Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, February 09, 2014

The editorial board of New Jersey's biggest newspaper, the Star-Ledger, said it made a mistake in endorsing Gov. Chris Christie (R) for re-election. Editorial board director Tom Moran writes, "[W]e blew this one. ... Yes, we knew Christie was a bully. But we didnít know his crew was crazy enough to put people's lives at risk in Fort Lee as a means to pressure the mayor. We didn't know he would use Hurricane Sandy aid as a political slush fund. And we certainly didn't know that Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer was sitting on a credible charge of extortion by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

A weighty decision.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-09 08:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Incidentally, snow removal on all of the roads surrounding the offices of the newspaper has ended.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-09 08:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

Hmmmm, I wonder which list is longer. Those who regret endorsing Christie or those who endorsed Obama?

#3 | Posted by sawdust at 2014-02-09 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Hmmmm, I wonder which list is longer. Those who regret endorsing Christie or those who endorsed Obama?"...Sawdust

My guess is that, given the alternative candidates on the Republican side, the number would be fairly low, Sawdust. It is one thing to feel that President Obama has been a disappointment, but it is an entirely different question to suggest that McCain and Palin, or Mitt and Paul Ryan would garner voters approval.

The elections which brought BHO into power were largely a repudiation of Republican policies as much as they they were a repudiation of Republican candidates.

Little has changed in the eyes of the electorate, in that regard.

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-10 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#4

total lie. You, along with the majority of the left, believed in "hope and change".

Obama's mere presence was going to improve things.

Nice try to go back in time and pretend you didn't have tingling sensation running up your leg.

IOW, that sensation you felt didn't have anything to do with McCain or Palin. Obama's popularity was HUGE.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-10 10:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You, along with the majority of the left, believed in "hope and change"."

Still do, but today we understand that the Republicans have decided to obstruct everything the President tries to do for the country out of pure partisan hatred. Presidents can't accomplish much facing such opposition, it is too bad for the country that the GOP puts party before country.

Now I'll await another snarky comment from an "independent" voice of condescension.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 10:38 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

but today we understand that the Republicans have decided to obstruct everything the President tries to do for the country out of pure partisan hatred.

You are essentially saying that the GOP agrees 100% with the president's agenda but are opposed to it solely out of spite (and racism).

That is ridiculous.

Presidents can't accomplish much facing such opposition.

You are correct. Obama is the first president in this country's 200+ year history to have one branch of congress occupied by the opposition party. He has worked so hard, unprecedentedly so, to build relationships with members of congress on both sides, yet, as it pertains to the Republicans, they simply hate his skin-color so much that they viciously oppose him in spite of his constant efforts to engage them in a respectful and meaningful way. / Snark

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 10:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Now I'll await another snarky comment from an "independent" voice of condescension.

#6 | POSTED BY DANNI

If you are going to accuse someone of condescension it is helpful not to be condescending in the process.

Just sayin'

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

The truth, Eb, is that after 8 years of G W Bush, and Republican Rule, even a black guy could beat the Republican meat puppets.

Own it.

You Betcha!

#9 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-10 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Geez, danni, nobody makes you wear a "kick me" sign around your neck.

When have I denied the obstruction of the GOP?

I'm only an "independent" with regard to how I vote.

But I'm not an obamabot, like yourself. I'll never be that kind of a partisan twit.

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-10 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

"even a black guy"

wow. is that an attempt to bait me with a racist response?

don't bother, but my comment must have hit home, obviously.

don't go back and pretend your support was anything other than your starry eyed love affair with Obama.

You clowns are no different than the teenagers who were screaming when the Beattles came to the USA 50 years ago.

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-10 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps it's not a newspaper's or media's job to endorse political candidates. Alas, those days when reporters ferreted-out the truth and reported it to the public seem to be a casualty of "moving forward".

#12 | Posted by lel2007 at 2014-02-10 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Jeff J,

You are denying the truth.

Since Inauguration day, 2009, when the Republican leadership met and agreed to fight everything that the President proposed, the obstructionism of the Republican Party has been the most obvious political turd in the punch bowl of American politics ever experienced in modern history.

You know it, I know it and America knows it.

#13 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-10 10:54 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Eb, your comment is just another pearl of ignorance in your necklace of nonsense.

Enjoy your illusion of insight.

It is a symptom of your disease.

#14 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-10 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

BTW, Eb, and Jeff, this thread is about Christie.

Got anything to say about Christie?

Your inability to engage in a conversation about Christie without 'Babbling' about how much you hate President Obama is quite telling.

#15 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-10 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

so, someone is "diseased" if they aren't a partisan hack.

good enough, idiot. you should stop there.

I responded to your comment about Obama and McCain and Palin.

Now you're whining about it.

I'm not sure how I feel about Christi. The bridge thing is concerning if he really knew about it. It's likely he did otherwise he would have killed it and more folks would have gotten fired. He's got an issue with local newspapers and that will haunt him going forward.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-10 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

"But I'm not an obamabot, like yourself. I'll never be that kind of a partisan twit."

Well, she's an extreme Obamabot only because he's a "progressive" democrat and would show the same idolization for any politician with that title. Now, Corky is close to her zealotry for the messiah, however, his REAL love and adoration belongs to Hillary. I was surprised in 2008 that he didn't feel some animosity for Commissar Barackus for the way he treated her in the primaries but he seems to have forgiven him.

#17 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-10 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

BTW, Eb, and Jeff, this thread is about Christie.
Got anything to say about Christie?
Your inability to engage in a conversation about Christie without 'Babbling' about how much you hate President Obama is quite telling.

#15 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR

In #4 this clown talks about Obama and then gets all huffy when others do the same.

Since Inauguration day, 2009, when the Republican leadership met and agreed to fight everything that the President proposed, the obstructionism of the Republican Party has been the most obvious political turd in the punch bowl of American politics ever experienced in modern history.
You know it, I know it and America knows it.
#13 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR

Uh huh. The biggest gripe from congressional Democrats is that Obama's aloof - that he makes zero effort to relationship-building - that he only calls when he wants something.

Oh, and I've got a newsflash for you: The Democrats had strong majorities in both houses during Obama's first 2 years of his presidency. They didn't need GOP support and they wielded their power over the minority party like a large sword.

But, feel free to keep playing the victim card and the race card. It's about all you Obama supporters have left, at this point.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

As for Christie....I don't give a rip about him. He's the governor of New Jersey. I live in Michigan. He doesn't have any affect on my life. If he throws his hat into the ring for '16 I will pay much closer attention to him.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

"He's got an issue with local newspapers and that will haunt him going forward."

He's just their "possible candidate dujour." As soon as a more likely candidate shows up, they'll switch targets in an attempt to rip and destroy that one. It's the Chicago thug way as taught by Alinski in his "Rules for Radicals:"

* RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

#20 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-10 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration"

www.huffingtonpost.com

#21 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"You clowns are no different than the teenagers who were screaming when the Beattles came to the USA 50 years ago"...Eberly

Eb, I think you picked a poor example.

We were right about the Beatles.

Even after 50 years, we are vindicated.

ps,

You might want to learn how to spell their name.

#22 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-10 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration"

Poor "progressives," poor Obama. In total control of the White House, the House of representatives and a filibuster-proof senate and those mean ol' republicans entirely messed up their entire program.

#23 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-02-10 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

In total control of the White House, the House of representatives and a filibuster-proof senate...

Yes, for 57 days.

#24 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-10 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It's amazing how that "full control" myth refuses to die.

#25 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 12:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's amazing how that "full control" myth refuses to die.

#25 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

It's amazing how Obama supporters can somehow claim that the GOP was in any way successful at obstructing Obama's agenda during his first 2 years in office.

He got stimulus. He got Dodd-Frank. He got ACA.

With stimulus and Dodd-Frank he got next-to-zero GOP support and with ACA he got ZERO GOP support and not even unanimous Dem support. Yet they all passed.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

the Republicans have decided to obstruct everything the President tries to do for the country out of pure partisan hatred. Presidents can't accomplish much facing such opposition, it is too bad for the country that the GOP puts party before country.

This.

It's become a joke, but luckily most of the nation knows the GOP has done severe damage to this nation with their reckless behavior all because of their hatred and prejudice.

#27 | Posted by drewl at 2014-02-10 01:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

ACA he got ZERO GOP support and not even unanimous Dem support. Yet they all passed.

#26 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Dodd-Frank was passed in a "lame duck" session before the R's increased their numbers in the 2010 election, when the Dems had 58 votes(one Repub voted yea: Snowe) and the Repubs only had 39. One Rep didn't vote, so no filibuster. Likewise, ACA was passed when the Dems had 59 votes (plus Bernie Sanders to make 60 to prevent a filibuster)

They didn't have those numbers for most of his term(s).

#28 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 05:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

sorry about the italics.

#29 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

They didn't have those numbers for most of his term(s).

#28 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

I didn't say they did.

They had those numbers for the first 2 years of his presidency and got 3 massive bills (plus some others) passed in spite of whatever token obstructionism a greatly marginalized GOP was able to muster.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

#22 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-02-10 11:40 AM | Reply | Flag: admits to being nothing more than a screaming teenager

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-10 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

They had those numbers for a brief period during the first 2 years of his presidency.

FTFY

Bottom line is that he had only one R vote between those two bills. Presidents don't usually have to have unanimity in their own party just to get any thing done. Besides, Dems don't tend to march together in lock-step like the R's do.

#32 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 05:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

FTFY

Nothing to fix.

My claim was that he enjoyed strong majorities in both houses and that claim is accurate.

Presidents don't usually have to have unanimity in their own party just to get any thing done.

Presidents don't usually support huge pieces of legislation that the opposition party can't even stomach. He went as big as he could because he had strong majorities. Now, he's paying a political price for it.

Dems don't tend to march together in lock-step like the R's do.

Right. This is precisely why we hear so much about the GOP Civil War, because they are all marching in lock-step.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 05:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Alright, I see why you made your FTFY claim.

#18 I said "strong majorities."

#30 I said "those numbers."

I intended to repeat #18 but wasn't careful in my wording. I am well aware that his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a much shorter period of time than 2 years.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not only that, but the R party had met on his inauguration and decided that they were going to block anything and everything he proposed, because their only goal was do deny him re-election. Well, that didn't work, did it? But they were able to block almost everything he proposed. He represented the majority of voters. When the Republicans have the majority, they are great believers in majority rule, but when they're in the minority, not so much.

#35 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN A

It was 7 responsible GOP senators who teamed up with 7 Senate Democrats to kill the nuclear option during Bush's term. Where were the responsible Senate Dems when Reid invoked the nuclear option?

The GOP sucks, but quit painting it in terms of majority/minority rule. This government was set up with a series of checks and balances. It's not structured to be strictly majority rule. That's not what a Constitutional Republic is.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Democrats didn't blow up the filibuster for legislation, just for nominees. Don't you think a President should be able to appoint the people he thinks are best for the job? Can you imagine a CEO attempting to run a very large corporation (the gov't has millions of employees), with a committee sitting over him rejecting all of his staffing decisions? No CEO in his right mind would accept that job. Then you all b***h about "executive leadership". GMAB!

#37 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Congress, as defined in Article I of the Constitution, does operate entirely by majority rule. I suggest you read it (again?).

#38 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

And if decisions are not to be made by a majority vote, then how are they to be made?

You come to a fork in the road. You can only go one way or the other. There is no possible compromise. Which way do you go, the way the majority wants to go or the way the minority wants to go?

#39 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

And one more thing: if decisions are not to be made by a majority vote, then voting is a farce.

#40 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 06:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

And one more thing: if decisions are not to be made by a majority vote, then voting is a farce.

#40 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

We are not a pure Democracy.

We are a Democratic Constitutional Republic.

We are not governed by mob rule.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 06:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

You still are not answering the question. How are decisions made?

#42 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

You still are not answering the question. How are decisions made?

#42 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

We are speaking to 2 different things.

I am talking about the structure of our government at the federal level, as were you, initially.

You then moved to local government.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 07:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

The level of government is irrelevant. There are three ways to make any decision:

1. by consensus (nearly impossible when more than a few people are involved)
2. by a majority vote
3. by a "dictator"

Which of these does the United States Constitution endorse?

#44 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

whodaman......are you missing buffalo bob so much you wanted to take his place?

your questions are retarded.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-10 08:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We are not a pure Democracy.
We are a Democratic Constitutional Republic.
We are not governed by mob rule."

UNfortunately not true, we are allowing ourselves to be ruled by a gang of five corporatist SC Justices who have completely perverted democracy and now want you to believe they are saving you from the unwashed masses.
The sooner America wakes up and admits the truth about those five Fascists the sooner we can do something about it.

#46 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 08:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46

broken record....and it was a crappy record the first time we heard it.

everything boils down to R vs D.

hack

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-10 09:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah Eberly unlimited money flowing into politics isn't destroying America. Tslk about a hack, look in the mirror. YOu are as predictable as the sunrise but not nearly as enjoyable.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

And you're going to hear that broken record from many directions in the next few years, months, days. I am hardly alone hack.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

#46 | POSTED BY DANNI

Those 5 justices you abhor are the ones who are more likely to vote against expanding the powers of the state.

Can't blame Kelo on them.

#48 | POSTED BY DANNI

Don't like Citizens United?

Amend the Constitution to eliminate the 1st Amendment.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Actually, we are becoming increasingly governed by the 4th branch of government - the administrative, beaurocratic state.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

your questions are retarded.

#45 | POSTED BY EBERLY

How is it retarded? I make the case that decisions in our government are made by a majority vote. "Conservatives" on here make noises about "we are not a democracy". OK, then how are decisions to be made? You do agree that governing a country that spans a continent and has more than 300 million occupants requires that some decisions be made, don't you?

If you reject democracy, what do you propose instead? If you say "representative government" understand that representatives make decisions by a majority vote.

#52 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

#44 | POSTED BY WHODAMAn

I addressed this with you on another thread.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

You didn't answer it there, either.

#54 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 09:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Amend the Constitution to eliminate the 1st Amendment."

OR elect another Democratic President and wait for another opportunity to appoint a non-Fascist Justice. BTW, read alittle of Scalia's bio and the accusations of Fascist stop being outlandish and actually quite appropriate in a realistic sort of way. If only Americans knew who is sitting on their SC they would be outraged.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you reject democracy, what do you propose instead? If you say "representative government" understand that representatives make decisions by a majority vote.

#52 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

I am not rejecting the fact that we are a Democratic Republic.

In our country the process matters. Congress passes bills and the president either vetoes them or signs them into law. Once they are signed into law the Executive is compelled by the Constitution to faithfully execute these laws. The Constitution gives the Executive far more latitude and fewer checks when it comes to executing foreign policy.

The process breaks down when the Executive decides it can re-write legislation on a whim, like it has been doing over and over again with ACA.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

When we do get another Justice appointed the genius of G.W. Bush (or whoever put him up to it) appointing Roberts to be Chief Justice will become apparent. The FAscists play long ball. They look two or three decades ahead. I don't deny they are smart, I just want people to recognize them for what they are.

#57 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

OR elect another Democratic President and wait for another opportunity to appoint a non-Fascist Justice.

Translation: Appoint a liberal activist who believes the Constitution means whatever in the hell the political left wants it to mean.

Scalia is a Constitutionalist, not a fascist.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The process breaks down when the Executive decides it can re-write legislation on a whim,"

But an activist SC can go on fishing expeditions and come back with completely unrelated issues and make huge decisions changing the basic fabric of democracy and that's fine with you. Excuse me if I see your selective outrage at very minor things as all too convenient.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

You didn't answer it there, either.

#54 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

You made a declarative statement and I said I don't disagree with it.

Not sure what else you want.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

But an activist SC can go on fishing expeditions and come back with completely unrelated issues and make huge decisions changing the basic fabric of democracy and that's fine with you.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Please elaborate.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The process breaks down when the Executive decides it can re-write legislation on a whim, like it has been doing over and over again with ACA.

#56 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Major legislation is (and always has been) written such that the Executive has the ability to establish the regulations by which the law is implemented. You can't write a law that covers any large project without allowing for changes being required to implement and enforce the law in accord with the intent of the Congress. You can't foresee every detail that might cause unintended consequences. The Executive has to have the authority to address such situations. Every President we have ever had has done so (not just this one).

#62 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Scalia is a Constitutionalist, not a fascist."

Laughable. YOu show me corporate personhood in the Constitution and then you make a case for the idea that the founding fathers were not very much in favor of limiting the power of corporations to a degree most Americans would find very surprising. Scalia's father was a Fascist and Scalia is a Fascist calling himself all sorts of other things which some people are dumb enough or partisan enough to purposely believe because to not believe would open the door to admitting what this country has become.

#63 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Major legislation is (and always has been) written such that the Executive has the ability to establish the regulations by which the law is implemented.

Only as the lawmakers grant it. In the case of the employer and individual mandates, the legislation offered no such flexibility.

YOu show me corporate personhood in the Constitution

The problem is that this issue was decided so long ago that it has become ingrained in our culture. To reverse it now would violate the principle of Stare Decisis. Same holds true for Social Security. It's clearly unconstitutional but to reverse it now on Constitutional grounds would be terrible jurisprudence.

BTW - Starre Decisis doesn't treat ALL prior rulings as untouchable. This is why Rehnquist couldn't bring himself to vote down Miranda even though he was a staunch critic of the opinion as it was written.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#64

Cut my last sentence and paste it at the end of the paragraph just above it.

It makes much more sense when read in that order.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

You made a declarative statement and I said I don't disagree with it.
Not sure what else you want.

#60 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You said, "The GOP sucks, but quit painting it in terms of majority/minority rule. This government was set up with a series of checks and balances. It's not structured to be strictly majority rule. That's not what a Constitutional Republic is."

What part of it is not structured to be "strictly majority rule"?

I bring this whole thing up because every time someone on the left complains that policy should go in a certain direction because that's what the majority wants, the response from the right is "this is not a democracy". So my question is why bother voting, if votes don't determine the policy? And if votes don't determine the policy, who is actually making the decisions?

#66 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#66 -

You must not have seen what I am referring to.

Here:

Millions of Low Wage Breadwinners
f there is a decision being made, it's being made by a vote of a majority of something, be it a committee or a board or the citizens or it is a decision made by a dictator (call it a superintendent, or a commissioner, or whatever title you want to give it).

I don't disagree with that.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2014-02-10 07:46 PM | REPLY


It was on the breadwinner thread.

#67 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

" It's clearly unconstitutional but to reverse it now on Constitutional grounds would be terrible jurisprudence. "

Jeff has been reading so much right wing propaganda that he posts the most ridiculous things. He can sit idly by while the SC decides the 14th Amendment was to free the corporations who are people but objects to SS which was upheld by the SC and incidently benefits millions of Americans. My God, that he would put the power and influence of the few before the welfare of the many is pretty disturbing, perhaps you Jeff share some of Justice Scalia's and Mussolini's political views.

#68 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I bring this whole thing up because every time someone on the left complains that policy should go in a certain direction because that's what the majority wants, the response from the right is "this is not a democracy""

The Fascists want us to operate as if we did not pass Constitutional amendments which did indeed change the nature of our government from a virtual oligarchy to a democracy. They don't like it that today's United STates government is a democracy though the Fascists still retain more than their share of power through the Supreme Court, gerrymandering and huge amounts of money but slowly they are losing their grip on power and the country will be again the democracy that Americans have endeavored to make it for over two hundred years.
ONe thing is clear, the conservatives, the FAscists because that is what they are, are losing their grip even with their billions of dollars, slowly America is emerging as the democracy that the soldiers who died on the battlefields envisioned and not the oligarchy that the aristocracy who sent them there did.

#69 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#68 | POSTED BY DANNI

You are either out of your league on this discussion or are utterly failing to comprehend written word.

First, I didn't defend corporate personhood. I pointed out that it would be bad jurisprudence to reverse the opinion that cemented it into our culture now that it has been cemented into our culture.

