy from a number of sources. It's not the law simply because it's the law. At the same time, nobody to my knowledge claimed at the time that our rights should be unlimited. I would not use the ultimate source(s) of our freedoms to somehow argue that those rights are unlimited or that the government has no right to govern accordingly.

BTW, I don't know or care whether or not Obama and I would agree about this. Trying to link me to him does not make your case any stronger.

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 15, 2016, 07:51:02 PM
It's only ironic on a very superficial level. The right to free speech never extended to speech that would disrupt a court proceeding. It also doesn't extend to private property or business. Or a number of other circumstances. There are no absolute rights in the Constitution. Every one of them is limited, often by another right.

That's a faulty interpretation of the Constitution.  Our rights are only limited if we infringe on the rights of others.

starrmtn001

Quote from: 21st Century Man on June 15, 2016, 10:12:50 PM
That's a faulty interpretation of the Constitution.  Our rights are only limited if we infringe on the rights of others.
I love how you handle this, man.  You're my hero.


albrecht

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 15, 2016, 10:04:56 PM
What is true is that the founders didn't simply invent out of thin air a list of rights. They looked at the Bible, Judeo-Christian ethics, Natural Rights, the current Enlightenment thinking and a whole lot of history books for inspiration. They also looked for divine guidance.

So, the Bill of Rights in particular derives its legitimacy from a number of sources. It's not the law simply because it's the law. At the same time, nobody to my knowledge claimed at the time that our rights should be unlimited. I would not use the ultimate source(s) of our freedoms to somehow argue that those rights are unlimited or that the government has no right to govern accordingly.

BTW, I don't know or care whether or not Obama and I would agree about this. Trying to link me to him does not make your case any stronger.
Yeah. I agree with most of your points. And add even if we have those rights there are also some things called politeness, decorum, and common-sense. Simply because you have the right doesn't mean you must exercise it all the time or in some fashion that offends or scares someone. Though likewise giving up rights, assuming through voting or active contract you can do so, shouldn't be done. I also think there was far more actually intended and implied than taught or commonly held in terms of separation and balance of powers. It was not just between Federal branches but also between States and Feds, Counties vs States, and people versus all. Additionally, I would add, that the Founders never assumed these rights for everyone here (controversial but I will stand by it considering the "refugees" and illegals invading and them taking advantage of our hospitality to commit mayhem, terrorism, and crime- even if it is a small percentage of them.) But, assuming we get all of these secretive "trade" agreements and hand-over everything to international bodies and unelected international tribunals the point is likely moot soon.
ps:  ;) on the Obama association stuff. I just like to do that sometimes.

Quote from: starrmtn001 on June 15, 2016, 10:16:55 PM
I love how you handle this, man.  You're my hero.

Awwww shucks, ma'am <blushing>.  Thanks, starr.   ;D ;)

K_Dubb

Quote from: Value Of Pi on June 15, 2016, 10:04:56 PM
So, the Bill of Rights in particular derives its legitimacy from a number of sources. It's not the law simply because it's the law. At the same time, nobody to my knowledge claimed at the time that our rights should be unlimited. I would not use the ultimate source(s) of our freedoms to somehow argue that those rights are unlimited or that the government has no right to govern accordingly.

While you're doubtless correct, a mention of something like Freedom of Speech fifty years ago would have been met with broad assent.  You might get some pinhead in the back row mumble something about fire in a theater, but most people understood the simplified statements of rights to be the important thing.

Now, you can't mention it at all without somebody like you trying to be subtle and nuanced.  I don't think it's any great conspiracy:  as most of us go to college, where we learn about the subtleties, we're more likely to remember that than the basics we learned in elementary school.  But if we don't watch it, we'll subtle our way out of the important stuff.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod