Yes, you are. You are telling me that a man who was there must be wrong because it doesn't fit the views for which you've been able to find support on the Internet. Not every fact is on the Internet, Murphy. If someone said something counter to what I think about Obama, would you not share it as a point of discussion? Would you not offer it even if you couldn't "prove" it? I bet you would. How many assertions do you believe about Obama that can't be proved? Do you buy it that he's not a Christian because he's not been photographed in church, or not often? Do you assert that Bush was 'cause he was so photographed a few times and 'cause he talked the talk?

It seems to me that you keep assuming this guy lied because you don't like what he said, and it so happens that you then found lots of evidence asserting that Bush did thus and such and believed thus and such regarding abortion. Your initial response was "I don't believe it, so it must not be true"; you went to facts after. I don't deny the evidence you offer; show me where I did. But you do know what nuance means, right? You do know that there are different visions of what abortion is, right? You do know that a president could sign a ban on late-term/partial-birth abortions as president and yet support abortions being safe, legal, and rare (not what he said, but it sure could be) when he was governor of a state years before, right? Or that he could have said so in a debate in order to score points over his more liberal opponent? Think it through, Murphy. I grant you your evidence. Why can't you accept that maybe, just maybe, someone who was there when you weren't isn't lying but is reporting something that actually happened?

But never mind, you're never going to accept this possibility. As I said, it's not worth arguing. You won't even accept a remote possibility without proof. I'm going to bed. Enjoy your certitude; it has gotten you this far.

203--Maybe the word "neocon" messes up my point. Apologies. Conservatives who rail about needing more religion in gov't are not old-school conservatives. Conservatives who push for more military engagement all over the world are not old-school conservatives. Conservatives who shout about shutting down liberal voices or shipping them off somewhere are not old-school conservatives. These people who engage in such actions are reactionaries. They are not conservatives. If there is overlap with neocons, so be it. I'm not labeling you; I'm labeling behaviors and where they seem to belong.

Bane, Afk. You missed Bane. That's arguably the better part of the mistake. It's Bain, you see. Bane means something else...

Bob, why are you arguing with someone who's suggesting that the argument you are in favor of is worth having?

I think "general welfare" can be very loosely, too loosely interpreted. Is this a real argument, that is a constitutional argument at the SCOTUS level, in favor of HCR?
+++++

Classic conservatism is not even remotely akin to modern-day conservatism. Neocons are nowhere near the old-school conservatives. They're reactionaries.

"PS - healthcare/medicine existed before the constitution was even ratified (airplanes did not). Your argument is a massive non-sequitur."

I'd say you're at least as guilty as he is. Medicine and doctors existed, but the healthcare system did not. Health insurance did not. There's a valid argument to be had about this, but I'm not sure it's in the "general welfare" phrase.

You should only be sorry for a misrepresentative, inane, talking-point headline.

Murphy, you seem to be back to "I don't like it, so it can't be true." I'm walking away now; there's no point. I suggest you do the same. You're flogging the deceased equine quadruped.

133/134. Ha! Given your comment about there being no Obama-bashing on DR, I was beginning to wonder. And I wouldn't have busted you on the orthography. I do that rarely, only when someone fucks up meaning or deserves pedantry. You seldom do the former and almost never fit the latter criterion. : )
+++++

"#youmightbealiberal If you don”t understand the difference between a public good and socialism."

Awfully ironic coming from you.
+++++

151--FF!
+++++

162--Hey! I'm not getting between you and Danforth. That motherfucker is rabid (I say that with love, Danny), and he knows much more about taxation than I do. Y'all have fun.

I give up, PA. Apparently you and I don't spend time on the same DR.

"Obama has been to church maybe three times since becoming POTUS. He does not seek any counsel from black clergy -- or any clergy for that matter. Perhaps it is the Christian religion that he has such distaste. After all, black liberation theology preaches that the Christian religion is the ‘white man's religion'."

Sez who? How in the world would anyone know? Does he have to announce it? Does one have to go to fucking church in order to qualify as Christian? That is STUPID. (What's the verse about praying in yoru closet? HELLO?????!!!!)
+++++

75--HA! I thought it was obvious. Methinks Danni needs a Band-aid for that sore nerve.

120--Great! Do you now want to dial back on your original assertion?

"I have never seen that but I'm sure you will point it out next time it happens. The fight is most likely about the type of income and not progressive income taxation."

Nope. It's about how much. "Fair." You have missed all the "raise taxes on the rich/job creators" arguments? Pretty hard to believe. And no, I won't sit around and wait for such an argument to arise so I can point it out to you. I have never seen a conservative here support a progressive tax scheme; you can look it up if you don't believe me. A guy like you must know how to use the archives. : ) (I seldom look up the past on here...)

"a closer look would reveal that the "left" would like the US Constitution to be flexible & ever-changing .."

Um, no. The document doesn't change, but it is interpreted. It's not immediately clear, and the realities of the world and the country change, necessitating interpretation. But never mind; by putting it the way you did, it's pretty clear to me that such concepts are beyond you or simply denied by you. But if you read up on TJ and on other founding fathers, you might learn something regarding this concept. It's hardly a newfangled liberal thing.

"~ one SC Justice recently stated that the US Constitution would NOT be a good template for emerging democracies"

Read the context; I did. It's not nearly as damning as you assert here.

"~ Obama declared during interview that the US Constitution was written BACKWARDS ..
"human rights" CANNOT be bestowed by THE CREATOR to We The People {mere peasants] .."

Link, please. I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

"~ the CENTRAL GVT as the "arbiter of fairness" [aka, the academic-elite central-planners] ..
MUST OWN & CONTROL all "Human Rights" to dispense as it sees fit"

Sez who? Is this another "Obama's a socialist!" screed?

".. radically transform .. hope & change baby! :)"

Is this a linkable thing, or just more of your very own interpretation?

Rcade, sometimes it's best to ignore.

But wasn't there a pretty long thread on this when it came up a couple of weeks back. Hell, I posted on it--that alone makes it long. : )

Of course, it has another, more fundamental meaning...

5--Fucker beat me to it. By one goddamn minute.

14--Boy, that was dumb. That's what "maybe" means; not is implied. In case you're wondering, "sometimes" works the same way. Are you a native speaker?

Wrong thread, upyours? Was anyone talking about Gov. Sarah Palin (Ret.)?

But hey, funny that she never made that point out loud. Her resignation speech was something about salmon and... rivers and... I don't know what all. Was she waxing metaphoric?

" the rights of the individual reign supreme."

That would indicate to me that nothing else matters, and I don't agree with that. I'm more of a "greater good for the greatest number" kind of guy, tempered of course by the concept of individual liberty. But all of that is wide open to interpretation, isn't it?

My right to throw a punch ends at your nose, eh, or just before it? And even then, if I swing and deliberately don't hit, I'm intimidating you, and that's awfully problematic. So no, individual rights do not reign supreme. Government, it has been said, is the shit we do together to make our society work. So yeah, we need some of that. And I think that community is often as important as the individual...

"As far as Americans being terriorist, one only needs to look at the state dept to understand the truth in that statement. The idea that we should give this or any other government entity more money and power is insanity."

Well, I was talking about Nichols, McVeigh, Padilla, al-Awlaki... (I abhor the NDAA legislation as well; I think that's at least partly where you were going.)

"~ easier said than done with the printed word"

That's why I said astute reader, not astute listener.

"~ yes, we do agree .. however a SCOTUS ruling CAN be overturned by a subsequent court"

I did not and would not deny that. Though as far as I know, those have been few and far between. (Dred Scott...)

"ya got your 9 guys in Black who may have different visions of what their job description is .. as we can see, regular folks disagree on what that SC job description actually is"

I think they agree on what their job description is (to interpret the Constitution); I think they disagree (guys and gals) on what interpretation means and what tools should be used. Maybe that's what you meant. Seems to me the Constitution lays out their powers. But I haven't read it in a while. : ) If folks think that SCOTUS overreaches, maybe they should take action of some kind--and whining about it on a political blogsite doesn't count as action.

I understood your point, Dirk. How about my comments on how you and other who believe as you do (which could include me) can motivate the citizenry to break the duopoly?

And btw, some terrorists ARE Americans.

72--What does that have to do with what I said. And guess what? Many of us liberals feel the same way about "the end justifies the means." Funny how people on both sides say that when the end is not one with which they are in accord. Btw, NDAA PISSES ME OFF. You need to take that up with your congresspersons and senators, who likely voted for it. (Pretty much everyone did.) That is hardly Obama's or the Democrats' fault alone.
+++++

"You don't think "The Simpsons" is all that funny, but you watch it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense."

LMFAO!!!

"You're afraid of the "liberal media.""

Some kid at the HS where I teach has a bumper sticker reading something like: "Don't believe the lying liberal media!" I wince every time I see it, not because I disagree but because how can a teenager (most teenagers) have analyzed the MSM vs. Fox (which is pretty MSM now but is held up as not)? Or rather more to the point, what teenager (most) is going to take the time to do so. I also wonder if the kid is in my media studies class (where we really need to do more analysis, and where I am honest about my bias and work very hard to always present both sides--and do pretty well, judging from comments by conservative adults and students who have been in my class).
+++++

"I see you too mised the part about conservatives and donations, and planthripy. Also no one is suggesting that progressive taxes are not conservative."

67--That wouldn't be incendiary; it would be wrong. That's my core point. The rest of your post, however, is more nuanced and more flexible than anything else you've said in the post. If you started with the concept in that last sentence, I probably wouldn't disagree--or not so vociferously--with you.

68--Now you're proposing to the guy? Yeesh. First you don't even wanna fuck him. Now you wanna marry him? : ) Okay, I had to sharpen my own stick there--and my dig was just a little less lame than yours. If you wanna poke at someone, PA, you can do better. I've seen you be more clever than a sophomoric play on the word "fuck."

12--Maybe they have.

"re #55 .. Prag-dude as you lecture Murph, r u intentionally obfuscating?
.. sure a SC decision can reference an earlier case, but all those cases require a traceable path to the US Constitution"

Not at all (obfuscating, I mean). You will note I asked a question. As an astute reader (um), you should be able to read the difference between a serious question and sarcasm. But here's the other piece--referencing earlier cases is a traceable path the Constitution. Of course, a new SCOTUS decision doesn't rely solely on those earlier decisions. But don't we agree that Citizens United relies on an earlier decision that established corporate personhood, not on a direct provision in the document? That's how I understand it, and I certainly can be wrong.

My point to Murphy was pretty clear, btw: Just because it's not listed in there doesn't mean it's verboten. There's no right to privacy in those words, but decision after decision clearly asserts one (this has to do with the penumbra concept underlying the Bill of Rights, as I understand it). She keeps saying "It's not in there," as if that alone is reason to reject something. She keeps suggesting that she knows the Constitution, so she can say what's right, and ignoring the reality of the practice and philosophy of the SCOTUS. We can disagree with SCOTUS justices and decisions all we want, but we as individual citizens, by design of the founding fathers, don't get to decide (with any force of law) what's constitutional or not. I know, I know; she didn't say by force of law. But she sure asserts without acknowledging how the system really works.

Obfuscation, LE, is a deliberate act. I could be wrong on some things (I often am); I could be misinterpreting things. But I do not obfuscate (okay, I may have, but usually it's transparent and in fun or mockery, not in a serious discussion).