Second, I didn't make a moral judgement on Social Security. I merely pointed out that it is unconstitutional, which it clearly is (read Article 1, Section 8 and then the 10th Amendment for clarity). ALSO, I argued that it would be terrible jurisprudence to overturn SS on a constitutional basis and again cited Starre Decisis. I even added that as ridiculous as Miranda is from a constitutional standpoint, Rehnquist had too much respect for responsible jurisprudence to overturn it when given the chance.

Law is not about outcome, it's about process. This is a concept that you routinely demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#69 | POSTED BY DANNI

It's the so-called progressives who want limitless powers bestowed upon the federal government.

It's conservatives and libertarians calling for constitutional constraints to be upheld.

That was one bizarre post.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"First, I didn't defend corporate personhood. I pointed out that it would be bad jurisprudence to reverse the opinion that cemented it into our culture now that it has been cemented into our culture."

That's ridiculous. BAd law is bad law, it is destroying our country. Right now, they are trying to ram through TPP, the only interests who will benefit from that are big international corporations, it will actually sacrifice American sovereignity. NO, you're completely wrong, the sooner we overturn that abomination the better.

"Second, I didn't make a moral judgement on Social Security. I merely pointed out that it is unconstitutional, which it clearly is (read Article 1, Section 8 and then the 10th Amendment for clarity)."

So, you accept the constitutionality of Citizens United because the SC has decided it but reject the constitutionaly of SS even though the SC said it was constitutional.

Sorry Jeff, my advice to you, stop reading whatever propaganda it is you are reading.

Riiiight.

#72 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's the so-called progressives who want limitless powers bestowed upon the federal government."

That's hilarious when you consider who cheered on Edward Snowden and decried the Patriot Act. I don't even claim to be one of those liberals, though sometimes I think I should be. AT the same time, conservatives, in Congress, are already complaining that Obama has reined in the NSA too far.

#73 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

The problem is that this issue was decided so long ago that it has become ingrained in our culture.

But it is obviously a faulty decision. If corporations are people according to the 14th Amendment, why are they not prohibited from "owning" one another under the 13th?

Only as the lawmakers grant it. In the case of the employer and individual mandates, the legislation offered no such flexibility.

So you've read all "more than 2000 pages!" of the legislation?

Same holds true for Social Security. It's clearly unconstitutional but to reverse it now on Constitutional grounds would be terrible jurisprudence.

What is so obvious about the "unconstitutionality" of Social Security?

#74 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 09:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's ridiculous. BAd law is bad law, it is destroying our country.

You are conflating 'bad law' with 'unconstitutional law'.

They are completely different things. 'Good' law can be unconstitional and 'bad' law can be well within the framework of the Constitution.

So, you accept the constitutionality of Citizens United because the SC has decided

No, I accept the constitutionality of Citizens United because it is in line with the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere within the 1st Amendment does it say: "Except for corporate entities, unions and trade groups."

but reject the constitutionaly of SS even though the SC said it was constitutional.

I reject the constitutionality of SS because I can't find in Article 1, Section 8 the enumerated power to spend treasury dollars on retirement insurance.

That the founders saw fit to include the 10th Amendment adds perfect clarity that congress' powers as enumerated in Article 1,Section 8 are clearly limited. The commerce clause does not enumerate limitless legislative and regulatory powers and the welfare clause does not enumerate limitless spending powers.

Sorry Jeff, my advice to you, stop reading whatever propaganda it is you are reading.

My opinions on this thread are derived from reading the Constitution - the actual document. That's right, I picked it up and have read it for myself. I've even read it to my children. So, unless you consider the actual document to be propaganda, I don't know what else to tell you.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 10:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's hilarious when you consider who cheered on Edward Snowden and decried the Patriot Act. I don't even claim to be one of those liberals, though sometimes I think I should be. AT the same time, conservatives, in Congress, are already complaining that Obama has reined in the NSA too far.

#73 | POSTED BY DANNI

Actually, the Snowden leaks resulted in bipartisan support for the NSA AND bipartisan opposition to it.

So you've read all "more than 2000 pages!" of the legislation?

No, but I've read the relevant statutes pertaining to the mandates and they are very specific and don't allow for executive wiggle-room.

Do you know what's truly pathetic about this? When Obama delayed the employer mandate House Republicans passed 2 separate bills. 1 delayed the employer mandate for a year, the other delayed the individual mandate. Obama didn't want to delay the individual mandate. All Reid had to do was bring the employer mandate extension to the Senate floor as a filled tree (which is what he always does these days) and ask for a vote. It would have passed and Obama could have signed it into law giving legitimacy to his actions. Reid could have also stuck with his decision not to bring the individual mandate to the floor. Instead, he said he'd veto this baptism of his delay of the employer mandate. It's almost like he gets off on flouting the law.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 10:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I reject the constitutionality of SS because I can't find in Article 1, Section 8 the enumerated power to spend treasury dollars on retirement insurance. "

Fine, but you are willing to accept corporate personhood which is also nowhere to be found in the Constitution or any Amendment and which was clearly antithetical to the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

It would be easier to make a case for SS under founding father's principles than it would be to make one for corporate personhood.

Corporate Personhood is, by definition, Fascism.

#77 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I can't find in Article 1, Section 8 the enumerated power to spend treasury dollars on retirement insurance

Maybe not, but you can find there the power to spend it to promote the general welfare. Per Article 1, Section 8, the meaning of "general welfare" is left to the Congress (by a majority vote).

