"the independents are disgusted with both parties. In large part, it's because neither one seems to be on their side."

That's irrelevant. They're the only ones who can get elected, so we must support them, even if all they do while in office is preserve their incumbency, give lipservice to a few wedge issues and throw us a SCOTUS justice once or twice a decade.

"The next governing majority will be guided by independents, and include liberals, conservatives and people whose great-grandparents left the Republican Party a century ago. It will also include a whole lot of Budweiser drinkers, wondering how the world changed so quickly, without them."

That would be interesting and refreshing to see.

but wait a moment

independents or moderates.

arent they the ones who merely go back and forth depending on one or two issues.

or are they talking about something akin to the 'reagan democrats'?

sorry american politics is about $

Dems and Repubs are the only parties cause they have the $

There will be no alternative and in most ways they are the same party.

The only real change will be after the coming revolution.

"That's irrelevant. They're the only ones who can get elected"

The only reason this is true is public perception. It would be incredibly easy to vote out GOP and DNC crooks. We just won't do it and by "we" I am everyone else because I started voting third party whenever possible already. ;)

We're actually doubly stupid as voters. Not only will we only vote for two parties we know to be dishonest and self interested, but we won't vote for dorks. We only vote for guys who look reasonably good, dress well, know the right lie to tell in every situation, etc. But these guys have cultivated these social skills and image to conceal the fact that they are self interested bastards. The dork with bad hair in a bad suit who is socially awkward isn't a materialist in it for the money or fame - he obviously doesn't care about that stuff. He's the guy who is in it because he thinks he can help. Dorks are almost always nice people. We should start voting for them.

In recent Gallup polls, 54 percent of Americans perceived Barack Obama's policies to be "mostly liberal"

only goes to show americans are morons.

Barack is slightly right of center as are most of his policies.

Liberal?
Out of Iraq TODAY

Out of Afghanistan TOMMORROW

Legalize pot

Gay marriages

Tax increases for the wealthy

etc etc.

The liberal side of the argument is not even debated.

"It takes quite a bit for Americans to say that the social contract is broken, or look upon concentrated wealth as anything except a virtue"
We're not there yet. It's painfully clear from the right-wingers on this site.

Right now, a time when only 20 percent of Americans call themselves Republicans and Democrats are shrinking as well
I see what you're saying Timothy, but those numbers are still strong enough when less than half the voters vote.

54 percent of Americans perceived Barack Obama's policies to be "mostly liberal" and an identical margin approved of his presidency. This in a country where only 20 percent are self-described liberals.
Yep. All Obama has to do is crest the wave. That's why the opposition has bet the farm opposition and obstructionism.

"There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensitive to every duty, regardless of principle, bent only on amassing a fortune."
How quaint. Wall Street decided they'd rather sniff coke off our 401(K)'s asshole starting in the 1980s. They're still high. WAL*MART has proven to be the gateway drug for profiteering at all costs, and Americans still embrace it.

To sum up I don't think we're there yet. It would be nice if the loss of Budweiser registered in the national psyche, but it didn't.

Barack is slightly right of center as are most of his policies.

#6 | Posted by truthhurts

Only if you consider "center" to be the center of the left-wing lunatic fringe.

Barack is slightly right of center as are most of his policies.

#6 | Posted by truthhurts

Only if you consider "center" to be the center of the left-wing lunatic fringe.

Proof that the Republicans have succeeded in pushing the dialogue far to the right in the past 30 years, as was their plan.

Interesting blog--- being an independent I've chided both the partisan repubs and dems to hold their own candidates accountable--- if that starts to happen you'll find more of them becoming independent and not pulling levers just because of a party. I've noticed on some of the blogs people yelling past each other but on some crucial philosophical issues (other then social) actually agreeing (not directly) on issues.

only goes to show americans are morons.

Barack is slightly right of center as are most of his policies.

#6 | Posted by truthhurts

Are you nuckin fruts? He is left of Castro.

Proof that the Republicans have succeeded in pushing the dialogue far to the right in the past 30 years, as was their plan.

#9 | Posted by snoofy

Just returning the center to normal after the radical left swing of the 60s and 70s.

He is left of Castro.
#11 | Posted by Sniper

Really? On what issue or issues, specifically?

Proof that the Republicans have succeeded in pushing the dialogue far to the right in the past 30 years, as was their plan.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-11-12 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag

Snoofy is once again confirmed as a 'GD' fool.