#78 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 10:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

welfare clause does not enumerate limitless spending powers.

What limits does it describe?

#79 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

...we are allowing ourselves to be ruled by a gang of five corporatist SC Justices who have completely perverted democracy...

Perverted democracy according to whom, you?

...unlimited money flowing into politics isn't destroying America.

Why hasn't Congress done something about that? The SC left plenty of room in Citizens United for Congress to deal with it, read the decision not what some pundit tells you. Why haven't they? Because it's a bi-partisan grab bag.

...show me corporate personhood in the Constitution...

It's not but it has been ingrained in the laws of this country for over a hundred years, yet you blame current generation SC justices that had nothing to do with that ruling. Nor during their time has a case been before the Court where the question presented was the constitutionality of corporate personhood.

...some people are dumb enough or partisan enough to purposely believe...

How does it go? Something about a pot and a kettle?

#80 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-10 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

What limits does it describe?

#79 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

Read Article 1, Section 8.

I can print it here if you think that would be helpful.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Instead, he said he'd veto this baptism of his delay of the employer mandate. It's almost like he gets off on flouting the law.

So the use of the veto Power granted to the Pres by the Constitution is "flouting the law"? Wow!

#82 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm reading it now. I don't see where it restricts the definition of "general welfare".

#83 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 10:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

What limits does it describe?

#79 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

Read Article 1, Section 8.

I can print it here if you think that would be helpful.

The lack of Consitutionality of SS is no longer an issue for reasons I've stated above.

So the use of the veto Power granted to the Pres by the Constitution is "flouting the law"? Wow!

#82 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

I didn't say that. What I said was that he is choosing to delay the employer mandate when the statute doesn't grant him the power to do so. I also said that it's particularly sad as the GOP House was willing to follow the process and delay the statute legislatively. By delaying the mandate at the executive level he is flouting the law.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm reading it now. I don't see where it restricts the definition of "general welfare".

#83 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

Read it in its entirety. "General welfare" is such a vague term it can be defined to mean almost anything. If that is what the framers intended, they wouldn't have bothered with the rest of that extremely long sentence and all of the specificities contained therein.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"General welfare" is such a vague term it can be defined to mean almost anything.

Exactly! And SCOTUS has pretty much always deferred to Congress on that. Because it is really a political question rather than a judicial question and should therefore be ultimately decided by the People through the election of their representatives. And that is what they did with the ACA and the court found it constitutional.

#86 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's not but it has been ingrained in the laws of this country for over a hundred years, yet you blame current generation SC justices that had nothing to do with that ruling."

Yeah, corporations holding billions of dollars in offshore accounts, doing most of their manufacturing in other countries, owned by foreigners, should hold the same rights as citizens of the United States. Preposterous and it is just another example of the Fascism that we pretend is democracy. I blame the current generation for accepting that decision and then adding insult to injury by allowing unlimited money to buy elections. I am actually truly tired of pretending that our government, with its willingness to have lobbyists buy Congress and the probability of wealth buying elections, is a great or even a good governmental model. It isn't. It is completely corrupt but those who side with the corruptors still hold enough public opinion to keep it that way simply because of the ownership of media and the amount of money they have to propagandize the general population who simply are too busy, too tired and too dumb to know any better.
Consider, honestly if you can, the horrible thought, that we fought the Iraq war and killed hundreds of thousands for access to oil and the fact that the engineers of that war are free and even honored people in our society. We live in a Fascist nation, that's just a fact.

#87 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Exactly! And SCOTUS has pretty much always deferred to Congress on that. Because it is really a political question rather than a judicial question and should therefore be ultimately decided by the People through the election of their representatives.

Actually, it's neither a political nor a judicial question. It's a Constitutional question. If the Framers wished to enumerate limitless spending and legislative powers to Congress they would have done so. Common defense and general welfare are defined within the remainder of the sentence. Had the welfare clause been intended to grant limitless spending powers they wouldn't have bothered with the rest of the sentence nor would they have felt the need to pass the 10th Amendment.

Regardless, it's a moot point now.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Which part of that sentence limits the definition of "general welfare", again?

#89 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 10:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Read it in its entirety. "General welfare" is such a vague term it can be defined to mean almost anything"....except what those who want a modern nation want to interpret it as. You would have us believe that the founders, had they lived 200 years, would be firmly opposed to SS, etc. and I for one simply do not believe that for a minute.
Hell, consider the unconstitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation. The world moves forward and if the Constitution must allow for progress or else we would still be living in a world that tolerated slavery, women are property and propertiless men are without the right to vote though they have the obligation to fight. Those who read the Constitution as scripture really cause this nation so many problems. It isn't scripture, it wasn't written by God, it isn't flawless, it didn't realistically allow for the future which it simply does not adequately address.

#90 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

...And the 10th Amendment (like the 2nd) was a compromise to get the sign-on of the slave states.

#91 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I blame the current generation for accepting that decision

STARE DECISIS

Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).


www.law.cornell.edu

They can't overturn that decision unless a case is brought before them challenging that decision. That hasn't happened. Add in Starre Decisis and they have no choice but to accept it.

It's bad enough that your understanding of our legal system is so flawed. What's worse is that when you are presented with explanation for why the system works as it does, you ignore it.

#92 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 10:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Add in Starre Decisis and they have no choice but to accept it.

I call BS again. Citizens United overturned almost 100 years of precedent.

#93 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 11:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

"They can't overturn that decision unless a case is brought before them challenging that decision."

See post #57.

#94 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Which part of that sentence limits the definition of "general welfare", again?

#89 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

That's not the whole sentence. Article 1, Section 8 is one long sentence. That is the problem quoting the welfare clause by itself.

The world moves forward and if the Constitution must allow for progress or else we would still be living in a world that tolerated slavery,

The Amendment process takes care of all of that. It took a constitutional amendment to end the practice of slavery.

You want to know what else is unconstitutional? Federal drug laws. Look at Prohibition. It took an amendment to make alcohol illegal and it took another one (the 21st - my favorite) to make it legal again.

That is how the process works.

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

call BS again. Citizens United overturned almost 100 years of precedent.

#93 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

Citizens United overturned parts of McCain/Feingold which was a bill that GW Bush signed into law. No prior case exists as precedent for McCain/Feingold.

#96 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

I believe one thing about all of this, Citizens United, corporate personhood will at some point become the focus of enough attention to force the reexamination of these decisions. It will probably come in a Ukraine like protest which force the government to reconsider its rigid willingness to allow Fascists on the SC to dictate policy, it may even come to a situation where our military has to decide if it will fire on civillians as is the case in Ukraine and was in the USSR. It is the biggest question to be settled of our time and IMHO it is unlikely that the Fascists will be able to hold on to power that much longer regardless of their money and their media to disseminate their propaganda.

#97 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those who read the Constitution as scripture really cause this nation so many problems. It isn't scripture, it wasn't written by God, it isn't flawless, it didn't realistically allow for the future which it simply does not adequately address.

#90 | POSTED BY DANNI

When you have to circumvent the rule of law to achieve political ends the rule of law ceases to exist.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

There is nothing in the history of the formation of this country that suggests they would have approved of corporations having the powers of citizens (esp. without the obligations of same). Corporations were very limited, even under the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution. Corporate charters were granted for a limited time, for a single purpose (like building a road or a bridge), could not own other corporations and could be dissolved (corporate death penalty) if they failed to operate in the public interest. But if you think they wrote the Constitution to empower corporations in the way they exist today, you're crazy.

#99 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 11:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Citizens United overturned almost 100 years of precedent.

It did, what precedent was that?

#100 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-10 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Citizens United overturned parts of McCain/Feingold which was a bill that GW Bush signed into law. No prior case exists as precedent for McCain/Feingold."

It was known as campaign finance reform and was a good start at actually making America a democracy again...oh wait...I know .....it's not a democracy it's a Republic.....every time I read a post by someone making that point I know I am reading the post of someone who is heavily influenced by Fascist propaganda. We are a REpublic because we don't have a King, we are a democracy because we vote to choose our leaders. The two things are not mutually exclusive though the right would like for you to think they are.

#101 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

#97 | POSTED BY DANNI

Do you understand the concept of Starre Decisis?

Upholding the concept of corporate personhood is responsible jurisprudence.

Do you want to know how to end corporate personhood?

A Constitutional Amendment would do the trick.

Fact is, bad jurisprudence rubber-stamped so much of what you advocate (New Deal, Great Society, etc) as constitutional. Bad jurisprudence also lead to corporate personhood.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But if you think they wrote the Constitution to empower corporations in the way they exist today, you're crazy."

Agreed. The founders wanted corporations to be strictly limited and they would have been outraged if anyone contended they should be allowed to participate in the political process in any way.

#103 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

But if you think they wrote the Constitution to empower corporations in the way they exist today, you're crazy.

I doubt they gave it much, if any, thought. Corporations were a rare form of business at the time. But you do bring up something important, corporations are creatures of statute. Most, if not all, state and federal statutes define person to include corporations. It is not a constitutional issue but one of statute. An amendment can easily fix that.

#104 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-10 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

But if you think they wrote the Constitution to empower corporations in the way they exist today, you're crazy.

#99 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

Who is saying that? I'm certainly not.

.every time I read a post by someone making that point I know I am reading the post of someone who is heavily influenced by Fascist propaganda.

It's called Civics101, Danni.

You should try it sometime.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Fact is, bad jurisprudence rubber-stamped so much of what you advocate (New Deal, Great Society, etc) as constitutional."

You seem to have a problem differentiating fact from opinion. None of those things would have troubled the founders as much as Corporate Personhood. To pretend differently is ridiculous. George WAshington got Congress to set up the first federally funded hospital for seaman thus the concept of government caring for the people was surely not repellent to him. I think conservatives today would love to rewrite all of our history but thankfully they can try but they can't totally succeed except in TExas.

#106 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

democracy because we vote to choose our leaders.

That is not what a Democracy is.

Democracy literally is mob rule.

We are a Democratic Republic.

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It's called Civics101, Danni.
You should try it sometime."