Yep, the SNOOF can say some wild things once in awhile.

At least someone has come out and said that the social contract is broken. I keep wondering when Corporate America is going to figure out that reducing all their prospective customers to penury is not the best possible strategy for the future.

See, this just proves it more.

"He is left of Castro," how can you take yourself seriously? When Obama is still Leader in 10 or 20 or 40 years, you might have a point. Now you just sound ignorant and uninformed. (And paranoid and delusional, but those are only symptoms of the ignorance and/or stupidity.)

Unless... hey do you guys actually think that you're not extremely right-wing? That would be hilarious!

I keep wondering when Corporate America is going to figure out that reducing all their prospective customers to penury is not the best possible strategy for the future.

They won't figure that out, that's why we need government.

Obama tends toward big government solutions for most economic problems, so I can't see how someone can say he's "right of center." But saying he's "left of Castro" is an even bigger crock of bull shit. Where's the single payer HC? High taxes on the rich? Nationalization of industries?

The only real change will be after the coming revolution.

...if history is any guide.

too many don't get history thus revolutions, usually bloody, continue.

American and World history has little stock or reserve in such education within the ranks these current American noise makers (i'm American so i can only speak as an American). too bad, when there is plenty of reason for meaningful, hopeful, revolution.

peace

#5... Americans call that (candidate) the smell of success.

#6... i call that Freedom and Liberty (none of which are granted by ANY government by bare everyone's birth right), not Liberalism.

legitimate governments should be protecting same.
we, Americans, need a major attitude adjustment --that's what i have come to call it: attitude adjustment.

Proof that the Republicans have succeeded in pushing the dialogue far to the right in the past 30 years, as was their plan.

who exactly are "they", what precisely is that plan, who is its author, when was first drawn up, what is its origin(s), how long term, and what is the goal?

excuse me, i do see "Republicans....in the past 30 years" --but my questions still need answering, especially the last one.

We need to review The Great Depression and FDR. We need to remember words like "economic royalists" and become immune to the calls of "socialism".

MATSOP:
I've noticed on some of the blogs people yelling past each other but on some crucial philosophical issues (other then social) actually agreeing (not directly) on issues.

we need to be talking issues, so enlighten us, WHAT issue(s)?!

why is so easy for folks to type "issues" and so damn difficult to name or list them? COME ON! STAND UP!

We need to review The Great Depression and FDR. We need to remember words like "economic royalists" and become immune to the calls of "socialism".

#25 | Posted by danni

Then ammend the fucking constitution first.

The New Deal was unconstitutional as was the Great Society and just about every other safety net program. Now, I happen to like at least some of the safety net, but that doesn't change the fact that its passing was an ass-rape of the constitutuion.

The Constitution barely exists anymore and the political left is mostly responsible for its dismantling.

Of course, assholes like Danforth will try to argue that a partial sentence with the words "general welfare" means that the rest of Section 8 was a joke as was the entire 9th and 10th ammendments. 'They didn't mean any of that shit' is the Danforth mantra.

btw... this labeling in utter BS!

e.g., I'm am Independent!

AND so you stand for what issues AND what are your positions on MY ISSUES?

do we have any stipulation at all as what the important issues are going forward in the world?

the only "position" i have yet to see from most people is one which simply maintains the status quo of NOT talking to anyone else and change only where it is a perceived reward/benefit to the status quo... that smell of success most want.

The only real change will be after the coming revolution.
......#4 | Posted by truthhurts

......right.......

Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity are going to come down from Malibu and Beverly Hills, grab some rifles, and lead the attack on Edwards Air Force base.........

Your "leaders" are pulling your hose....they have the most to lose in an upheaval, and are only interested in getting you agitated enough to watch again tomorrow, boost their ratings, so they can make more money.

You are such gullible sheep.

The New Deal was unconstitutional as was the Great Society and just about every other safety net program. Now, I happen to like at least some of the safety net, but that doesn't change the fact that its passing was an ass-rape of the constitutuion.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-12 03:39 PM | Reply |

What is this the 1930's? Because thats when the programs that were unconstitutional were challenged in the Supreme Court and replaced or gotten rid of all together.

Its a closed issue, but by all means if you think you got a leg to stand in you can make a case to the Supreme Court too!

The new deal scared the japs so bad, they bombed us,
so we could beat the shit out of them and teach capitalism to them so they could get our corporations and the vcr... oh and front wheel drive tech.....

Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity are going to come down from Malibu and Beverly Hills, grab some rifles, and lead the attack on Edwards Air Force base.........

Your "leaders" are pulling your hose....they have the most to lose in an upheaval, and are only interested in getting you agitated enough to watch again tomorrow, boost their ratings, so they can make more money.

You are such gullible sheep.

#29 | Posted by skizziks at

my leaders beck hannity? WOW you got me wrong there fella

Future:

Foreign military adventures
Ever limiting natural resources
Expanding Economic diversity between rich and poor
Expanding unemployment

Will lead to economic collapse

which will lead to massive social deterioration of societies

which will lead to revolution.

It has happened repeatedly throughout history.

American Revolution, French Revolution, Spanish Civil war, World war 2

Will happen here in America.

And the ass-rape of the constitutuion did put alot of small folks to work......

Jeff when you find corporate personhood in the Constitution or when you can even make a reasonable argument that the founders were not vehemently opposed to the concept then, and only then, will I ever concern myself with the Constitutionality of programs that passed muster with the SC long agon.
If corporate personhood were eliminated it would drastically change the whole balance of power between rich/poor, corporations and citizens. We wouldn't even be dealing with the same sets of problems. It is probably the single most diabolical thing ever done to take power from the citizens and give it to the wealthy interests.

the only questions are what type of revolution will it be a conservative revolution or a liberal revolution?

and who will be the winners? the revolutionists or the counterrevolutionists.

Clearly we are in need of a liberal revolution, power to the people.

But there are powerful forces on the side of counterrevolution. There is no organization amoung the effected populace, we are sated on TV, fast food and the like. We are able to provide the bare minimum to so many to allow them to be satisfied with the status quo. The counterrevolutionists have established incredible forces to divide the populace, they have an incredibly strong enforcement power-military and police.

But what will happen when the civil authorities are no longer capable of providing the bare necessities to its citizens?

What will happen when people cannot afford food and shelter or heat their homes or fuel their cars? social collapse like was seen in NO after Katrina in many large cities.

BTW I think it is a real commentary on Americans that we have allowed the oligarchy to pretend corporations are persons all these years. I read recently that one thing truely amazed FDR during the Great Depression, our incredible passivity about our condition and our willingness, even eagerness, to blame each other for our own poverty, and great hesitation to ever fault the rich elite who manipulate the system to rob us. FDR simply couldn't understand why Americans won't demand better for themselves.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security.

"But what will happen when the civil authorities are no longer capable of providing the bare necessities to its citizens?"

We shouldn't ever find out. We need to have a march on Washington to make the Tea Party look tiny and demand that the mandate voted in 2008 be carried out. Really, the only thing standing between a victory for real change is a simple change of the Senate Rules which has been done several times in our history. I think with the obstructionism of the sell out Dems and the sell out Republicans it would be in the interest of the security of the United States to be able to make changes before we see a melt down like you describe.

Danni,

The bullshit that is defined as 'corporate personhood' doesn't serve as justification to rape the constitution on other grounds.

I agree with you on the corporate personhood bullshit - it is exactly that.

I also agree with you on the net-positive of at least some of the social safety-net. Where I draw the line is the rationalization that since the federal government successfully raped the constitution before, vis a vis Social Security, Medicare and other blatantly unconstitutional use of treasury dollars that said raping is an open-gate to continue more of the same. I don't advocate the abolition of SS and Medicare because we, as a society are too heavily invested in both programs and, as such, said abolition, even on constitutional grounds, would be horribly irresponsible. Having said that, the existence of these programs doesn't serve as a blank-check to continue to rape the treasury in a manner that violates the constitutional restrictions that are plain as day.

It often boggles my mind that Americans buy hook line and sinker the policies of the rich. The policies are an anethema to their best interests and so many Americans fight to support them. Trickle down economics, corporate citizenship, outsourcing, union busting, etc are destroying our nation.

Every fiscal indicator demonstrates that wealth is being held by fewer and fewer people.

It doesn't have to be that way.

America lags behind in most of the econmic indices of a wealthy nation yet people cant see it.

I suppose their is a failure to imagine our nation could be better, healthier, stronger, more people working better jobs and fewer hours for more money with a higher quality of life.

JC, every western nation has some form of socialized health care. It is a sin against her people that America cant do the same.

We should rewrite the fucking constitution if that is what stands in our way.

Future:
Foreign military adventures
Ever limiting natural resources
Expanding Economic diversity between rich and poor
Expanding unemployment
Will lead to economic collapse
#32 | Posted by truthhurts

.......I agree.....but these issues have already led to the current economic collapse, and if our leadership does not improve, our "Mexicanization" will continue......

which will lead to massive social deterioration of societies
which will lead to revolution.
It has happened repeatedly throughout history.
American Revolution, French Revolution, Spanish Civil war, World war 2
Will happen here in America.
32 | Posted by truthhurts

.......I agree that we may continue to decline, if we do not get smarter, but misery by itself is not sufficient to incite a successful revolution, just think of all the countries where the misery goes on forever ........

.......our armed forces will defend the constitution even if there is a popular uprising, and by constitution, means whoever is in power at the time, no way a citizen militia could come close to overthrowing tanks and missiles........

.......besides which......Americans are a bunch of fatties, more interested in running up credit card debt and eating at McDonalds than in real life.....

"Having said that, the existence of these programs doesn't serve as a blank-check to continue to rape the treasury in a manner that violates the constitutional restrictions that are plain as day."

With the level of spending we do for the military, with tax cuts for the rich passed during two wars, I think belated concerns about "raping of the treasury" are sort of misplaced. If SS and Medicare have not been declared unconstitutional then they are, in effect, constitutional. I don't know the cases but I'm sure through the years challenges to the enactment of those programs must have been heard in the SC.

Danni, sorry but the dems are as culpable as the repubs. Obama could end our involvement in Iraq. Obama could stand up for human rights. Obama could refute the Patriot Act. He chooses not to.

.......I agree that we may continue to decline, if we do not get smarter, but misery by itself is not sufficient to incite a successful revolution, just think of all the countries where the misery goes on forever ........

.......our armed forces will defend the constitution even if there is a popular uprising, and by constitution, means whoever is in power at the time, no way a citizen militia could come close to overthrowing tanks and missiles........

.......besides which......Americans are a bunch of fatties, more interested in running up credit card debt and eating at McDonalds than in real life.....

#42 | Posted by skizziks at

I agree that is why there will be a spark and that is why economic collapse will come before the social deterioration. The spark will be when the stock market crashes and oil shoots through the roof and inflation has blown up so that the Govt cant throw money at the problem. People will take to the streets when there is no food at the Acme and McDonalds doesnt have the McClogedarteryarator Burger for sale.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security.
...........#37 | Posted by truthhurts

......Antirepublicanarianism..
.......noble sentiment, but for most of these aspirations the ship has sailed in America........

"Danni, sorry but the dems are as culpable as the repubs. Obama could end our involvement in Iraq. Obama could stand up for human rights. Obama could refute the Patriot Act. He chooses not to."

I don't disagree, he should be doing more of what he said he was going to do. His appointment of WAll Streeters to run the economy is peculiar too.
I can't quite figure him out yet. I am starting to worry he isn't what we thought he was when we elected him.

#30 | Posted by KnightHawk

Pick up the fucking document and read it for yourself.

Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that the partial sentence of "general welfare" was a blank-check - the entire rest of Section 8 was just a big joke. Also the 9th and 10th ammendments were jokes too. According to your asshole-ish analysis, the words "general welfare" nullify all of that other inconvenient specificity as well as 150 years of case-law supporting said specificity.

You are full of shit and you should know better - unless you haven't actually picked up a copy of the constitution and read it for yourself.

I hate to say it but what I fear is that when and if our economy should actually collapse we will have a period of lawless anarchy followed by a right wing dictator who promises to get things under control, which they will, through the use of brute force.

What we need to do is pull our military out of half of the bases across the globe, cut military spending by 75%, have a constitutional convention to update the constitution, invest in education (free college tuition for everyone), massive tax increases for the wealthy, guarantee worker's rights to unionize, hey maybe even nationalize a few industries (now before you panty wastes get all hot and bothered we can start with the prison system) just to name a few things.

People will take to the streets when there is no food
......#45 | Posted by truthhurts

......I see the people differently, I lived under a communist regime in eastern Europe, and understand how people feel when confronted by tanks and guns.......

......Antirepublicanarianism..
.......noble sentiment, but for most of these aspirations the ship has sailed in America........

#46 | Posted by skizziks

that is why I wait for the 3rd American Revolution when we can reestablish these rights.

......I see the people differently, I lived under a communist regime in eastern Europe, and understand how people feel when confronted by tanks and guns.......

#51 | Posted by skizziks

hey I hear you. The counterrevolutionaries have some powerful weapons in their arsenal and guns are only a small portion of it. Media propaganda is probably their most powerful tool as it divides the people seriously limiting our ability to organize.

followed by a right wing dictator who promises to get things under control, ...#49 | Posted by danni

......they're just going to have to get a more efficient one, than the last one.......

Danni,

SS and Medicare comprise half of the budget.

Half and growing.

While I appreciate your Ike-esque concerns over the inflated military industrial complex - it's still chump-change when compared with the entitlement complex, and regardless, over-expenditures in one area don't serve as justification to rape the treasury in other areas.

I hate to say it but what I fear is that when and if our economy should actually collapse we will have a period of lawless anarchy followed by a right wing dictator who promises to get things under control, which they will, through the use of brute force.

#49 | Posted by danni

Yep, Spain in 39, took another 35 years for Franco to die and the counterrevolution to finally fail. Same could very well happen here. They hold a hell of alot of power here, but the decay in the social fabric runs very deep.

that is why I wait for the 3rd American Revolution when we can reestablish these rights.
.....#52 | Posted by truthhurts

.....don't hold your breath........

....even if there is a revolution, and even if the revolution is successful, they usually end up getting co-opted......

French Revolution against royal tyranny, install Napoleon as Emperor
Mexican revolution against landholders, install NRP, co-opted by landholders who govern for decades.
Russian Revolution, overthrow tyrannical royalty, have one lousy election, install communist tyranny...

.........better to get on with your life and not worry about the next coming revolution, it will drive you crazy.......

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

not betting on anything, just predicting.

#49-----Danni, I've read posts in the past where you stated how this country always rebounded and now that Obummer was in W.H.all was well. Now with this post you don't sound all that positive.

#57---- Government Sachs would probably take over.

"have a constitutional convention to update the constitution"

Or at least, a constitutional amendment defining "personhood", and restricting it to real live citizens, i.e., not corporations, not fetuses, etc.

"Now with this post you don't sound all that positive."

I'll probably be more optimistic again soon, I go back and forth but mostly stay pretty optimistic. There isn't really any purpose in negativity but still I have fears for the country if we don't hurry up and make some changes. Somehow, I actually do believe that most Americans are waking up lately, it makes me more hopeful.

but wait that would eliminate 90% of the money in elections! that couldnt help could it?

"Or at least, a constitutional amendment defining "personhood", and restricting it to real live citizens, i.e., not corporations, not fetuses, etc."

If we just clearly said that only human beings could be persons under the law I'd be satisfied to leave the abortion debate for another day.

#47---- Danni, thank you for that post and I'm not saying it with tongue in cheek--- when people start to see nothing is changing and it's the same old crap, we're on the way to demanding real change--- you may not agree with them but you're starting to see a healthy stirring in the American people (e.q. teabaggers; townhalls.)

#57---- Government Sachs would probably take over.
#61 | Posted by matsop

....nah......there's no money left in it.......

If we just clearly said that only human beings could be persons under the law I'd be satisfied to leave the abortion debate for another day.

#65 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-12 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag

Too bad the writers of the constitution and Bill of rights did fore see the need for that language. 250 years ago who could have predicted such a deviant society that celebrates the right to kill unborn babies.

"250 years ago who could have predicted such a deviant society that celebrates the right to kill unborn babies."

Yeah, 250 years ago nobody had ever heard of, let alone practiced, abortion. Oy, such a dunce.

"you may not agree with them but you're starting to see a healthy stirring in the American people (e.q. teabaggers; townhalls.)"

But those aren't "healthy stirrings" really they are just uninformed people being led to protest any attempt to reign in corporate power in the name of fighting socialism. I swear it's amazing to watch people demanding the right to continue to be ripped off by big corporations.

reign in corporate power in the name of fighting socialism. I swear it's amazing to watch people demanding the right to continue to be ripped off by big corporations.

reign in government power in the name of fighting socialism. I swear it's amazing to watch people demanding the right to continue to be lied to by politicians.

"you may not agree with them but you're starting to see a healthy stirring in the American people (e.q. teabaggers; townhalls.)"

Unfortunately, the SC has chosen to ignore the clear intent of the founding fathers in regards to corporate power which they clearly opposed as they showed at the Boston Tea Party which was a protest against the monopoly enjoyed by the Great East India Tea Company. It is funny today that the "Tea Parties" are protests against those trying to reign in the power of the corporations, the founding fathers would not have been Tea Party attendees today.

Yeah, 250 years ago nobody had ever heard of, let alone practiced, abortion.

#69 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-12 04:48 PM | Reply

It wasn't until about 1932.

Yeah, 250 years ago nobody had ever heard of, let alone practiced, abortion. Oy, such a dunce.

#69 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2009-11-12 04:48 PM | Reply | Flag

Really?

Sick but funny 101.

"If we just clearly said that only human beings could be persons under the law I'd be satisfied to leave the abortion debate for another day."

An amendment defining "personhood" and making explicit the privacy rights "found" in Roe would end that legal debate, though not the social/cultural debate. It would eliminate corporate "free speech" rights thereby making campaign finance reforms constitutional. It would make restrictions on a women's right to choose unconstitutional. It would make the "war on some drugs" unconstitutional.

I think Doc was being sarcastic.

Sick but funny 101.

#75 | Posted by danni at 2009-11-12 04:54 PM | Rep

While I would agree with your position on all three things I would still make them three seperate amendments. I wouldn't cloud the corporate personhood debate with abortion or the war on drugs. Actually, a good case could be made that if you took away corporate personhood the other two things would take care of themselves because the coalition between big business and the religious right would be eliminated.

".. a deviant society that celebrates the right to kill unborn babies."

I can't even find who posted this blatantly dishonest remark. It is totally incorrect and uncalled for.

a) a woman's control over her bodily functions is her business.

b) I have not heard of a celebration parties for abortions, and doubt that they occur.

c) you can not kill an unborn baby, because it is not a baby, therefore it cannot be an unborn baby, therefore it cannot be "killed"

coalition between big business and the religious right

Does that mean that democrats do not shop at Walmart or Home Depot?

And does a religious left exists? Or is that the gay Christian crowd?

The liberal side of the argument is not even debated.

------

There are no classic liberals in power or media.

Not one.

a) a woman's control over her bodily functions is her business.
Yep. Sure.

b) I have not heard of a celebration parties for abortions, and doubt that they occur.

I said 'right to' causes celebration...

c) you can not kill an unborn baby, because it is not a baby, therefore it cannot be an unborn baby, therefore it cannot be "killed"

Only a Deviant would believe this.

And does a religious left exists?
.......#81 | Posted by slicksterWilly

....Latin America is full of Communist Christians.....

......Communism has far more in common with Christianity than does capitalism......

"And does a religious left exists? "

Ever hear of liberation theology, dumbass?

""And does a religious left exists? ""

Do you agree with Pope Benedict?

He sums up the tremendous benefits and the damaging side effects of globalization: "The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase," he writes. "Corruption and illegality are unfortunately evident in the conduct of the economic and political class in rich countries as well as in poor ones."

""Profit is useful if it serves as a means toward an end that provides a sense of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.""

--Pope Benedict

Here's another one, SickWilly. Not exactly what your typical capitalist wants to hear...

SYDNEY, Australia The world's natural resources are being squandered in the pursuit of "insatiable consumption," Pope Benedict XVI said Thursday in a speech urging followers to care more for the environment and reconnect with the principle of peace.

What is your definition of a "Deviant", slicksterwilly?

I have no idea what you mean.

Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that the partial sentence of "general welfare" was a blank-check - the entire rest of Section 8 was just a big joke. Also the 9th and 10th ammendments were jokes too. According to your asshole-ish analysis, the words "general welfare" nullify all of that other inconvenient specificity as well as 150 years of case-law supporting said specificity.

You are full of shit and you should know better - unless you haven't actually picked up a copy of the constitution and read it for yourself.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-11-12 04:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Keep spewing Your garbage. Article 1 Section 8 Empowers the United States in any manner of General Welfare they so choose. I aqm sorry that You are having such a fucking hard time with this. They got the power baby the power to install Governmental run health care insurance. and You got nothing as usual.

Larry

#80--- but it is human.

They got the power baby the power to install Governmental run health care insurance. and You got nothing as usual.
#91 | Posted by LarryMohr

But they don't have the money. I see Soviet style health plan in this country's future.

But they don't have the money. I see Soviet style health plan in this country's future.

Posted by Ray at 2009-11-12 05:30 PM | Reply

They have the money for illegal wars of agression they have the money for health care insurance. Bank 0on THAT one Ray. I don't want to hear any excuses from anyone why we can not afford this. It won't work with Me.

Larry

#94---Lar, you might want to talk to my daughter who just flew in from D.C.--- she's been involved in this healthcare issue all year and was just given a job offer from CMS for one of the top jobs. CMS stands for "Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services." In other words she is working for Medicare---you wouldn't want to know what she has to say about the healthcare bills since it wouldn't fit your preconceived and rigid ideas.

MATSOP sorry but I will not discuss anything with You when You inject Your family member into it. Sorry not My bag.

Larry

All of these rights spell security.

#37 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-12 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

All of these rights spell communism. Go find another country to fuck up with your robin hood ideas. This one works fine - for the people not afraid to work that is.

hahahaha

so tell me elcid who does the US measure up against the rest of western democracies in all the measurables for quality of life?

truth hurts donut

#98 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-11-12 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

My quality of life is excellent. I am responsible for most of that - sorry if that is such a difficult concept for you libbies - PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Not just words.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

Where does the US measure up in having a website where you can spew your commie bullshit and not have the government show up on your doorstep? Where can you burn the flag? Get over it or move out.

......Communism has far more in common with Christianity than does capitalism......

---------

Communism has far more in common with the THEORY of jesues.

The PRACTICE of christainity has far more in common with hitler.

Are you just going to throw out those statements as is or are you going to explain how you equate all that?

I'd be interested in hearing your explainations.

1. He can't equate that 2. I wouldn't be interested in hearing his explanations.

If there is a re-write of the Constitution, it will not be a re-write after a Revolution.

If you take a group of people and have them gather together to write down how their government should be, you might find Americans like their Constitution.

In fact, they'll realize the compromises the forefathers had to make to create a nation that was committing treason at the time.

They'll come to realize what it meant to place their honor, their wealth, their lives on the line.

I think a new Constitution would be the old one. It wasn't perfect, but it's pretty damn good.

I hate it when the press tries to define the left, center, or right. I consider myself to be to the left on most issues, but I have been in total disagreement over the way Obama and the Democrats have handled the economy, the wars, and healthcare. I've also met independents who are not towards the center at all, but are often far to the left or right of the democrat/conservative parties. In europe, the democrats here would be labeled a center-of-right party while the republicans would be considered a far-right party. The author talks about a "social contract" which has been broken. What social contract is he referring to? Nowhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights do either documents say anything about unemployment or economics. So what "contract" is the author talking about?

"My quality of life is excellent. I am responsible for most of that - sorry if that is such a difficult concept for you libbies - PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Not just words.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

Where does the US measure up in having a website where you can spew your commie bullshit and not have the government show up on your doorstep? Where can you burn the flag? Get over it or move out."

Actually federal agents monitored anti-war protesters during the early periods of the Iraq occupation. Let's not forget the House of Un American Activities established during the Cold War. But I guess to you those are just more "libby" lies.

"I see Soviet style health plan in this country's future."

When you have Soviet style invasions and occupations, soviet style tax rates for the priveleged elite and Soviet style economic conditions for the working class then I would suppose suc a health care system would go along with all that. Personally I'd prefer to get back to American values where the rich do not consider themselves to be the enemy of the working class and willingly pay their share to make a better country for all.

Go find another country to fuck up with your robin hood ideas. This one works fine - for the people not afraid to work that is.

This attitude makes it clear why Americans are so uneducated compared to the rest of the modern world.

Who needs schools? Life is all about work work work. Those people in Europe with their six weeks vacation and their cradle-to-grave health care... what kind of a sissy wants six weeks off a year? Here in America we work. Because if we don't, we die. Civilization at its finest.

"Go find another country to fuck up with your robin hood ideas."

I think we'll just change this one, why don't you leave?

Who needs schools?
#107 | Posted by snoofy

Our country does. Good schools, that is.

Truth hurts doesn't it?
......#105 | Posted by Wise111

......maybe.......

....but we'll know for sure when you come up with some of it.....

The liberal side of the argument is not even debated.

That's because its so fucking absurd.

Just because I babble about aardvarks tending to split their infinitives because vests have no sleeves doesn't mean I have some cogent position regarding public policy that is worthy of "debate".