You are going to try to contend that in Civics101 billionaires should have been allowed to "invest" millions of dollars to get election results they want? REally Jeff? You know better. So do I. Billionaires buying elections, setting policy IS Fascism. YOu may not like it but that is what it is. YOur buddies the Koch Brothers are FAscists. Antonio Scalia is a FAscist. The Bush family are FAsicists and have been historically proven to be. YOu think we can just ignore the generational evidence of what I am saying is ridiculous, it's factual.
You really don't recognize that our invasion of Iraq wasn't all that different from Hitler's invasion of other nations?
Really?
I simply can't though it would be much easier to be able to not see what we don't want to see.

#108 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Democracy literally is mob rule."

Sad that you consider your fellow citizens a mob. REalize that even that is propaganda, democracy is governance by the citizens. It's what we pretend to be. To pretend that isn't the ideal is to accept that really we need to be overseen by "Lords" and other Royalty. We're fine without them, better actually.

#109 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm going to call it a night. This reminds me too much of trying to argue with my teenage daughter.

#110 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-02-10 11:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

You are going to try to contend that in Civics101 billionaires should have been allowed to "invest" millions of dollars to get election results they want?

Take it up with the 1st Amendment. Or, as has already been stated, advocate for an Amendment ending corporate personhood.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mob rule is a bad choice of words.

Majority rule defines a Democracy.

That's not what this country is.

#112 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Constitution places limitations on the federal government to prevent majority rule.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Take it up with the 1st Amendment. Or, as has already been stated, advocate for an Amendment ending corporate personhood."

The major flaw in our system, a corrupt SC. Should we endure the wrong forever? I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack, you might be happy with Fascism.
1st Amendment really, do you honestly believe the founding fathers thought corporations should be allowed to spend unlimited funds influencing elections and pretend that it was an expression of free speech?
REally?
REgardless of your answer I don't believe you honestly do but I do believe you might claim to believe that because it supports your agenda which, when you consider it corrupts the idea of free speech, is a Fascist agenda.
I've been reading up on Fascism, it's been quite enlightening and quite explanatory as to what we are going through in America today.

#114 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Constitution places limitations on the federal government to prevent majority rule."

Of course it does. It was a document intended to insure that the power would remain with the landed gentry white males. Sorry Jeff, that isn't how I want America to be today and I don't think it will ever be that way again...thankfully.

#115 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

What you fail to understand is that over 200+ years the Constitution has been amended to reflect a real democratization of America against the wishes of that white landed gentry. We aren't returning to the 1790's any time soon nor should we. Our view of justice today is much more evolved that they founders' who still believed in the acceptability of slavery. Please don't ever try to put their morality up against our own because they would seem to be "trafickers in humans" which is a major crime today.
The founders were barely civilized by today's standards.

#116 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-10 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course it does. It was a document intended to insure that the power would remain with the landed gentry white males. Sorry Jeff, that isn't how I want America to be today and I don't think it will ever be that way again...thankfully.

#115 | POSTED BY DANNI

What you fail to understand is that over 200+ years the Constitution has been amended to reflect a real democratization of America against the wishes of that white landed gentry. We aren't returning to the 1790's any time soon nor should we. Our view of justice today is much more evolved that they founders' who still believed in the acceptability of slavery. Please don't ever try to put their morality up against our own because they would seem to be "trafickers in humans" which is a major crime today.
The founders were barely civilized by today's standards.

#116 | POSTED BY DANNI

The Constitution has been amended.

Bingo!

A call to return this country to its constitutional foundations in no way is a call to abolish the Amendments. That is a common strawman that some on the left employ.

#117 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course it does. It was a document intended to insure that the power would remain with the landed gentry white males. Sorry Jeff, that isn't how I want America to be today and I don't think it will ever be that way again...thankfully.

#115 | POSTED BY DANNI

What you fail to understand is that over 200+ years the Constitution has been amended to reflect a real democratization of America against the wishes of that white landed gentry. We aren't returning to the 1790's any time soon nor should we. Our view of justice today is much more evolved that they founders' who still believed in the acceptability of slavery. Please don't ever try to put their morality up against our own because they would seem to be "trafickers in humans" which is a major crime today.
The founders were barely civilized by today's standards.

#116 | POSTED BY DANNI

The Constitution has been amended.

Bingo!

A call to return this country to its constitutional foundations in no way is a call to abolish the Amendments. That is a common strawman that some on the left employ.

#118 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-02-10 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

you guys are gonna be arguing OBAMA vs ROMNEY all the way to the concentration camps & guillotines, which are already prepared for you. BOTH of them are setting us up for it. Miss Hillary will be only too happy to attempt finish off the project ~ one small hitch, though: armed citizens. oh, and Maryland & other states giving the en~es~ay THE BOOT!

#119 | Posted by kenx at 2014-02-11 04:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Republican governors, including Scott Walker, are doing excellent for their states. Far better than the Democrat Governors in other states.

No one cares that you want to single out Christy.

The funny thing is that Christy is like a scape goat that you can all pay attention to as the other Republicans can gain popularity.

It's the fault of the Democrats that the Democrats are losing elections. (and getting recalled)

#120 | Posted by LastAmerican at 2014-02-11 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort