Sarah knows we all miss President Bush . Everyone here at Mediate loves you , Sarah . No need to read any further comments , Mrs. Palin .

By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.

“Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush’s name while campaigning this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/cnn-poll-was-bush-better-president-than-obama/

She did a helluva job!

And pretty, too. (You realize there’s a left wing firestorm coming up.)

writer said:
And pretty, too. (You realize there’s a left wing firestorm coming up.)

They’re circling the ol’ progressive wagons….heh heh heh

HEY I THOUGHT THE TEA PARTY WAS ALL ABOUT NEW IDEAS?!?!?!

Guess not.

First time in history a campaign rally started with “Watch my new reality show!!”.

Sarah, you’re a real trailblazer.
Speaking of blazers, do you own any that aren’t red?

Milbank’s “Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America” has sold fewer than 1,600 copies nationwide since it was released Oct. 5, according to a source with knowledge of the figures…

By comparison, Beck released a novel this summer called The Overton Window that sold more than 132,000 copies in its first week.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/22/writer-dana-milbank%e2%80%99s-critical-book-on-glenn-beck-sees-slow-sales/#ixzz13Dk3RbpT

LOL

GWB’s foriegn policy must have been pretty good because his sucessor basically continued those same policies: rendition, wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay, excursions into friendly countries (Pakistan,) taking it to the Taliban, fighting forces in Iraq.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Azarkhan said:
Milbank’s “Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America” has sold fewer than 1,600 copies nationwide since it was released Oct. 5, according to a source with knowledge of the figures…

No one gives a shit except for you Righties.

Why the fuck should I care how many books Dana Milbank’s sells. Or more importantly, why do you care how many books Glenn Beck sells?

Are you getting a piece of the action?

Scott_in_MI said:
GWB’s foriegn policy must have been pretty good because his sucessor basically continued those same policies: rendition, wiretapping, Guantanamo Bay, excursions into friendly countries (Pakistan,) taking it to the Taliban, fighting forces in Iraq.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Well, Obama didn’t EXACTLY follow Bush’s foreign policy. For instance, he didn’t start a war under false pretenses.

Azarkhan said:
Milbank’s “Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America” has sold fewer than 1,600 copies nationwide since it was released Oct. 5, according to a source with knowledge of the figures…

By comparison, Beck released a novel this summer called The Overton Window that sold more than 132,000 copies in its first week.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/22/writer-dana-milbank%e2%80%99s-critical-book-on-glenn-beck-sees-slow-sales/#ixzz13Dk3RbpT

LOL

What do you think that means?

Big Eddie said:
Sarah knows we all miss President Bush . Everyone here at Mediate loves you , Sarah . No need to read any further comments , Mrs. Palin .

Jesus, why don’t you send her a dozen roses and call it good.

I am shocked, shocked I say that people at a Drop Out Governor Konklave would cheer at the mention of W. Has the world flipped on its axis? What’s next? A pack of Cub Scouts cheering the grand opening of a Baskin-Robbins? A fraternity cheering because a beer keg fell off of a Budwesier truck when it made too sharp a turn?

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Well, Obama didn’t EXACTLY follow Bush’s foreign policy. For instance, he didn’t start a war under false pretenses.

Well if GWB used false pretenses to start a war, I guess he was in good company because Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Maddy Albright, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Dashel, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Sandy Burger also believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, in an intensifying clash with GOP upstart Sean Bielat, has pledged not to take campaign cash from lenders that got federal bailouts — yet has raked in more than $40,000 from bank execs and special interests connected to the staggering government loans, a Herald review found.

Frank vowed in February 2009 that he wouldn’t accept campaign donations from banks that received money under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or political action committees tied to such institutions….

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1290601

Frances wrote:

.. going to make this George W. Bush character popular on the campaign trail no matter what challenges stand before her.
————————————————————————————————————————————————–
FYI, FRANCES: The characters are you and the Marxist, Obama!

Both will be irrelevant after Nov. 2nd!

Scott_in_MI said:
I guess he was in good company because Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Maddy Albright, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Dashel, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Sandy Burger also believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Hmmm….I don’t recall any of them starting a war.

I must have missed it.

Scott_in_MI said:
Well if GWB used false pretenses to start a war, I guess he was in good company because Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Maddy Albright, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Dashel, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Sandy Burger also believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

I see a diversion. Rather clumsy. You need to take lesson from Kumquat or Tumbleweed.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Well, Obama didn’t EXACTLY follow Bush’s foreign policy. For instance, he didn’t start a war under false pretenses.

The Democrats voted for it!

They must be easily DUPED! Oh, that’s rights, they voted for Obama (and were DUPED twice)!

juan said:
The Democrats voted for it!

They must be easily DUPED! Oh, that’s rights, they voted for Obama (and were DUPED twice)!

Can you say “Bush’s War”? That’s a good boy.

Hey Mr. President:
“We know what you’ve been shoveling all along!”

You Bring the Truth To The People, Sarah!!

YOU BETCHA’!!!

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Can you say “Bush’s War”? That’s a good boy.

That’s why he gets the credit or the blame, however shit works out in 10 years.

I’m guessing “blame”.

Barack Obama, Marxist student

Thomas Lifson

A fascinating interview with someone who knew Barack Obama at Occidental College, and was a fellow Marxist at the time, can be heard here.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/barack_obama_marxist_student.html

Azarkhan said:
Milbank’s “Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America” has sold fewer than 1,600 copies nationwide since it was released Oct. 5, according to a source with knowledge of the figures… By comparison, Beck released a novel this summer called The Overton Window that sold more than 132,000 copies in its first week. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/22/writer-dana-milbank%e2%80%99s-critical-book-on-glenn-beck-sees-slow-sales/#ixzz13Dk3RbpT LOL

Liberals fail with books, talk radio and cable news channels.

What was the crowd total?

Oh, and we’re much better at getting elected!

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Hmmm….I don’t recall any of them starting a war. I must have missed it.

Hey Einstien, GWB got permission from Congress to start the war and after the war started, these same folks voted over and over and over again to refund the war.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Dave Richards said:
Liberals fail with books, talk radio and cable news channels.

Pretty much , dont forget magazines / newspapers.

IOW: Nobody’s buying what your selling

Good timing for W to get this kind of positive attention – his book comes out in a week or so, doesn’t it?

Good job Sarah!

“Miss me yet?”

Oh and BFD: Thanks

NORBIT said:
Hey Mr. President:
“We know what you’ve been shoveling all along!”

You Bring the Truth To The People, Sarah!!

YOU BETCHA’!!!

You should be embarrassed but having said that, I understand completely why you aren’t.

The Real Royal King said:
I see a diversion. Rather clumsy. You need to take lesson from Kumquat or Tumbleweed.

No diversion, just using facts to crush someone’s argument.

You guys are nuts. If you think for one minute Obama will lose re-election in 2012 to the likes of Palin or any other right winger. Please, I said this before, Put her on the ticket, PLEASE. You all know the power of Obama Nation. There is No One that even comes close. That’s what really pisses you morons off. Our President Is The One. We Are Obama Nation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now lets hear the firestorm. “Back To You, Fuckers”.

Labor statistics show Right-To-Work states soaring in job growth, and union states collapsing!!

CLEARLY SHOWS IT BY 60% SWING!

11-02-10

roxsteady said:
Oh, and we’re much better at getting elected!

Well I hoped you enjoyed 2008 , Obama and the democrats won’t fool WE the people again !

writer said:
And pretty, too. (You realize there’s a left wing firestorm coming up.)

Oooh! She shure is purty! Gowlly, she shure is, by gum. Aw, shucks, she is just sooooo perty….. ! ‘N this was a nifty post, shure ‘nuf.

Vote on the GOP’s best ad theme:

Stop the Mosque!

Free Juan!!

- or -

We know what you’ve been shoveling all along.

murf said:
Well I hoped you enjoyed 2008 , Obama and the democrats won’t fool WE the people again !

If Beck and Palin can fool you then YOU the nit-wits can be fooled over and over and over again. And murf, you’ll like it.

Ed Schultz said:
We Are Obama Nation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!

Azarkhan said:
By comparison, Beck released a novel this summer called The Overton Window that sold more than 132,000 copies in its first week.

Beck really has you guys bamboozled.

“IF IT’S GOOD FOR BECK IT MUST BE GOOD FOR ME!!!”

The perfect sucker.

There is a reason “fanatic” comes from the word fan.

cmdrgmh said:
You guys are nuts. If you think for one minute Obama will lose re-election in 2012 to the likes of Palin or any other right winger. Please, I said this before, Put her on the ticket, PLEASE. You all know the power of Obama Nation. There is No One that even comes close. That’s what really pisses you morons off. Our President Is The One. We Are Obama Nation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now lets hear the firestorm. “Back To You, Fuckers”.

“Our President is the One”

You can get off your knnes now. You should feel ashamed of yourself for worshiping a regular person. You do realize Obama is flesh and blood don’t you?

By the way,you’re right about Palin not being able to win against Obama…thats because Obama isn’t even going to run in 2012. He’s gonna pull an LBJ “I will not accept . . . “

Scott_in_MI said:
No diversion, just using facts to crush someone’s argument.

Sorry it didn’t have the intended effect.

Ted Olbermann- said:
If Beck and Palin can fool you then YOU the nit-wits can be fooled over and over and over again. And murf, you’ll like it.

You magnificent bastard you, GOOOOD EVENING TED!

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Beck really has you guys bamboozled. “IF IT’S GOOD FOR BECK IT MUST BE GOOD FOR ME!!!” The perfect sucker. There is a reason “fanatic” comes from the word fan.

Well, if you believe prepaid backpacks of freeze-dried lasagna are going to be delivered to your house during a catastrophe, you are most assuredly “bamboozable”.

NORBIT said:
Vote on the GOP’s best ad theme:

Stop the Mosque!

Free Juan!!

- or -

We know what you’ve been shoveling all along.

I’m kinda partial to…

‘We are not Witches or Nazis or Horse-Porn Aficionados……We’re you.”

The Real Royal King said:
Sorry it didn’t have the intended effect.

The weakness of your comeback tells me otherwise.

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/10/23/awesome-krauthammer-confronts-nprs-nina-totenberg-on-juan-williams-firing/

Scott_in_MI said:
thats because Obama isn’t even going to run in 2012.

Before then, let the investigations and impeachment begin!

and if you let either side fool you you are a idiot

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Hmmm….I don’t recall any of them starting a war.

Hmmm . . . but I do recall them voting for it. The President Bush played his constitutional role in starting that war, and so did they.

juan said:
Before then, let the investigations and impeachment begin!

Its not going to be the Consitution bending that will force him to withdraw…it’s gonna be a horrible economy, extremely low poll numbers and some kind of foriegn policy disaster.

Azarkhan said:
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/10/23/awesome-krauthammer-confronts-nprs-nina-totenberg-on-juan-williams-firing/

Hmmm…interesting that they cut that clip at the exact point someone was saying…”It was not a fireable offense…” but….

I guess you Righties don’t want anyone to hear the “but’. Fair and Balanced as usual.

Repost that cllip when you it lets the guy finish his fucking sentence tyvm.

AnonymousFinch said:
Hmmm . . . but I do recall them voting for it. The President Bush played his constitutional role in starting that war, and so did they.

Dont even both Mr Finch…facts and logic don’t apply to a far left wing argument.

AnonymousFinch said:
Hmmm . . . but I do recall them voting for it. The President Bush played his constitutional role in starting that war, and so did they.

Let’s remember in the strict sense, this wasn’t a war. No Declaration passed by Congress. It was simply an “Executive Action,” albeit one in which Congress was complicit, which included both an Invasion and an Occupation. The Action was unConstitutional and Congress’ timid head-nodding didn’t render it any more or less unConsitutional.

murf said:
You magnificent bastard you, GOOOOD EVENING TED!

About what we can expect I assume?

The Real Royal King said:
Let’s remember in the strict sense, this wasn’t a war. No Declaration passed by Congress. It was simply an “Executive Action,” albeit one in which Congress was complicit, which included both an Invasion and an Occupation. The Action was unConstitutional and Congress’ timid head-nodding didn’t render it any more or less unConsitutional.

And so, you also believe that every “war” since World War II was also unconstitutional? Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Kosovo? Right?

And to be clear, you agree that the Iraq war complied with the War Power Act, correct? But you think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional?

The Real Royal King said:
Let’s remember in the strict sense, this wasn’t a war. No Declaration passed by Congress. It was simply an “Executive Action,” albeit one in which Congress was complicit, which included both an Invasion and an Occupation. The Action was unConstitutional and Congress’ timid head-nodding didn’t render it any more or less unConsitutional.

If it was really unconstitutional, do you think the Dems would passed up on articles of impeachment?

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Hmmm…interesting that they cut that clip at the exact point someone was saying…”It was not a fireable offense…” but….

I guess you Righties don’t want anyone to hear the “but’. Fair and Balanced as usual.

Repost that cllip when you it lets the guy finish his fucking sentence tyvm.

Ya know , this shit really chaps my hide. The guy obviously had a lot more to say than “”It was not a fireable offense….”, but it was edited out of context to include only the portion of his sentence to bolster the Right’s position.
Either don’t include the guys comment or include the whole thing and let him finish his thought.
So dishonest. I condemn that crap when the right does it and when Olbermann and Schultz do it.

That clip will be the most despicable thing I see all day.
Am I am going to watch Geraldo later!

Scott_in_MI said:
If it was really unconstitutional, do you think the Dems would passed up on articles of impeachment?

Impeachment? If it’s unconstitutional, why not run into federal court and get an injunction? I’m sure the Supreme Court would be willing to take that appeal.

Obama twisted Abraham Lincoln’s words the other day in Ohio to make it sound like Honest Abe was a socialist too.
Leave it to Hands Off Texas to catch this:

On Wednesday during a speech in Parma, Ohio, President Obama decided to quote a former President to help justify his policy initiatives:

“But in the words of the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves”.

I assume he was paraphrasing this actual quote from President Lincoln, but unfortunately he left out the most important part:

“The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.”

Obama doesn’t get it. And he clearly doesn’t get Abraham Lincoln.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
The guy obviously had a lot more to say than “”It was not a fireable offense….”,

The guy was Colby King, who works for the Wash Post, not NPR. The question was for Nina Totenberg, who does work for NPR and has given extreme left opinions for years. Anyway, below is the link for the show if you want to watch the whole thing.

http://www.insidewashington.tv/

AnonymousFinch said:
And so, you also believe that every “war” since World War II was also unconstitutional? Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Kosovo? Right? And to be clear, you agree that the Iraq war complied with the War Power Act, correct? But you think the War Powers Act is unconstitutional?

This occured even before WWI. The great Liberal Hero Woodrow Wilson used American troops in Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua and Hondouras. I dont recall any war being declared against any of these countries.

Of course, every conflict since WWII has not risen to the status of “war”. And, more’s the pity.

The Supreme Court has more-or-less determined that police and executive actions are not unConstitutional. And, more’s the pity. I believe the Court to have been wrong, but that’s of no consequence, is it?

Why not actually declare war in the proper sense? It’s a hard sale to the American public. Americans require that war be sanitized by it not being called a war, and, more importantly, by not having compulsory service. Then, we can proclaim we are peace-loving and go about our own safe and comfortable lives without guilt. Centuries from now, I shouldn’t doubt that historians will postulate that the decline of America began when we sanitized war.

I love watching the libs running against Bush.

It is so funny they can’t run on anything they did in the last 20 months; in fact, they won’t even mention what they did in the last 20 months.

Scott_in_MI said:
If it was really unconstitutional, do you think the Dems would passed up on articles of impeachment?

You learned little from Newt’s efforts to impeach Clinton, I gather.

AnonymousFinch said:
Impeachment? If it’s unconstitutional, why not run into federal court and get an injunction? I’m sure the Supreme Court would be willing to take that appeal.

Toche’ Mr Finch, toche’

The Real Royal King said:
The Supreme Court has more-or-less determined that police and executive actions are not unConstitutional. And, more’s the pity. I believe the Court to have been wrong, but that’s of no consequence, is it?

Oh, I see. When you said “unconstitutional,” you didn’t mean the U.S. Constitution. You meant the TRRK “constitution,” a document that apparently means whatever you want it to.

Out of curiosity, when you say that Obamacare is “constitutional,” do you mean the U.S. Constitution, or your own private constitution.

murf said:
Well I hoped you enjoyed 2008 , Obama and the democrats won’t fool WE the people again !

..and if the republicans don’t keep true to their word after we take the House and possibly the Senate , the same applies.. We will run a third party candidate in 2012.

notsofast said:
I love watching the libs running against Bush. It is so funny they can’t run on anything they did in the last 20 months; in fact, they won’t even mention what they did in the last 20 months.

You haven’t been listening to any campaign speeches, have you, Nutso?

When she said “aren’t you all proud to be American”, all the libs covering the speech ran from the room!

The Real Royal King said:
You learned little from Newt’s efforts to impeach Clinton, I gather.

Evidently you learned little. Pres Clinton was impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate.

The Real Royal King said:
You haven’t been listening to any campaign speeches, have you, Nutso?

Sure have! Listen to one the other night saying Bush is to blame.

hahahahahahahahhahh

The Real Royal King said:
Of course, every conflict since WWII has not risen to the status of “war”. . . The Supreme Court has more-or-less determined that police and executive actions are not unConstitutional.

So based on Supreme Court decisions (and not what you believe) the Iraq War WAS or WASN’T unconsitutional?

notsofast said:
Sure have! Listen to one the other night saying Bush is to blame.

hahahahahahahahhahh

Is that you or the mullet laughing. One more “ha” please.

The Real Royal King said:
You haven’t been listening to any campaign speeches, have you, Nutso?

Hey, King, look at what this Dem thinks of what you libs have accomplished!

LOL

He condenses what Americans’ are thinking into a 30 second ad!!

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/10/12/democrat-joe-manchin-s-republican-tv-commercial.html

It sounds like you have had your ears and eyes closed for the last 20 months.

AnonymousFinch said:
Oh, I see. When you said “unconstitutional,” you didn’t mean the U.S. Constitution. You meant the TRRK “constitution,” a document that apparently means whatever you want it to. Out of curiosity, when you say that Obamacare is “constitutional,” do you mean the U.S. Constitution, or your own private constitution.

Ouch.

Down goes TRRK down goes TRRK

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 You’re out!

Azarkhan said:
The guy was Colby King, who works for the Wash Post, not NPR. The question was for Nina Totenberg, who does work for NPR and has given extreme left opinions for years. Anyway, below is the link for the show if you want to watch the whole thing.

http://www.insidewashington.tv/

I have to go to work but it appears to me that the minute the conversation started to go “off message” it was terminated, even though it was in the middle of a sentence.

Am I wrong?

The righties here didn’t vote for Obama and lost. Do you righties think that you are the Majority of this Country? Your not. Your nothing more then 20%. You get so mad that a Black guy beat your little war monger McCain/Palin. That was the best you had. You lost. Now you put up retarded morons in republican districts, thinking we give a shit about your psychopaths. Christine the witch, Joe Miller who wants to cut Social Security, Medicare, and yes your unemployment. Not just ours, but yours too. Sharon Angel who also wants to destroy this country with the same nut bullshit. Just remember, when you try to call for help, and the Police can’t come, or the Paramedics won’t come, or the Fire Dept. won’t come, Blame yourselves. You think the stimulus failed, but what about every rethuglican that in writing requested and received that money for their state and district for police, fire and ems, teachers, and other needed services. That’s right people All Of Them In Writing praised the stimulus money. Every single one of them. Without it we would all be without normal services we use everyday, let alone the Jobs in the private sector that it created. 650,000 in Florida alone. Now every state has a the same story.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Am I wrong?

The clip is titled Krauthammer confronts Totenberg, not Krauthammer confronts King…

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/10/23/awesome-krauthammer-confronts-nprs-nina-totenberg-on-juan-williams-firing/

Scott_in_MI said:
Ouch.

Down goes TRRK down goes TRRK

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 You’re out!

My greatest wish in life would be to have TRRK on the witness stand for cross-examination for 1/2 hour. It wouldn’t pretty.

cmdrgmh said:
The righties here didn’t vote for Obama and lost. Do you righties think that you are the Majority of this Country? Your not. Your nothing more then 20%.

NOW THATS PRETTY FUNNY CMDRGMH !! Try 40% ! ..and uh cmdrgh its actually you liberals that are the 20%..

cmdrgmh said:
Your nothing more then 20%

Actually, you’re nothing more then 20%. LOL:

Conservatives maintained and built on their numerical advantage over liberals in the first half of 2010, a new Gallup poll finds.

According to the poll, 42 percent of respondents described themselves as either very conservative or conservative, up from 40 percent in 2009. Meanwhile, only 20 percent called themselves either very liberal or liberal, down from 21 percent last year. 35 percent of respondents described themselves as moderate, down from 36 percent in 2009….

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/conservatives-outnumber-l_n_625658.html

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
I have to go to work but it appears to me that the minute the conversation started to go “off message” it was terminated, even though it was in the middle of a sentence.

Am I wrong?

The sad part is that Nina had a weak defense (or no defense at all) but this guy actually had something valuable to contribute.
It is obvious your site cut the sentence to purposely include “not a fireable offense” but not the rest.

I stand by my condemnation. If what he was saying wasn’t relevant to Krauts question then don’t include any of the guys statement, But certainly do not just edit favorable part.

Scott_in_MI said:
So based on Supreme Court decisions (and not what you believe) the Iraq War WAS or WASN’T unconsitutional?

If you want a definitive answer from the Court, I can’t give it. The closest we can come is the Civil War-era Prizes Case in which the Court indicated that the President might order troops into combat for defensive purposes without a Congressional Declaration. But, what is “defensive” is a political question. And that appears to be the way the Court stands. The Court doesn’t take up the Constitutionality because it is a political question. I doubt we’ll ever have a definitive answer. So, de facto, the action is presumed Constiutional. Of course, I may be incorrect about never having a definitive answer. When the Court effectively appointed W president in 2000, it ought to have then refused to consider because of the political question doctrine and the separation of powers.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
I stand by my condemnation. If what he was saying wasn’t relevant to Krauts question then don’t include any of the guys statement,

Bored now.

Scott_in_MI said:
Ouch. Down goes TRRK down goes TRRK 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 You’re out!

I’d say you might have been a bit premature, One Scott Schott. A thoughtful, reasoned post cannot be grunted out like something Nutso might do.

Azarkhan said:
The clip is titled Krauthammer confronts Totenberg, not Krauthammer confronts King…

I stand by my condemnation. If what he King saying wasn’t relevant to Krauts question then don’t include any of the guys statement. But certainly do not include just the favorable part to Krauts position.

Not Kosher.

cmdrgmh said:
The righties here didn’t vote for Obama and lost. Do you righties think that you are the Majority of this Country? Your not. Your nothing more then 20%.

Why must you libs lie?

“As the leadership of the Democrat party lurches further and further towards liberal extremism, a Gallup poll reveals that most Americans identify themselves as being politically conservative and not just by a small margin. Twice as many people identify themselves as Conservative than they do liberal. According to Gallup 40% of the population consider themselves conservative, 36% believe they are moderate, and a mere 20% identify themselves as liberal.”

Azarkhan said:
Bored now.

*Stewie voice*

Victory is mine!

cmdrgmh said:
You get so mad that a Black guy beat your little war monger McCain/Palin

The ONLY people that give a flying shit that Obama is black is YOU and YOUR PATHETIC RACE BAITING buddies who have brought RACE TO THE FOREFRONT OF POLITICS and divided this country !

AnonymousFinch said:
My greatest wish in life would be to have TRRK on the witness stand for cross-examination for 1/2 hour. It wouldn’t pretty.

That’s your greatest wish? I’m sorry to hear that. Very funny by the way and please check your over inflated ego at the door. Hilarious, keep em coming.

cmdrgmh said:
Without it we would all be without normal services we use everyday, let alone the Jobs in the private sector that it created. 650,000 in Florida alone. Now every state has a the same story.

Ouch! Another lie!

“48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since stimulus
By Jay Heflin – 08/20/10 03:22 PM ET

House Ways and Means ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) on Friday released data complied by his office that shows 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the February 2009 enactment of the economic stimulus bill.

“While Democrats promised their 2009 stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs, the reality is far different,” stated a release from Camp’s office. “To date, 2.6 million jobs, including 2.5 million private sector jobs, have been lost.”

According to the report, only Alaska and North Dakota have experienced positive job growth since early 2009. The District of Columbia also saw an increase in hiring during that period.

The report from Camp came on the heels of a Labor Department report on Thursday that showed jobless claims increased last week to 500,000, up 12,000 from the week’s prior total of 488,000.

The Labor report is a strong indication that employers are resistant to hiring amid the weak economy recovery.

Jobless claims have increased in four of the past five weeks. “

The Real Royal King said:
So, de facto, the action is presumed Constiutional.

Why thank you Sir. You helped prove my point.

Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the typical Democrat:

cmdrgmh said:
The righties here didn’t vote for Obama and lost. Do you righties think that you are the Majority of this Country? Your not. Your nothing more then 20%. You get so mad that a Black guy beat your little war monger McCain/Palin. That was the best you had. You lost. Now you put up retarded morons in republican districts, thinking we give a shit about your psychopaths. Christine the witch, Joe Miller who wants to cut Social Security, Medicare, and yes your unemployment. Not just ours, but yours too. Sharon Angel who also wants to destroy this country with the same nut bullshit. Just remember, when you try to call for help, and the Police can’t come, or the Paramedics won’t come, or the Fire Dept. won’t come, Blame yourselves. You think the stimulus failed, but what about every rethuglican that in writing requested and received that money for their state and district for police, fire and ems, teachers, and other needed services. That’s right people All Of Them In Writing praised the stimulus money. Every single one of them. Without it we would all be without normal services we use everyday, let alone the Jobs in the private sector that it created. 650,000 in Florida alone. Now every state has a the same story.

Bush’s Record?

You mean this one?

http://tinyurl.com/25rqghs

Or this one?

http://tinyurl.com/26br5w6

or this one?

http://tinyurl.com/2a82rnh

Or this one?

http://tinyurl.com/2fuotun

Stupid bitch and her ilk

Boy you guys are dumb. 20% are righties. I didn’t say republican, I said Righties. There is a difference. Far right winger psychopaths. They are commonly known as Righties. That’s your teagbagging, and far right winger psychopaths. You total 20 % , 24% Repubs. . 28% are Dems left of center . 22% are lefties. 6% independ and other. Of all registered voters. Nate Silver stats 2009 – 2010. “Back to you Fuckers”

ConLoonPatrol said:
ConLoonPatrol says:
October 23, 2010 at 7:29 pm ConLoonPatrol(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Thanks for reminding us that BHO has had more US soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 20 months than Bush had in 7 years.

You must be so proud.

cmdrgmh said:
Boy you guys are dumb. 20% are righties. I didn’t say republican, I said Righties.

Wow are you dumb!

Conservatives are righties and NO ONE said Republicans!!!

Learn to READ:

“According to Gallup 40% of the population consider themselves conservative, 36% believe they are moderate, and a mere 20% identify themselves as liberal.”

Now kindly STFU!

ConLoonPatrol said:
Bush’s Record? You mean this one? http://tinyurl.com/25rqghs Or this one? http://tinyurl.com/26br5w6 or this one? http://tinyurl.com/2a82rnh Or this one? http://tinyurl.com/2fuotun Stupid bitch and her ilk

You got any pictures of Clintons’ war dead? Or Baracks? How’s that Afghanistan thing working for Ol’ Hopey now?

cmdrgmh said:
Boy you guys are dumb. 20% are righties. I didn’t say republican, I said Righties

We didn’t say republican either , it said CONSERVATIVE , y’know ” righties ” .

cmdrgmh said:
Boy you guys are dumb. 20% are righties. I didn’t say republican, I said Righties. There is a difference. Far right winger psychopaths. They are commonly known as Righties. That’s your teagbagging, and far right winger psychopaths. You total 20 % , 24% Repubs. . 28% are Dems left of center . 22% are lefties. 6% independ and other. Of all registered voters. Nate Silver stats 2009 – 2010. “Back to you Fuckers”

Who let Alvin Greene in here?

timzank said:
timzank says:
October 23, 2010 at 7:42 pm timzank(Quote)

murf said:
murf says:
October 23, 2010 at 7:42 pm murf(Quote)

Scott_in_MI said:
Scott_in_MI says:

Come on guys. Admit it- you have come on here under the sock puppet name cmdrgmh and posted these moronic, utterly stupid posts to make libs look bad.

Admit it or there is no soup for YOU!!!!
October 23, 2010 at 7:45 pm Scott_in_MI(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

notsofast said:
Come on guys. Admit it- you have come on here under the sock puppet name cmdrgmh and posted these moronic, utterly stupid posts to make libs look bad. Admit it or there is no soup for YOU!!!!October 23, 2010 at 7:45 pm Scott_in_MI(Quote)Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

LOL sadly cmdrgmh is his/her own person..again, sadly

notsofast says:
October 23, 2010 at 7:25 pm notsofast(Quote)
1 1
cmdrgmh said:
Without it we would all be without normal services we use everyday, let alone the Jobs in the private sector that it created. 650,000 in Florida alone. Now every state has a the same story.

Ouch! Another lie!

“48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since stimulus
By Jay Heflin – 08/20/10 03:22 PM ET

House Ways and Means ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) on Friday released data complied by his office that shows 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the February 2009 enactment of the economic stimulus bill.

“While Democrats promised their 2009 stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs, the reality is far different,” stated a release from Camp’s office. “To date, 2.6 million jobs, including 2.5 million private sector jobs, have been lost.”

According to the report, only Alaska and North Dakota have experienced positive job growth since early 2009. The District of Columbia also saw an increase in hiring during that period.

The report from Camp came on the heels of a Labor Department report on Thursday that showed jobless claims increased last week to 500,000, up 12,000 from the week’s prior total of 488,000.

The Labor report is a strong indication that employers are resistant to hiring amid the weak economy recovery.

Jobless claims have increased in four of the past five weeks. ”

_______________________________________________________________

Jay Heflin = Far right wing nut job.

Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, Use a real reporter if your going to reff. a reporter. You still did not even answer if you want all those services cut if these nut jobs had thier way. Also the information on all of it is found at the CBO. All the requests for stimulus money, the whole nine yards. Look it up for your self, Dumbass.

Miss George W. Bush? Like Freddie Mercury would have missed AIDS — if he’d survived it. Bringing back George W. Bush – the Tealiban goal. The man was the worst president in American history. From the Blunder in Iraq to the Jack Abramoffing of America to the pooch screwing in Afghanistan to the destruction of America’s economy (and the world’s economy in the process) – yet Sarah Palin ‘Evokes George W. Bush’s record” – stupidi-tea, insani-tea and no grasp on reali-tea.

notsofast said:
Come on guys. Admit it- you have come on here under the sock puppet name cmdrgmh and posted these moronic, utterly stupid posts to make libs look bad. Admit it or there is no soup for YOU!!!!October 23, 2010 at 7:45 pm Scott_in_MI(Quote)Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Thats just your typical Democrat voter

cmdrgmh said:
Jay Heflin = Far right wing nut job.

LOL

It’s the messenger excuse again!!!!!

Disprove it child- he published this in August!

LOL

Let’s see what the DOL says, shall we:

DEPT.OF LABOR – 48 of 50 STATES LOST JOBS SINCE OBAMA STIMULUS
While Democrats promised their 2009 stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs, the reality is far different. To date, 2.6 million jobs – including 2.5 million private sector jobs – have been lost. The latest data from the Department of Labor shows a total of 48 out of 50 States have lost jobs. No wonder a Capitol Hill newspaper reported this week that such continued grim labor market data may be “the death knell for the White House’s ‘recovery summer’,” pointing to recent polling that “found that only 41 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, the lowest level of support yet recorded in the survey.”

Source: Department of Labor data.

tate Administration Projection of Change in Jobs Through December 2010 Actual Change in Jobs Through April 2010
State Obama Projection Actual Change in Jobs

Alabama +52,000 -49,600
Alaska +8,000 +2,600
Arizona +70,000 -79,400
Arkansas +31,000 -20,400
California +396,000 -534,900
Colorado +59,000 -89,300
Connecticut +41,000 -38,600
Delaware +11,000 -10,600
District of Columbia +12,000 +8,400
Florida +206,000 -188,100
Georgia +106,000 -125,600
Hawaii +15,000 -10,300
Idaho +17,000 -17,800
Illinois +148,000 -163,100
Indiana +75,000 -37,700
Iowa +37,000 -26,700
Kansas +33,000 -36,800
Kentucky +48,000 -16,800
Louisiana +50,000 -35,000
Maine +15,000 -17,500
Maryland +66,000 -30,400
Massachusetts +79,000 -52,000
Michigan +109,000 -110,600
Minnesota +66,000 -51,300
Mississippi +30,000 -26,900
Missouri +69,000 -49,100
Montana +11,000 -7,300
Nebraska +23,000 -12,300
Nevada +34,000 -66,600
New Hampshire +16,000 -9,000
New Jersey +100,000 -76,600
New Mexico +22,000 -23,900
New York +215,000 -107,600
North Carolina +105,000 -81,600
North Dakota +8,000 +3,500
Ohio +133,000 -138,300
Oklahoma +40,000 -44,700
Oregon +44,000 -49,600
Pennsylvania +143,000 -86,300
Rhode Island +12,000 -18,600
South Carolina +50,000 -26,900
South Dakota +10,000 -5,000
Tennessee +70,000 -66,600
Texas +269,000 -144,800
Utah +32,000 -23,100
Vermont +8,000 -7,200
Virginia +93,000 -46,200
Washington +75,000 -79,500
West Virginia +20,000 -14,300
Wisconsin +70,000 -75,400
Wyoming +8,000 -10,100

Source: Administration February 2009 projection and Ways and Means staff calculations based on Department of Labor data.

cmdrgmh said:
You still did not even answer if you want all those services cut if these nut jobs had thier way.

Ahhhhh, how do “those” people get paid? With Conservative tax dollars!

cmdrgmh said:
notsofast says:October 23, 2010 at 7:25 pm notsofast(Quote)1 1cmdrgmh said:Without it we would all be without normal services we use everyday, let alone the Jobs in the private sector that it created. 650,000 in Florida alone. Now every state has a the same story. Ouch! Another lie! “48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since stimulusBy Jay Heflin – 08/20/10 03:22 PM ET House Ways and Means ranking member Dave Camp (R-Mich.) on Friday released data complied by his office that shows 48 out of 50 states have lost jobs since the February 2009 enactment of the economic stimulus bill. “While Democrats promised their 2009 stimulus would create 3.7 million jobs, the reality is far different,” stated a release from Camp’s office. “To date, 2.6 million jobs, including 2.5 million private sector jobs, have been lost.” According to the report, only Alaska and North Dakota have experienced positive job growth since early 2009. The District of Columbia also saw an increase in hiring during that period. The report from Camp came on the heels of a Labor Department report on Thursday that showed jobless claims increased last week to 500,000, up 12,000 from the week’s prior total of 488,000. The Labor report is a strong indication that employers are resistant to hiring amid the weak economy recovery. Jobless claims have increased in four of the past five weeks. ” _______________________________________________________________ Jay Heflin = Far right wing nut job. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, Use a real reporter if your going to reff. a reporter. You still did not even answer if you want all those services cut if these nut jobs had thier way. Also the information on all of it is found at the CBO. All the requests for stimulus money, the whole nine yards. Look it up for your self, Dumbass.

Shouldn’t there be a little bit of intelligence to post on this site? TRRK can at least attempt to back up his arguments, but this clown is a disgrace. He reminds me of the fools that Leno finds on his Street Walking segement.

http://www.iviewtube.com/v/65379/jay-leno-in-jaywalking-(very-funny)

Scott_in_MI said:
Shouldn’t there be a little bit of intelligence to post on this site?

You would think, but now they let any kind of lib in here.

cmdrgmh said:
The righties here didn’t vote for Obama and lost. Do you righties think that you are the Majority of this Country? Your not. Your nothing more then 20%. You get so mad that a Black guy beat your little war monger McCain/Palin. That was the best you had. You lost. Now you put up retarded morons in republican districts, thinking we give a shit about your psychopaths. Christine the witch, Joe Miller who wants to cut Social Security, Medicare, and yes your unemployment. Not just ours, but yours too. Sharon Angel who also wants to destroy this country with the same nut bullshit. Just remember, when you try to call for help, and the Police can’t come, or the Paramedics won’t come, or the Fire Dept. won’t come, Blame yourselves. You think the stimulus failed, but what about every rethuglican that in writing requested and received that money for their state and district for police, fire and ems, teachers, and other needed services. That’s right people All Of Them In Writing praised the stimulus money. Every single one of them. Without it we would all be without normal services we use everyday, let alone the Jobs in the private sector that it created. 650,000 in Florida alone. Now every state has a the same story.

My fellow Americans…the above is what we have to contend with in our next election. It is millions of voters with this guys thing that will be attempting to elect liberals to office. If we sit back and do nothing, people like this will be determining who leads our country. Such an outcome terrifies me, however, if each of us- and everyone one we can drag to the polls with us- does our duty, we can make sure that fools like this aren’t picking those who lead us. Obama and crew are hoping that cmdrgmh and his ilk will outnumber our side, so its up to us to crush his hope. Our rally cry from this point shall be: Remember CMDRGMH

Scott_in_MI said:
My fellow Americans…the above is what we have to contend with in our next election. It is millions of voters with this guys thing that will be attempting to elect liberals to office. If we sit back and do nothing, people like this will be determining who leads our country. Such an outcome terrifies me, however, if each of us- and everyone one we can drag to the polls with us- does our duty, we can make sure that fools like this aren’t picking those who lead us. Obama and crew are hoping that cmdrgmh and his ilk will outnumber our side, so its up to us to crush his hope. Our rally cry from this point shall be: Remember CMDRGMH

That’s not really an answer to what was said – where is cmdrgh wrong? 2001-2009 saw the Republicans turn this nation from success to failure, from boom to bust, from efficient to cluster fuck. I don’t expect anything from Republicans or those who wear the tinfoil tricorner hats and call themselves Tea Party and I call them Tealiban different from what George W. Dumbass delivered. And today in Great Britain we’re already seeing the Tealiban formula crash and burn yet they stick with the tried and proven failure. So, how about an answer?

Bill Adkins said:
That’s not really an answer to what was said – where is cmdrgh wrong? 2001-2009 saw the Republicans turn this nation from success to failure, from boom to bust, from efficient to cluster fuck. I don’t expect anything from Republicans or those who wear the tinfoil tricorner hats and call themselves Tea Party and I call them Tealiban different from what George W. Dumbass delivered. And today in Great Britain we’re already seeing the Tealiban formula crash and burn yet they stick with the tried and proven failure. So, how about an answer?

Again we see a democrat voter. He refuses (or is ignorant to) to see there is a differences between GWB and the tea party (they are 180 degrees different buddy.) Furthermore, he doesn’t see how Britain, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal have understood that Obama-type socialism DOESN’T WORK and if nothing is changed, our country will be bankrupt like the Euro countries. Those coutries have attempted what Obama wants to shove down our throats and their attempts have failed…why would we want to copy the same policies that failed them.

In the past our country grew because of low taxes, small government, low regulations. These policies work wherever they are tried so why not use proven policies over failed policies.

Big Eddie said:
Sarah knows we all miss President Bush . Everyone here at Mediate loves you , Sarah . No need to read any further comments , Mrs. Palin .

well done Big Eddie….well done!

Scott_in_MI said:
Again we see a democrat voter. He refuses (or is ignorant to) to see there is a differences between GWB and the tea party (they are 180 degrees different buddy.) Furthermore, he doesn’t see how Britain, France, Greece, Ireland, Portugal have understood that Obama-type socialism DOESN’T WORK and if nothing is changed, our country will be bankrupt like the Euro countries. Those coutries have attempted what Obama wants to shove down our throats and their attempts have failed…why would we want to copy the same policies that failed them. In the past our country grew because of low taxes, small government, low regulations. These policies work wherever they are tried so why not use proven policies over failed policies.

Yet Sarah Palin, Queen of the Tealiban, per the title of this article,, praises George W. Bush. There is no difference between the Tealiban and George W. Bush because their result, their incompetence, their lack of any grasp on reali-tea, are what they have in common. Failure is Bush’s legacy, failure is the Republican result and failure is the promise of the Tealiban. They are Idiocracy.

If you’re to blinded by hate to realize there’s a difference (just look at Castle in Deleware, Markowski in Alaska, Crist in Fl or Bennet in Utah) facts and logic are beyond your means to help you.

Now is the time, pay Sarahpac today!

Big ED I don’t think
your penile dysfunction will impress Mrs. Todd P
You might as well give it up “old” boy!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

juan said:
The Democrats voted for it!
They must be easily DUPED! Oh, that’s rights, they voted for Obama (and were DUPED twice)!

Juan, you have to understand the libs. It is always the U.S. that starts wars. They don’t understand that it was Saddam Hussein that started the war. If he had not violated those pesky U.N. resolutions and broken the cease-fire there would have been no war. But libs never see any fault with our enemies.

welcome to :
http://uggbootsshop.hk
This is a shopping paradise

Scott_in_MI said:
If you’re to blinded by hate to realize there’s a difference (just look at Castle in Deleware, Markowski in Alaska, Crist in Fl or Bennet in Utah) facts and logic are beyond your means to help you.

You’ve presented no facts, you’ve demonstrated no logic. In Delaware I see O’Donnell and in Alaska I see a man who says unemployment benefits are unconstitutional while he and his family benefitted from them, in Florida I see Rubio who lived high on a party credit card, for which the former GOP chairman there is being prosecuted. You’re blind faith in following such flawed individuals and the flawed reasoning they represent has few parallels in history – but all those parallels are saw disaster as their result.

Bill Adkins said:
You’ve presented no facts, you’ve demonstrated no logic. In Delaware I see O’Donnell and in Alaska I see a man who says unemployment benefits are unconstitutional while he and his family benefitted from them, in Florida I see Rubio who lived high on a party credit card, for which the former GOP chairman there is being prosecuted. You’re blind faith in following such flawed individuals and the flawed reasoning they represent has few parallels in history – but all those parallels are saw disaster as their result.

OMG YOUR RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL ??!?!

LMFAO

Bill Adkins said:
in Alaska I see a man who says unemployment benefits are unconstitutional while he and his family benefitted from them

So the fact one buy benefited from them makes them constitutional? How does that work?

And for the record, he said that FEDERAL unemployment benefits are unconstitutional. He did not say, and no one to my knowledge has ever argued, that states can’t run their own unemployment programs.

Out of curiosity, can you tell me what part of the Constitution (by Article and Section) authorizes a federal unemployment program?

Bill Adkins said:
That’s not really an answer to what was said – where is cmdrgh wrong? 2001-2009 saw the Republicans turn this nation from success to failure, from boom to bust, from efficient to cluster fuck. I don’t expect anything from Republicans or those who wear the tinfoil tricorner hats and call themselves Tea Party and I call them Tealiban different from what George W. Dumbass delivered. And today in Great Britain we’re already seeing the Tealiban formula crash and burn yet they stick with the tried and proven failure. So, how about an answer?

Iris said:
Big ED I don’t thinkyour penile dysfunction will impress Mrs. Todd PYou might as well give it up “old” boy!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Two deep thinking dimbulbs of the left . And Adkins is running for low office in Kentucky . Good luck to that small village .

Good thing you”re really, really, really, really, really, really, really
smart Mr.. ED
BTW when did Kentucky become a small village?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

welcome to :
=====http://clothingtrade.us=====
This is a shopping paradise

Some of the Mediaite stories are made up, as we’re discovering. So I wasn’t completely surprised to read a headline about Sarah Palin’s extolling the virtues of George Bush in Florida. But it’s true. We don’t have to shout that he was the worse president ever, but he’s pretty close to claiming the title, and, nevertheless you RW’s will still defend this guy. Because of his cupidity and incompetence, he wrecked the economy, but what will earn him one of the hotter spots in Dante’s inferno is his willfulness in destroying Iraq. The typical RW response is, duh, well, all those Dems went along. Well, not all, and those who went along did it out of misplaced patriotism and lack of courage. It’s why Hillary lost to Obama. It’s how most wars start with a rallying cry for patriotism. However, anyone with half a brain knew that Saddam Hussein didn’t have WMD’s. There was at that time ample documentation and there’s much more evidence today. It’s a shame that you RW’s have such a penchant for denial. Today, you have no remotely workable program for getting the economy back on track; you’re supporting people who will continue Bush’s work in bashing the economy, in the process , of course, of enriching the small number of sadistic billionaires who are financing most of the RW movement. .How on earth can people take you seriously unless you spend hundreds of millions, as you’re doing, to sway public opinion. I personally don’t think it’s going to work. Yes, the Teapublicans will pick up some seats, but it’s not going to change very much.
It will be interesting to see what happens at next weeks rally in Washington. I was there in 1963 for MLK’s speech and the mall was completely packed out. I know you guys and gals are into numbers, so the real number then was well over 300,000. I know that Beck had ‘more’ than that but it will be interesting. I also notice that when I come onto the Mediaite website it’s the same 20-30 people lurking about and I wonder where do they get the time to do this. They’re all so political, you would think that right now they would be out there hustling for their favorite candidates, as I and many of the people I know are doing. Maybe it’s the reason there’s so much empty talk going on., and, I have to say it’s mostly from the right. You’re so bitter and angry. What did Obama ever do to you? Where were you when Bush was fucking us over? That’s another thing – some of you are really foul mouthed. Is this how you relate to people you know. Do you think this is a way to influence us with your great ideas and insights to how the world works. At any rate, I’ll give you a report from Washington next week.

Ike Brown, an African American political boss in rural Mississippi, was accused by the Justice Department in 2005 of discriminating against the county’s white minority….

Coates and Adams later told the civil rights commission that the decision to bring the Brown case caused bitter divisions in the voting section and opposition from civil rights groups.

Three Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their supervisors, described the same tensions, among career lawyers as well as political appointees. Employees who worked on the Brown case were harassed by colleagues, they said, and some department lawyers anonymously went on legal blogs “absolutely tearing apart anybody who was involved in that case,” said one lawyer.

“There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section’s job to protect white voters,” the lawyer said. “The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized.”

The 2008 Election Day video of the Panthers triggered a similar reaction, said a second lawyer. “People were dismissing it, saying it’s not a big deal. They said we shouldn’t be pursuing that case.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102203982_3.html?sid=ST2010102300136

ganymede said:
Do you think this is a way to influence us with your great ideas and insights to how the world works

You’re a hopeless dinosaur. I couldn’t care less about influencing someone like you.

ganymede said:
At any rate, I’ll give you a report from Washington next week.

Please don’t bother.

ganymede said:
…was fucking us over? That’s another thing – some of you are really foul mouthed

LOL

Azarkhan said:
Ike Brown, an African American political boss in rural Mississippi, was accused by the Justice Department in 2005 of discriminating against the county’s white minority…. Coates and Adams later told the civil rights commission that the decision to bring the Brown case caused bitter divisions in the voting section and opposition from civil rights groups. Three Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their supervisors, described the same tensions, among career lawyers as well as political appointees. Employees who worked on the Brown case were harassed by colleagues, they said, and some department lawyers anonymously went on legal blogs “absolutely tearing apart anybody who was involved in that case,” said one lawyer. “There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section’s job to protect white voters,” the lawyer said. “The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized.” The 2008 Election Day video of the Panthers triggered a similar reaction, said a second lawyer. “People were dismissing it, saying it’s not a big deal. They said we shouldn’t be pursuing that case.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102203982_3.html?sid=ST2010102300136

Ok – so you changed the subject . I can play, too.

Anderson, Andrew Lee – Marion, Ark., 1963

Anderson was slain by a group of whites and sheriff’s deputies after a white woman said he had molested her 8-year-old daughter. A coroner’s jury ruled justifiable homicide, and no arrests were made.

Andrews, Frank – Lisman, Ala., 1964

Andrews was shot in the back by a white sheriff’s deputy. The county solicitor said the victim was attacking another deputy, and no arrests were made.

Banks, Isadore – Marion, Ark., 1954

Banks’ charred corpse was found chained to a tree. Black press reports speculated he was killed by whites who wanted his land. His property was later rented by white farmers.

Bolden, Larry – Chattanooga, Tenn., 1958

Bolden, 15, was shot by a white policeman. No arrests were made.

Brazier, James – Dawson, Ga., 1958

Brazier was beaten to death in front of his wife and children by two police officers. County Sheriff Z.T. Matthews was later quoted in the Washington Post saying, “There’s nothing like fear to keep niggers in line.”

Brewer, Thomas – Columbus, Ga., 1956

Brewer was instrumental in forming a local chapter of the NAACP in 1937. He was shot seven times outside his office by white politician Lucio Flowers. A grand jury failed to indict.

Brooks, Hilliard – Montgomery, Ala., 1952

Brooks was shot by a police officer after initially refusing to get off a city bus when the driver claimed he had not paid his fare. A coroner said the murder was justified because Brooks resisted arrest.

Brown, Charles – Yazoo City, Miss., 1957

A white man shot Brown, who was visiting the white man’s sister. The Justice Department handed the case over to the state.

Brown, Jessie – Winona, Miss., 1965

The 1965 NAACP annual report claimed white farmer R.M. Gibson killed Brown.

Brumfield, Carrie – Franklinton, La., 1967

Brumfield was found shot to death in his car on a rural road. He was shot once in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver.

Brumfield, Eli – McComb, Miss., 1961

Police officer B.F. Elmore alleged self-defense after shooting Brumfield. Police claimed Brumfield jumped from his car with a pocket knife after police pulled him over for speeding.

Caston, Silas (Ernest) – Jackson, Miss., 1964

Caston was shot by a local police officer. CORE and NAACP filed a civil suit against Deputy Sheriff Herbert Sullivan. The result of that suit is unknown.

Cloninger, Clarence – Gaston, N.C., 1960

Cloninger died while incarcerated. Authorities denied him medical attention after he suffered a heart attack.

Countryman, Willie – Dawson, Ga., 1958

Police officer W.B. Cherry was cleared of murder charges after police said he shot Countryman “in self defense in the line of duty.”

Dahmon, Vincent – Natchez, Miss., 1966

Dahmon, 65, was shot in the head around the time of a march in support of James Meredith.

Daniels, Woodrow Wilson – Water Valley, Miss., 1958

Sheriff Buster Treloar, identified by four witnesses as the man who beat Daniels to death in a prison, was freed after 23 minutes of deliberation by an all-white jury. “By God,” Treloar said after the trial. “Now I can get back to rounding up bootleggers and damn niggers.”

Dumas, Joseph Hill – Perry, Fla., 1962

Florida Governor Farris Bryant suspended constable Henry Sauls in connection with the shooting of 19-year-old Dumas. Sauls was indicted by a federal grand jury. The result of indictment is unclear.

Evans, Pheld – Canton, Miss., 1964

Charles Evers, the brother of slain NAACP official Medgar Evers, identified Evans as having been killed under mysterious circumstances.

Evanston, J.E. – Long Lake, Miss., 1955

Evanston’s body is fished out of Long Lake in December. Evanston was a teacher in the local elementary school.

Greene, Mattie – Ringgold, Ga., 1960

Greene is killed when a bomb explodes under her house.

Greenwood, Jasper – Vicksburg, Miss., 1964

Greenwood was found shot to death near his car on a rural road. Police said the slaying was not racially motivated.

Griffin, Jimmie Lee – Sturgis, Miss., 1965

Griffin was killed in a hit-and-run accident. A coroner’s report revealed Griffin was run over at least twice.

Hall, A.C. – Macon, Ga., 1962

Hall was shot and killed after a white woman claimed he stole a pistol from her car. He was shot by police as he ran away.

Hamilton, Rogers – Lowndes County, Ala., 1957

Hamilton, 19, was taken from his home by a group of white men and shot to death. Hamilton was allegedly warned to stay away from black girls in the town of Hayneville. No charges were brought in the case.

Hampton, Collie – Winchester, Ky., 1966

Hampton was shot by police officers after allegedly threatening a police officer.

Harris, Alphonso – Albany, Ga., 1966

Harris, a member of SCLC, died after allegedly organizing a walkout by black students at a school in Grenada, Miss. He was killed in Georgia in response to previous civil rights activity there.

Henry, Izell – Greensburg, La., 1954

Izell was brutally beaten a day after voting. He suffered permanent brain damage and died five years later.

Hill, Arthur James – Villa Rica, Ga., 1965

Hill was shot during an argument with whites. One suspect was held on voluntary manslaughter charge.

Hunter, Ernest – St. Mary’s, Ga., 1958

Hunter was shot and killed while in jail following an arrest on charges he was interfering with an officer.

Jackson, Luther – Philadelphia, Miss., 1959

Jackson was killed by police after he and his girlfriend were found talking in their car, which was stalled in a ditch. Police claim Jackson attacked them.

Jells, Ernest – Clarksdale, Miss., 1964

Jells was accused of stealing a banana from a grocery and pointing a rifle at pursuing police officers. The officers were exonerated.

Jeter, Joe Franklin – Atlanta, Ga., 1958

Jeter was killed by police in front of his family, who were also arrested and convicted in connection with a gathering that police said turned into a melee. A grand jury found the slaying was justified.

Lee, John – Goshen Springs, Miss., 1965

Lee’s body was found beaten on a country road.

Lee, Willie Henry – Rankin County, Miss., 1965

Lee, who was known to have attended civil rights meetings, was found beaten on a country road. An autopsy revealed he died by strangulation from gas.

Lillard, Richard – Nashville, Tenn., 1958

Lillard died after a beating from three white guards at a local workhouse. All three were acquitted of murder charges.

Love, George – Indianola, Miss., 1958

Love was killed in a gun battle with police who believed he was responsible for a murder and arson. He was later cleared of any connection to the murder.

Mahone, Maybelle – Molena, Ga., 1956

Mahone was killed by a white man for “sassing” him. The man was initially found guilty, but later found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Maxwell, Sylvester – Canton, Miss., 1963

Maxwell’s castrated and mutilated body was found by his brother-in-law less than 500 yards from the home of a white family.

McNair, Robert – Pelahatchie, Miss., 1965

McNair was killed by a town constable.

Melton, Clinton – Sumner, Miss., 1956

Elmer Otis Kimbell was cleared in Melton’s death. Kimbell claimed Melton fired at him three times before he returned fire with a shotgun. No gun was found in Melton’s car or on his body.

Miller, James Andrew – Jackson, Ga., 1964

Miller was shot by whites a few days after being beaten. A suspect was cleared after the coroner ruled he fired in self-defense.

Mixon, Booker T – Clarksdale, Miss., 1959

Mixon’s body was found lying on the side of the road, completely nude. Police claimed it was a hit-and-run, though family members cited his naked body and the extensive amount of flesh torn from his body as evidence of murder.

Montgomery, Nehemiah – Merigold, Miss., 1964

Montgomery, 60, was shot by police after allegedly refusing to pay for gas. Police were acquitted, and the shooting was called justifiable homicide.

Morris, Frank – Ferriday, La., 1964

Morris, who owned a shoe store, was killed when a gas stove exploded during an arson. Morris, who lived in a room adjoining the store, was ordered to return to his room by the men who started the fire. An extensive Justice Department investigation was conducted, but the outcome is unclear.

Motley, James Earl – Wetumpka, Ala., 1967

Elmore County Deputy Sheriff Harvey Conner was cleared in the death of Motley, who died in prison after suffering three severe blows to the head.

O’Quinn, Sam – Centreville, Miss., 1959

O’Quinn, derided by some local whites for being “uppity,” was shot after joining the NAACP.

Orsby, Hubert – Pickens, Miss., 1964

Orsby’s body was found in the Black River. It was reported that he was wearing a t-shirt with “CORE,” written on it, representing the Congress of Racial Equality.

Payne, Larry – Memphis, Tenn., 1968

Payne, 16, was killed by a shotgun blast fired by a patrolman as he emerged from a basement in a housing development.

Pickett, C.H. – Columbus, Ga., 1957

The part-time minister was beaten to death while in police custody.

Pitts, Albert

Pitts, David

Johnson, Marshall

McPharland, Ernest – Monroe, La., 1960

A white employer was arrested and then released in the shooting of five of his employees, four of whom died. The victims were accused of making threats. The employer was never charged.

Powell, Jimmy – Brooklyn, N.Y., 1964

Powell, 15, was fatally shot by a Brooklyn police officer. The officer’s exoneration by a grand jury sparked riots in Harlem.

Prather, William Roy – Corinth, Miss., 1959

Prather, 15, was killed in an anti-black Halloween prank. One of eight youths involved was indicted on manslaughter charges.

Queen, Johnny – Fayette, Miss., 1965

A white off-duty constable was named in the pistol slaying of Johnny Queen. The shooting was not connected to any arrest.

Rasberry, Donald – Okolona, Miss., 1965

Rasberry was shot to death by his plantation boss.

Robinson, Fred – Edisto Island, S.C., 1960

Robinson’s body was found washed ashore on August 5. His eyes were reportedly gouged out and his skull crushed.

Robinson, Johnny – Birmingham, Ala., 1963

Robinson, 16, was shot in the back by a policeman on the same day as the 16th Street Church bombing. Police said the victim had thrown stones at white youths driving through the area.

Sanford, Willie Joe – Hawkinsville, Ga., 1957

Sanford’s naked body was raised from the bottom of a creek where it had been wired to undergrowth in the water. The result of a grand jury investigation is unknown.

Scott Jr., Marshall – New Orleans, La., 1965

Scott was put into solitary confinement in a New Orleans jail. He died without receiving any medical attention. There were no arrests in the case.

Shelby, Jessie James – Yazoo City, Miss., 1956

Shelby, 23, was fatally wounded by a police officer who claimed he shot Shelby because he resisted arrest.

Singleton, W.G. – Shelby, N.C., 1957

Singleton died from third-degree burns suffered in an explosion and fire.

Smith, Ed – State Line, Miss., 1958

A grand jury refused to indict L.D. Clark in the death of Smith, who was shot in his yard in front of his wife. Clark later reportedly bragged about the killing.

Stewart, Eddie James – Crystal Springs, Miss., 1966

Stewart was reportedly beaten and shot while in police custody. Police claimed he was shot while trying to escape.

Taylor, Isaiah – Ruleville, Miss., 1964

Taylor was shot by a police officer after allegedly lunging at him with a knife. The shooting was ruled a justifiable homicide.

Thomas, Freddie Lee – LeFlore County, Miss., 1965

Federal investigators looked into the death of Thomas, 16. Thomas’ brother believed he was murdered as a warning against black voter registration. The result of the investigation is unknown.

Triggs, Saleam – Hattiesburg, Miss., 1965

The body of Mrs. Triggs was found mysteriously burned to death.

Varner, Hubert – Atlanta, Ga., 1966

Varner, 16, was killed when a gunman fired into a group of black teenagers. The gunman allegedly believed the teenagers made a comment to his white companion. The result of a federal investigation is unknown.

Walker, Clifton – Adams County, Miss., 1964

Walker was killed by a shotgun blast at close range. The result of a federal investigation is unknown.

Waymers, James – Allendale, S.C., 1965

A white man is acquitted in the shooting death of Waymers after entering a plea of self-defense.

Wilder, John Wesley – Ruston, La., 1965

A white policeman was accused of Wilder’s death, and a coroner’s jury ruled the slaying was justifiable homicide.

Williamson, Rodell – Camden, Ala., 1967

Williamson’s body was recovered from the Alabama River after it snagged on a fisherman’s line. Williamson was active in the Wilcox Country branch of the NAACP, but local sheriff P.C. Jenkins said there were no signs of foul play.

Wooden, Archie – Camden, Ala., 1967

Wooden, 16, bled to death after either jumping or falling onto a sapling in a ditch. The cut sapling severed an artery. A newspaper report said the Mobile office of the FBI made a civil rights violation inquiry into the incident. The results of that inquiry are unknown.

LOL. Thanks for the ancient history lesson.

PS: Bill, I bet you are really old.

Scott_in_MI said:
My fellow Americans…the above is what we have to contend with in our next election. It is millions of voters with this guys thing that will be attempting to elect liberals to office. If we sit back and do nothing, people like this will be determining who leads our country. Such an outcome terrifies me, however, if each of us- and everyone one we can drag to the polls with us- does our duty, we can make sure that fools like this aren’t picking those who lead us. Obama and crew are hoping that cmdrgmh and his ilk will outnumber our side, so its up to us to crush his hope. Our rally cry from this point shall be: Remember CMDRGMH

Right on Scott!!! I shall remember the the rally cry on Tuesday Nov. 2nd!!!!! LOL

vAvJI97b^WmS

AnonymousFinch said:
Out of curiosity, can you tell me what part of the Constitution (by Article and Section) authorizes a federal unemployment program?

Out of curiosity, can you tell me what part of the Constitution (by Article and Section) forbids a federal unemployment program?

Azarkhan said:
I bet you are really old

You are the bitter old man but good name calling.

JamesA1102 said:
Out of curiosity, can you tell me what part of the Constitution (by Article and Section) forbids a federal unemployment program?

Yes, I can. It’s called the Tenth Amendment. It reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, you see, you fundamentally misunderstand the Constitution. In your question, you wrongly assumed that the federal government can do whatever it wants unless there is a specific provision preventing it from doing so. That’s untrue. The presumption created by the Tenth Amendment (as well as the specific enumeration of powers contained in Article I, Section 8) is that the federal government cannot act unless expressly authorized to do so by the Constitution.

That’s called federalism. It’s part of the Bill of Rights–just like the freedom of speech, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to trial by jury.

Your ignorance is profound and dangerous. I respectfully suggest you pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers and learn something about your country’s founding document and highest law.

AF-Sorry about your Phillies. But the Rangers and the Giants in the Series…who da thunk it?

Azarkhan said:
AF-Sorry about your Phillies. But the Rangers and the Giants in the Series…who da thunk it?

Thanks, it was great year with a disappointing finish. At least I got to see a perfect game and a no hitter in the same year.

I’m going with the Rangers. I’m still a Cliff Lee fan (I wish we had kept him). And they are swinging the bats well.

I assume the first game will be Lee vs. Lincecum. That should be great.

Azarkhan said:
I assume the first game will be Lee vs. Lincecum. That should be great.

Epic. Lincecum has more raw talent, but it’s hard to beat Lee’s focus and competitiveness.

As for Lincecum, I think she’s really talented, and I’m glad MLB has opened up the game to women, but she is one ugly chick.

AnonymousFinch said:
Yes, I can. It’s called the Tenth Amendment. It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So, you see, you fundamentally misunderstand the Constitution. In your question, you wrongly assumed that the federal government can do whatever it wants unless there is a specific provision preventing it from doing so. That’s untrue. The presumption created by the Tenth Amendment (as well as the specific enumeration of powers contained in Article I, Section 8) is that the federal government cannot act unless expressly authorized to do so by the Constitution. That’s called federalism. It’s part of the Bill of Rights–just like the freedom of speech, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to trial by jury. Your ignorance is profound and dangerous. I respectfully suggest you pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers and learn something about your country’s founding document and highest law.

i

But then, there’s the Ninth Amendment. Opens up all you think the Tenth closes, but really, the Tenth doesn’t close off unemployment benefits Your ignorance is profound and dangerous. I suggest you pick up a copy of something Glen Beck didn’t write and learn something about the Constitution from someone who really knows it.

Bill Adkins said:
i

But then, there’s the Ninth Amendment. Opens up all you think the Tenth closes, but really, the Tenth doesn’t close off unemployment benefits Your ignorance is profound and dangerous. I suggest you pick up a copy of something Glen Beck didn’t write and learn something about the Constitution from someone who really knows it.

No, the Ninth Amendment states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It says nothing about additional powers being given to the federal government. Rather, it says that there are additional rights retained by the people. That is, again, another blow against an expansive reading of the powers of government. Again, if you had ever taken even a cursory look at the Federalist Papers you would know this.

And, for the record, the Ninth Amendment itself doesn’t really mean much. It is just a rejection of an old common law rule of construction called “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”

And as for my ignorance of the Constitution and your advice that I “pick up a copy of something Glen Beck didn’t write and learn something about the Constitution from someone who really knows it,” I had a graduate degree in the philosophy of law long before I went to law school. If you like me to give you a reading list so that you can catch up, I’d be happy to oblige.

AnonymousFinch said:
If you like me to give you a reading list so that you can catch up, I’d be happy to oblige.

AF, I wanted to ask you about that on a previous Citizens United thread. If you could recommend a book or two or websites that discuss constitutional law, it would really be helpful.

BTW, I like Lincecum and his long hair. He’s that best advertisement for legalizing marijuana in America that we got.

Azarkhan said:
AF, I wanted to ask you about that on a previous Citizens United thread. If you could recommend a book or two or websites that discuss constitutional law, it would really be helpful.

BTW, I like Lincecum and his long hair. He’s that best advertisement for legalizing marijuana in America that we got.

I like Lincecum, too. It’s sick that he has so much talent at such a young age. I just wonder whether the mechanics of his delivery will catch up with him as he ages and he’ll be more injury prone.

As for the Con Law question, I think the best web site around is http://www.oyez.org. It contains all of the audio recordings of Supreme Court arguments for the last 50 years or so. It’s a great way to learn con law issue by issue. Or, you can look for specific attorneys who are well known oral advocates (Ted Olson, Larry Tribe are two best living ones, imo, with Ted being a conservative and Larry being a liberal).

As for books, there’s no substitute for starting with the Federalist Papers. They can be dense because of the old fashioned writing style, but the logic is so clear that I think they’re manageable. As for modern works, I’m still a fan of Alexadner Bickel’s The Least Dangerous Branch and John Hart Ely’s Democracy and Distrust. Again, Bickel is more conservative and Ely more liberal–though those labels don’t perfectly fit either one.

And more recently, there is Scalia’s A Matter of Interpretation and Breyer’s Active Liberty. I think they are both well written, and again from two very different viewpoints.

Thanks AF!

I’m glad the left has stopped pretending they cared one way or the other about Iraq.

Dance puppets dance! LMFAO!!

Jim Treacher said:
I’m glad the left has stopped pretending they cared one way or the other about Iraq.

They only care when they can use it to their political advantage .. ie body count or in my buddy Olbermann’s case a show closing signoff.

Big_F-ing_Deal says:
October 23, 2010 at 6:27 pm Big_F-ing_Deal(Quote)
7 7
NORBIT said:
Vote on the GOP’s best ad theme:

Stop the Mosque!

Free Juan!!

- or -

We know what you’ve been shoveling all along.

I’m kinda partial to…

‘We are not Witches or Nazis or Horse-Porn Aficionados……We’re you.”

this is the most funniest comment ever made here on this site. big fucking deal are you sure you are not driftglass?

big fucking deal check this out

The Professional Left Podcast with Driftglass and Blue Gal.

Jim Treacher said:
I’m glad the left has stopped pretending they cared one way or the other about Iraq.

Ridiculous, ignorant, wrong . . . and seconded by smurf – along with too many other oblivious, self-deluded right-wingers.

Dems who voted to go into Iraq did so because Bush LIED to them – and us. Mission accomplished.

“Tears of a Clod” sold fewer copies than “The Overwrought Wing-dope” because News Corpse probably bought a ton of copies of Blech-h-h’s book to prop up their favorite on-air pathological liar. They could either give them away as gifts or use ‘em as doorstops (a more appropriate use).

Right-wing organizations have been buying up large quantities of books by people like $arah Palin, thus getting the books on the NY Times bestselling list, then giving them away with subscriptions to neocon publications.

According to progressive radio host Thom Hartmann, when Mitt Romney’s book came out he went on the lecture circuit and took his fees in the form of book purchases by whoever organized the lecture event. The books would be given to attendees – or possibly just thrown away (again, a more appropriate use). The whole point was to get book sales on-record as a way getting the title on the Times’ bestseller list. “Clown” was sold the honest, old-fashioned way: one at a time.

One definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. Bush/Cheney and the cons severely damaged our international image. Their avarice, divisiveness and indifference to domestic and international law nearly ripped this country apart. To return to anything remotely resembling Bush’s disastrous tenure would truly be insane.

The same hypocritical cons who derided the left for criticizing the previous president during wartime are themselves doing the same thing to the current president. They have no shame, no conscience, no recall and no class.

They called lefties ‘un-American” for doing to Bush what the right is now doing to Obama. So what does that now make THEM?

non thinking?

AnonymousFinch said:
Yes, I can. It’s called the Tenth Amendment. It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So, you see, you fundamentally misunderstand the Constitution. In your question, you wrongly assumed that the federal government can do whatever it wants unless there is a specific provision preventing it from doing so. That’s untrue. The presumption created by the Tenth Amendment (as well as the specific enumeration of powers contained in Article I, Section 8) is that the federal government cannot act unless expressly authorized to do so by the Constitution. That’s called federalism. It’s part of the Bill of Rights–just like the freedom of speech, the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to trial by jury. Your ignorance is profound and dangerous. I respectfully suggest you pick up a copy of the Federalist Papers and learn something about your country’s founding document and highest law.

No it is you’re arrogance that is profound and dangerous. You are pushing you’re own interpetation of the Consitution and saying that is the only valid interpetation.

First, the question asked by Article and by Sections. But you jumped to the Amendments instead since there is nothing in the articles and sections that forbids the federal government from providing funds for additional weeks of unemployment insurance.

Second, your assumption that the Federal government can only do what is specifically enumerated in the constitution is totally incorrect. If that the were true than the Air Force would be unconstitutional since there is no provision in the constitution that gives the Federal government the right to create an Air Force, just an Army and Navy. NASA would also be unconstitutional because there is no provision to allow the Federal government permission to create a Space Program. Both the CIA and FBI would be unconstitutional since there in no provision in the constitution to create these agencies either.

Third, your original contention that the Federal government is running an unemployment program is completely wrong. There is no Federal program. All the Federal government is doing is providing funding to the states so they can provide alweeks of unemployment within each state’s own program. The state’s are still administrating the programs and sending out the checks. So even it your interpetation was correct, which it is not, the Federal government is still not usurping any power that is reserved for the states since it is just providing the funds for state run programs. And if Federal funding for this state run program is unconstitutional than Federal funding to all state run programs is unconstitutional.

I believe that is game, set and match. I respectfully suggest you pick up a copy of something other than Atlas Shrugged and learn something.

JamesA1102 said:
No it is you’re arrogance that is profound and dangerous. You are pushing you’re own interpetation of the Consitution and saying that is the only valid interpetation.

Wow, you should quit while you are behind. Every time you post you prove more ignorant. Stop making a fool out of yourself. YOU know NOTHING about the law or the Constitution.

ganymede said:
Where were you when Bush was fucking us over? That’s another thing – some of you are really foul mouthed.

Now that says it all.

AnonymousFinch said:
’m going with the Rangers. I’m still a Cliff Lee fan (I wish we had kept him). And they are swinging the bats well.

Good choice, AF. Go Rangers!!!

JamesA1102 said:
First, the question asked by Article and by Sections. But you jumped to the Amendments instead since there is nothing in the articles and sections that forbids the federal government from providing funds for additional weeks of unemployment insurance.

First, that’s completely irrelevant. Whether it is in the original 1789 Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or one of the later Amendments, it’s still the Constitution. There is also nothing in the original 1789 Constitution that protects freedom of speech. That fact doesn’t diminish the First Amendment. In my original post, I referenced the Articles and Sections of the 1789 Constitution because that’s where the powers of the federal government are enumerated.

Second, it’s actually not true that the 1789 Constitution places no limits on the power of the federal government. Read Federalist 41, and Madison explains the limitations on federal power imposed by Article I, Section 8 really well. I referenced the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights because it’s a more explicit limitation.

JamesA1102 said:
Second, your assumption that the Federal government can only do what is specifically enumerated in the constitution is totally incorrect. If that the were true than the Air Force would be unconstitutional since there is no provision in the constitution that gives the Federal government the right to create an Air Force, just an Army and Navy. NASA would also be unconstitutional because there is no provision to allow the Federal government permission to create a Space Program. Both the CIA and FBI would be unconstitutional since there in no provision in the constitution to create these agencies either.

That’s just a silly argument. Article I, Section gives Congress the ability to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy. No one seriously doubts that that power includes the ability to maintain and create an Air Force, which is really nothing more than an Army that uses technology that didn’t exist in 1789, or an intelligence agency (which is a function of national defense that used to be under the Department of Defense on the organizational chart). The power to provide for the common defense is clearly there. Likewise, the FBI enforces federal criminal law that is proper under the Necessary and Proper Clause so long as the criminal laws enforced are related to one of the enumerated powers. And with the FBI, they are. They are related to the regulation of federal lands, the currency, interstate commerce, etc. Where the FBI tries to enforce a law that is not related to the enumerated powers, it is struck down as unconstitutional. See, e.g., U.S. v. Lopez, which struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 because it violated the Commerce Clause.

JamesA1102 said:
Third, your original contention that the Federal government is running an unemployment program is completely wrong. There is no Federal program. All the Federal government is doing is providing funding to the states so they can provide alweeks of unemployment within each state’s own program. The state’s are still administrating the programs and sending out the checks. So even it your interpetation was correct, which it is not, the Federal government is still not usurping any power that is reserved for the states since it is just providing the funds for state run programs. And if Federal funding for this state run program is unconstitutional than Federal funding to all state run programs is unconstitutional.

You are wrong. The federal government doesn’t just “give” the money to states. It simultaneously mandates the way the program is to be run. That’s why Congress decides that it’s going to be, for example, a 26-week extension of benefits. If you were correct–and you’re not–then New York might decide that the extension is 52 weeks, and New Jersey might decide its is 30, and Pennsylvania 15, etc.

For the record, there is a legitimate argument that federal unemployment benefits are permitted by the Commerce Clause. And I’d have no problem if someone made that argument. What I don’t like is the era where people just assume that federal power is unlimited and that the Constitutional limits on federal power have no meaning. That’s dangerous. Where does it end? In your view of the world, can Congress pass a federal law regulating the speed limit on the street outside my house?

AnonymousFinch said:
As for the Con Law question, I think the best web site around is http://www.oyez.org. It contains all of the audio recordings of Supreme Court arguments for the last 50 years or so. It’s a great way to learn con law issue by issue. Or, you can look for specific attorneys who are well known oral advocates (Ted Olson, Larry Tribe are two best living ones, imo, with Ted being a conservative and Larry being a liberal).

As for books, there’s no substitute for starting with the Federalist Papers. They can be dense because of the old fashioned writing style, but the logic is so clear that I think they’re manageable. As for modern works, I’m still a fan of Alexadner Bickel’s The Least Dangerous Branch and John Hart Ely’s Democracy and Distrust. Again, Bickel is more conservative and Ely more liberal–though those labels don’t perfectly fit either one.

And more recently, there is Scalia’s A Matter of Interpretation and Breyer’s Active Liberty. I think they are both well written, and again from two very different viewpoints.

Out of curiosity, who exactly are the three people who gave this Thumbs Down? It’s not the least bit idealogical. In fact, for every source, I gave both a conservative thinker and a liberal. Did you give it a thumbs down because you don’t want people learning about the Constitution? I don’t get it.

11-02-10! – 9 Days!

The Choice is clear!

Democrats:

More of YOUR Taxes to pay for Illegal Alien Benefits

Strict Limits on Free Speech (even for liberals who stray off the PC script)

More Government Control & Dependency

Group-Identity Preferences & Politics

More Abject LIES from Obama on Stimulus, Health Care, FinReg, Cap & Tax

Senseless Troop Deaths in a “war” Obama DOESN’T want to win

Crushing Regulation & Politically-Motivated Law Enforcement

Pseudo-Control over society by the likes of Soros, Trumpka, Stern, and the Extortion-Prone Public Unions

More Grovelling Apologies for the US worldwide…

GOP: NOT THE ABOVE!

11-02-10 —– YOU DECIDE WHICH AMERICA? – Get 5 friends & neighbors each to the polls!

AnonymousFinch said:
Out of curiosity, who exactly are the three people who gave this Thumbs Down? It’s not the least bit idealogical. In fact, for every source, I gave both a conservative thinker and a liberal. Did you give it a thumbs down because you don’t want people learning about the Constitution? I don’t get it.

Can I venture a guess?

BFD
King
&
Bill Adkins (btw Bill, any references from post-Hula Hoop America?)

Bill Adkins said:
Ok – so you changed the subject . I can play, too.

Anderson, Andrew Lee – Marion, Ark., 1963

Anderson was slain by a group of whites and sheriff’s deputies after a white woman said he had molested her 8-year-old daughter. A coroner’s jury ruled justifiable homicide, and no arrests were made.

Andrews, Frank – Lisman, Ala., 1964

Andrews was shot in the back by a white sheriff’s deputy. The county solicitor said the victim was attacking another deputy, and no arrests were made.

Banks, Isadore – Marion, Ark., 1954

Banks’ charred corpse was found chained to a tree. Black press reports speculated he was killed by whites who wanted his land. His property was later rented by white farmers.

Bolden, Larry – Chattanooga, Tenn., 1958

Bolden, 15, was shot by a white policeman. No arrests were made.

Brazier, James – Dawson, Ga., 1958

Brazier was beaten to death in front of his wife and children by two police officers. County Sheriff Z.T. Matthews was later quoted in the Washington Post saying, “There’s nothing like fear to keep niggers in line.”

Brewer, Thomas – Columbus, Ga., 1956

Brewer was instrumental in forming a local chapter of the NAACP in 1937. He was shot seven times outside his office by white politician Lucio Flowers. A grand jury failed to indict.

Brooks, Hilliard – Montgomery, Ala., 1952

Brooks was shot by a police officer after initially refusing to get off a city bus when the driver claimed he had not paid his fare. A coroner said the murder was justified because Brooks resisted arrest.

Brown, Charles – Yazoo City, Miss., 1957

A white man shot Brown, who was visiting the white man’s sister. The Justice Department handed the case over to the state.

Brown, Jessie – Winona, Miss., 1965

The 1965 NAACP annual report claimed white farmer R.M. Gibson killed Brown.

Brumfield, Carrie – Franklinton, La., 1967

Brumfield was found shot to death in his car on a rural road. He was shot once in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver.

Brumfield, Eli – McComb, Miss., 1961

Police officer B.F. Elmore alleged self-defense after shooting Brumfield. Police claimed Brumfield jumped from his car with a pocket knife after police pulled him over for speeding.

Caston, Silas (Ernest) – Jackson, Miss., 1964

Caston was shot by a local police officer. CORE and NAACP filed a civil suit against Deputy Sheriff Herbert Sullivan. The result of that suit is unknown.

Cloninger, Clarence – Gaston, N.C., 1960

Cloninger died while incarcerated. Authorities denied him medical attention after he suffered a heart attack.

Countryman, Willie – Dawson, Ga., 1958

Police officer W.B. Cherry was cleared of murder charges after police said he shot Countryman “in self defense in the line of duty.”

Dahmon, Vincent – Natchez, Miss., 1966

Dahmon, 65, was shot in the head around the time of a march in support of James Meredith.

Daniels, Woodrow Wilson – Water Valley, Miss., 1958

Sheriff Buster Treloar, identified by four witnesses as the man who beat Daniels to death in a prison, was freed after 23 minutes of deliberation by an all-white jury. “By God,” Treloar said after the trial. “Now I can get back to rounding up bootleggers and damn niggers.”

Dumas, Joseph Hill – Perry, Fla., 1962

Florida Governor Farris Bryant suspended constable Henry Sauls in connection with the shooting of 19-year-old Dumas. Sauls was indicted by a federal grand jury. The result of indictment is unclear.

Evans, Pheld – Canton, Miss., 1964

Charles Evers, the brother of slain NAACP official Medgar Evers, identified Evans as having been killed under mysterious circumstances.

Evanston, J.E. – Long Lake, Miss., 1955

Evanston’s body is fished out of Long Lake in December. Evanston was a teacher in the local elementary school.

Greene, Mattie – Ringgold, Ga., 1960

Greene is killed when a bomb explodes under her house.

Greenwood, Jasper – Vicksburg, Miss., 1964

Greenwood was found shot to death near his car on a rural road. Police said the slaying was not racially motivated.

Griffin, Jimmie Lee – Sturgis, Miss., 1965

Griffin was killed in a hit-and-run accident. A coroner’s report revealed Griffin was run over at least twice.

Hall, A.C. – Macon, Ga., 1962

Hall was shot and killed after a white woman claimed he stole a pistol from her car. He was shot by police as he ran away.

Hamilton, Rogers – Lowndes County, Ala., 1957

Hamilton, 19, was taken from his home by a group of white men and shot to death. Hamilton was allegedly warned to stay away from black girls in the town of Hayneville. No charges were brought in the case.

Hampton, Collie – Winchester, Ky., 1966

Hampton was shot by police officers after allegedly threatening a police officer.

Harris, Alphonso – Albany, Ga., 1966

Harris, a member of SCLC, died after allegedly organizing a walkout by black students at a school in Grenada, Miss. He was killed in Georgia in response to previous civil rights activity there.

Henry, Izell – Greensburg, La., 1954

Izell was brutally beaten a day after voting. He suffered permanent brain damage and died five years later.

Hill, Arthur James – Villa Rica, Ga., 1965

Hill was shot during an argument with whites. One suspect was held on voluntary manslaughter charge.

Hunter, Ernest – St. Mary’s, Ga., 1958

Hunter was shot and killed while in jail following an arrest on charges he was interfering with an officer.

Jackson, Luther – Philadelphia, Miss., 1959

Jackson was killed by police after he and his girlfriend were found talking in their car, which was stalled in a ditch. Police claim Jackson attacked them.

Jells, Ernest – Clarksdale, Miss., 1964

Jells was accused of stealing a banana from a grocery and pointing a rifle at pursuing police officers. The officers were exonerated.

Jeter, Joe Franklin – Atlanta, Ga., 1958

Jeter was killed by police in front of his family, who were also arrested and convicted in connection with a gathering that police said turned into a melee. A grand jury found the slaying was justified.

Lee, John – Goshen Springs, Miss., 1965

Lee’s body was found beaten on a country road.

Lee, Willie Henry – Rankin County, Miss., 1965

Lee, who was known to have attended civil rights meetings, was found beaten on a country road. An autopsy revealed he died by strangulation from gas.

Lillard, Richard – Nashville, Tenn., 1958

Lillard died after a beating from three white guards at a local workhouse. All three were acquitted of murder charges.

Love, George – Indianola, Miss., 1958

Love was killed in a gun battle with police who believed he was responsible for a murder and arson. He was later cleared of any connection to the murder.

Mahone, Maybelle – Molena, Ga., 1956

Mahone was killed by a white man for “sassing” him. The man was initially found guilty, but later found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Maxwell, Sylvester – Canton, Miss., 1963

Maxwell’s castrated and mutilated body was found by his brother-in-law less than 500 yards from the home of a white family.

McNair, Robert – Pelahatchie, Miss., 1965

McNair was killed by a town constable.

Melton, Clinton – Sumner, Miss., 1956

Elmer Otis Kimbell was cleared in Melton’s death. Kimbell claimed Melton fired at him three times before he returned fire with a shotgun. No gun was found in Melton’s car or on his body.

Miller, James Andrew – Jackson, Ga., 1964

Miller was shot by whites a few days after being beaten. A suspect was cleared after the coroner ruled he fired in self-defense.

Mixon, Booker T – Clarksdale, Miss., 1959

Mixon’s body was found lying on the side of the road, completely nude. Police claimed it was a hit-and-run, though family members cited his naked body and the extensive amount of flesh torn from his body as evidence of murder.

Montgomery, Nehemiah – Merigold, Miss., 1964

Montgomery, 60, was shot by police after allegedly refusing to pay for gas. Police were acquitted, and the shooting was called justifiable homicide.

Morris, Frank – Ferriday, La., 1964

Morris, who owned a shoe store, was killed when a gas stove exploded during an arson. Morris, who lived in a room adjoining the store, was ordered to return to his room by the men who started the fire. An extensive Justice Department investigation was conducted, but the outcome is unclear.

Motley, James Earl – Wetumpka, Ala., 1967

Elmore County Deputy Sheriff Harvey Conner was cleared in the death of Motley, who died in prison after suffering three severe blows to the head.

O’Quinn, Sam – Centreville, Miss., 1959

O’Quinn, derided by some local whites for being “uppity,” was shot after joining the NAACP.

Orsby, Hubert – Pickens, Miss., 1964

Orsby’s body was found in the Black River. It was reported that he was wearing a t-shirt with “CORE,” written on it, representing the Congress of Racial Equality.

Payne, Larry – Memphis, Tenn., 1968

Payne, 16, was killed by a shotgun blast fired by a patrolman as he emerged from a basement in a housing development.

Pickett, C.H. – Columbus, Ga., 1957

The part-time minister was beaten to death while in police custody.

Pitts, Albert

Pitts, David

Johnson, Marshall

McPharland, Ernest – Monroe, La., 1960

A white employer was arrested and then released in the shooting of five of his employees, four of whom died. The victims were accused of making threats. The employer was never charged.

Powell, Jimmy – Brooklyn, N.Y., 1964

Powell, 15, was fatally shot by a Brooklyn police officer. The officer’s exoneration by a grand jury sparked riots in Harlem.

Prather, William Roy – Corinth, Miss., 1959

Prather, 15, was killed in an anti-black Halloween prank. One of eight youths involved was indicted on manslaughter charges.

Queen, Johnny – Fayette, Miss., 1965

A white off-duty constable was named in the pistol slaying of Johnny Queen. The shooting was not connected to any arrest.

Rasberry, Donald – Okolona, Miss., 1965

Rasberry was shot to death by his plantation boss.

Robinson, Fred – Edisto Island, S.C., 1960

Robinson’s body was found washed ashore on August 5. His eyes were reportedly gouged out and his skull crushed.

Robinson, Johnny – Birmingham, Ala., 1963

Robinson, 16, was shot in the back by a policeman on the same day as the 16th Street Church bombing. Police said the victim had thrown stones at white youths driving through the area.

Sanford, Willie Joe – Hawkinsville, Ga., 1957

Sanford’s naked body was raised from the bottom of a creek where it had been wired to undergrowth in the water. The result of a grand jury investigation is unknown.

Scott Jr., Marshall – New Orleans, La., 1965

Scott was put into solitary confinement in a New Orleans jail. He died without receiving any medical attention. There were no arrests in the case.

Shelby, Jessie James – Yazoo City, Miss., 1956

Shelby, 23, was fatally wounded by a police officer who claimed he shot Shelby because he resisted arrest.

Singleton, W.G. – Shelby, N.C., 1957

Singleton died from third-degree burns suffered in an explosion and fire.

Smith, Ed – State Line, Miss., 1958

A grand jury refused to indict L.D. Clark in the death of Smith, who was shot in his yard in front of his wife. Clark later reportedly bragged about the killing.

Stewart, Eddie James – Crystal Springs, Miss., 1966

Stewart was reportedly beaten and shot while in police custody. Police claimed he was shot while trying to escape.

Taylor, Isaiah – Ruleville, Miss., 1964

Taylor was shot by a police officer after allegedly lunging at him with a knife. The shooting was ruled a justifiable homicide.

Thomas, Freddie Lee – LeFlore County, Miss., 1965

Federal investigators looked into the death of Thomas, 16. Thomas’ brother believed he was murdered as a warning against black voter registration. The result of the investigation is unknown.

Triggs, Saleam – Hattiesburg, Miss., 1965

The body of Mrs. Triggs was found mysteriously burned to death.

Varner, Hubert – Atlanta, Ga., 1966

Varner, 16, was killed when a gunman fired into a group of black teenagers. The gunman allegedly believed the teenagers made a comment to his white companion. The result of a federal investigation is unknown.

Walker, Clifton – Adams County, Miss., 1964

Walker was killed by a shotgun blast at close range. The result of a federal investigation is unknown.

Waymers, James – Allendale, S.C., 1965

A white man is acquitted in the shooting death of Waymers after entering a plea of self-defense.

Wilder, John Wesley – Ruston, La., 1965

A white policeman was accused of Wilder’s death, and a coroner’s jury ruled the slaying was justifiable homicide.

Williamson, Rodell – Camden, Ala., 1967

Williamson’s body was recovered from the Alabama River after it snagged on a fisherman’s line. Williamson was active in the Wilcox Country branch of the NAACP, but local sheriff P.C. Jenkins said there were no signs of foul play.

Wooden, Archie – Camden, Ala., 1967

Wooden, 16, bled to death after either jumping or falling onto a sapling in a ditch. The cut sapling severed an artery. A newspaper report said the Mobile office of the FBI made a civil rights violation inquiry into the incident. The results of that inquiry are unknown.

…and no doubt murdered by mainly DEMOCRATS.

Latin2 said:
…and no doubt murdered by mainly DEMOCRATS.

Agreed. I wonder if former Democratic Senator and KKK Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd ever participated in the lynching of a black man when he was a Klan member.

More importantly, I wonder why NO member of the media ever asked him that question in all the years after his supposed “conversion” to racial harmony. After all, there is no statute of limitations for murder, and if Byrd’s conversion was sincere, he could have given valuable, eye-witness testimony to bring numerous murders (including, possibly, himself) to justice.

AnonymousFinch said:
Agreed. I wonder if former Democratic Senator and KKK Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd ever participated in the lynching of a black man when he was a Klan member.

More importantly, I wonder why NO member of the media ever asked him that question in all the years after his supposed “conversion” to racial harmony. After all, there is no statute of limitations for murder, and if Byrd’s conversion was sincere, he could have given valuable, eye-witness testimony to bring numerous murders (including, possibly, himself) to justice.

He was a recruiter for the Klan…meaning Byrd knew what the M.O. of the Klan was.

Al Gore’s father Al Gore Sr. fought tooth and nail against the Civil Right’s Act, even trying to overturn it in the courts after it was passed. He then took his son Al Gore Jr. out of public school so he wouldn’t have to go to school with blacks.

AnonymousFinch said:
First, that’s completely irrelevant. Whether it is in the original 1789 Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or one of the later Amendments, it’s still the Constitution. There is also nothing in the original 1789 Constitution that protects freedom of speech. That fact doesn’t diminish the First Amendment. In my original post, I referenced the Articles and Sections of the 1789 Constitution because that’s where the powers of the federal government are enumerated.

In other words you got caught in your own hypocrisy and are now spinning wildly to get out of it.

AnonymousFinch said:
That’s just a silly argument. Article I, Section gives Congress the ability to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy. No one seriously doubts that that power includes the ability to maintain and create an Air Force, which is really nothing more than an Army that uses technology that didn’t exist in 1789, or an intelligence agency (which is a function of national defense that used to be under the Department of Defense on the organizational chart). The power to provide for the common defense is clearly there. Likewise, the FBI enforces federal criminal law that is proper under the Necessary and Proper Clause so long as the criminal laws enforced are related to one of the enumerated powers. And with the FBI, they are. They are related to the regulation of federal lands, the currency, interstate commerce, etc. Where the FBI tries to enforce a law that is not related to the enumerated powers, it is struck down as unconstitutional. See, e.g., U.S. v. Lopez, which struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 because it violated the Commerce Clause.

It is not silly. You just don’t like because it disproves your myopic point of view. By your definition that any power not specifically cited in the Constitution is unconstitutional. Thus, Article I only provides for an Army and Navy, not for an Air Force or a Space program. Therefore they are unconstitutional by your own narrow definition. Same is true of a Federal police force, the FBI and a Federal intelligence agency, the CIA. In fact by your definition, any Federal law that is not specifically cited in the constitution or enforces a power of the Federal government enumerated in the consititution is unconstitutional.

Also, by your definition, Social Security and Medicare would be unconstitutional too. However, the constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. I suggest you look up Helvering vs. Davis, Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis and Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper.

So the argument you’re making is that programs you like are constitutional and those you don’t are not.

AnonymousFinch said:
You are wrong. The federal government doesn’t just “give” the money to states. It simultaneously mandates the way the program is to be run. That’s why Congress decides that it’s going to be, for example, a 26-week extension of benefits. If you were correct–and you’re not–then New York might decide that the extension is 52 weeks, and New Jersey might decide its is 30, and Pennsylvania 15, etc.

No you are wrong because many states have provided additional weeks beyond those funded by the Federal government. And if it is unconstitutional why has no state challenged it. Why have no states including those with GOP Governors said no thanks we don’t what your money and taken the Federal government to court challenging the constitutionality of the program? The answer to that is NO. Why? Because it is not unconstitutional.

gordonbloyershow said:
Wow, you should quit while you are behind. Every time you post you prove more ignorant. Stop making a fool out of yourself. YOU know NOTHING about the law or the Constitution.

Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! LMAO!!!!

JamesA1102 said:
No you are wrong because many states have provided additional weeks beyond those funded by the Federal government. And if it is unconstitutional why has no state challenged it. Why have no states including those with GOP Governors said no thanks we don’t what your money and taken the Federal government to court challenging the constitutionality of the program? The answer to that is NO. Why? Because it is not unconstitutional.

So, here’s my question to you. Are there any limits on federal power whatsoever? Or can Congress simply regulate anything at all in the country that it chooses to regulate? If there are limits, what are they?

Latin2 said:
Al Gore’s father Al Gore Sr. fought tooth and nail against the Civil Right’s Act, even trying to overturn it in the courts after it was passed. He then took his son Al Gore Jr. out of public school so he wouldn’t have to go to school with blacks.

Sorry that is just an out and out lie. Al Gore, Sr. lost re-election in 1970 because of his support for civil rights. True he did vote against the Civil Rights act of 1964 because he was concerned that it went too far too fast and would be used to cut off funding of schools who appeared to be in violation,but he later apologized for doing so calling his vote a big mistake. However, he voted against the Poll Tax of 1942, voted for Civil Rights Act of 1957, voted for 1965 Voters Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. In 1957, he nominated 2 young black students from Memphis for appointment to US Air Force Academy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore,_Sr.

AnonymousFinch said:
So, here’s my question to you. Are there any limits on federal power whatsoever? Or can Congress simply regulate anything at all in the country that it chooses to regulate? If there are limits, what are they?

Yes there are limits, such as: 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. And a whole other bunch just like that. When you find the clause that specifically forbids the congress from providing the states with funds for additional weeks of unemployment insurance, let me know.

JamesA1102 said:
Yes there are limits, such as: 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. And a whole other bunch just like that. When you find the clause that specifically forbids the congress from providing the states with funds for additional weeks of unemployment insurance, let me know.

So your position is that the original 1789 Constitution (prior to the passage of the Bill of Rights) granted Congress unlimited federal jurisdiction over everything in the country, and that today the only limits on federal power are contained in the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. And, further, you take the Tenth Amendment to be meaningless because, in your view, in contradicts the Ninth Amendment. (Why would the drafters enact two Amendments, one right after the other, that contradict each other? And if they did, doesn’t the later enacted statute control the earlier?)

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Here is Madison in Federalist 41 talking about the specific enumeration of powers contained in Article I, Section 8 (obviously before the Bill of Rights was passed):

“It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

“But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

“The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!”

Again, you are completely clueless. Even the most liberal Justice on the Supreme Court would reject the argument you’re making here. Pick up a book (any of the ones I mentioned above) and open your mind!

alamo, although Palin actually is pretty, I threw that in because I know how badly it upsets you lefties to hear it. And your post didn’t disappoint. Like Pavlov ringing the bell, the left starts slobbering. LOL

So what if they cheered? The Tea Party is made up of the 20% of idiots that still liked Bush throughout his entire presidency

AnonymousFinch said:
So, here’s my question to you. Are there any limits on federal power whatsoever? Or can Congress simply regulate anything at all in the country that it chooses to regulate? If there are limits, what are they?

Mr. Finch,

Leave James alone. You’re making him look like a complete dolt. The question “why is the Air Force Constitutional?” is all you need to know about his grasp of Con Law. Its obvious that you gave the poor kid a beating, so let him make a last incoherant argument and then ignore it so you can stop humiliating the lad.

AnonymousFinch said:
No, the Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” It says nothing about additional powers being given to the federal government. Rather, it says that there are additional rights retained by the people. That is, again, another blow against an expansive reading of the powers of government. Again, if you had ever taken even a cursory look at the Federalist Papers you would know this. And, for the record, the Ninth Amendment itself doesn’t really mean much. It is just a rejection of an old common law rule of construction called “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.” And as for my ignorance of the Constitution and your advice that I “pick up a copy of something Glen Beck didn’t write and learn something about the Constitution from someone who really knows it,” I had a graduate degree in the philosophy of law long before I went to law school. If you like me to give you a reading list so that you can catch up, I’d be happy to oblige.

Does your alma mater give refunds? You might inquire. Citing the Federalist Papers is about as convincing as dicta from dissents. Two hundred and thirty years – think maybe you can come up with some precedent? Check out the impact of the Ninth Amendment and its application of and to the 14th Amendment and get back to me.

notsofast says:
October 23, 2010 at 6:57 pm notsofast(Quote)
9 9
When she said “aren’t you all proud to be American”, all the libs covering the speech ran from the room!

why are you always saying liberal this liberal that.

I’m a fighting liberal

You know, I’ve studied history, I’ve read about America and you know something, if it weren’t for liberals, we’d be living in a dark, evil country, far worse than anything Bush could conjure up. A world where children were told to piss on the side of the road because they weren’t fit to pee in a white outhouse, where women had to get back alley abortions and where rape was a joke, unless the alleged criminal was black, whereupon he was hung from a tree and castrated.

What has conservatism given America? A stable social order? A peaceful homelife? Respect for law and order? No. Hell, no. It hasn’t given us anything we didn’t have and it wants to take away our freedoms.

The Founding Fathers, as flawed as they were, slaveowners and pornographers, smugglers and terrorists, understood one thing, a man’s path to God needed no help from the state. Is the religion of these conservatives so fragile that they need the state to prop it up, to tell us how to pray and think? Is that what they stand for? Is that their America?

Conservatism plays on fear and thrives on lies and dishonesty. I grew up with honest, decent conservatives and those people have been replaced by the party of greed. It is one thing to want less government interference and smaller, fiscally responsible government. It is another thing entirely to be a corporate whore, selling out to the highest bidder because the CEO fattens your campaign chest. They are building an America which cannot be sustained. One based on the benefit of the few at the cost of the many. The indifferent boss who hires too few people and works them to death or until they break down sick. Cheap labor capitalism has replaced common sense. “Globalism” which is really guise for exploitation, replaced fair trade, which is nothing like fair for the trapped semi-slaves of the maquliadoras. In the Texas border towns, hundreds of these women have been used as sex slaves and then apparently killed,the FBI powerless to do anything as the criminals sit in Mexico untouched by law.

For the better part of a decade, the conservatives made liberal a dirty word. Well, it isn’t. It represents the best and most noble nature of what America stands for: equitable government services, old age pensions, health care, education, fair trials and humane imprisonment. It is the heart and soul of what made American different and better than other countries. Not only an escape from oppression, but the opportunity to thrive in land free of tradition and the repression that can bring. We offered a democracy which didn’t enshrine the rich and made them feel they had an obligation to their workers.

Bush and the people around him disdain that. They think, by accident of birth and circumstance, they were meant to rule the world and those who did not agree would suffer.

Liberal does not and has not meant weak until the conservatives said it did. Was Martin Luther King weak? Bobby Kennedy? Gene McCarthy? It was the liberals who remade this country and ended legal segregation and legal sexism. Not the conservatives, who wanted to hold on to the old ways.

It’s time to regain the sprit of FDR and Truman and the people around them. People who believed in the public good over private gain. It is time to stop apologizing for being a liberal and be proud to fight for your beliefs. No more shying away or being defined by other people. Liberals believe in a strong defense and punishment for crime. But not preemption and pointless jail sentences. We believe no American should be turned away from a hospital because they are too poor or lack a proper legal defense. We believe that people should make enough from one job to live on, to spend time on raising their family. We believe that individuals and not the state should dictate who gets married and why. The best way to defend marriage is to expand, not restrict it.

It was the liberals who opposed the Nazis while the conservatives were plotting to get their brown shirts or fund Hitler. It was the liberals who warned about Spain and fought there, who joined the RAF to fight the Germans, who brought democracy to Germany and Japan. Let us not forget it was the conservatives who opposed defending America until the Germans sank our ships. They would have done nothing as Britain came under Nazi control. It was they who supported Joe McCarthy and his baseless, drink fueled claims.

Without liberals, there would be no modern America, just a Nazi sattlelite state. Liberals weak on defense? Liberals created America’s defense. The conservatives only need vets at election time.

It is time to stop looking for an accomodation with the right. They want none for us. They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quiet I know what I am, what are you?

steve gillard
rest in peace

notsofast says:
October 23, 2010 at 6:57 pm notsofast(Quote)
9 9
When she said “aren’t you all proud to be American”, all the libs covering the speech ran from the room!

why are you always saying liberal this liberal that.

I’m a fighting liberal

You know, I’ve studied history, I’ve read about America and you know something, if it weren’t for liberals, we’d be living in a dark, evil country, far worse than anything Bush could conjure up. A world where children were told to piss on the side of the road because they weren’t fit to pee in a white outhouse, where women had to get back alley abortions and where rape was a joke, unless the alleged criminal was black, whereupon he was hung from a tree and castrated.

What has conservatism given America? A stable social order? A peaceful homelife? Respect for law and order? No. Hell, no. It hasn’t given us anything we didn’t have and it wants to take away our freedoms.

The Founding Fathers, as flawed as they were, slaveowners and pornographers, smugglers and terrorists, understood one thing, a man’s path to God needed no help from the state. Is the religion of these conservatives so fragile that they need the state to prop it up, to tell us how to pray and think? Is that what they stand for? Is that their America?

Conservatism plays on fear and thrives on lies and dishonesty. I grew up with honest, decent conservatives and those people have been replaced by the party of greed. It is one thing to want less government interference and smaller, fiscally responsible government. It is another thing entirely to be a corporate whore, selling out to the highest bidder because the CEO fattens your campaign chest. They are building an America which cannot be sustained. One based on the benefit of the few at the cost of the many. The indifferent boss who hires too few people and works them to death or until they break down sick. Cheap labor capitalism has replaced common sense. “Globalism” which is really guise for exploitation, replaced fair trade, which is nothing like fair for the trapped semi-slaves of the maquliadoras. In the Texas border towns, hundreds of these women have been used as sex slaves and then apparently killed,the FBI powerless to do anything as the criminals sit in Mexico untouched by law.

For the better part of a decade, the conservatives made liberal a dirty word. Well, it isn’t. It represents the best and most noble nature of what America stands for: equitable government services, old age pensions, health care, education, fair trials and humane imprisonment. It is the heart and soul of what made American different and better than other countries. Not only an escape from oppression, but the opportunity to thrive in land free of tradition and the repression that can bring. We offered a democracy which didn’t enshrine the rich and made them feel they had an obligation to their workers.

Bush and the people around him disdain that. They think, by accident of birth and circumstance, they were meant to rule the world and those who did not agree would suffer.

Liberal does not and has not meant weak until the conservatives said it did. Was Martin Luther King weak? Bobby Kennedy? Gene McCarthy? It was the liberals who remade this country and ended legal segregation and legal sexism. Not the conservatives, who wanted to hold on to the old ways.

It’s time to regain the sprit of FDR and Truman and the people around them. People who believed in the public good over private gain. It is time to stop apologizing for being a liberal and be proud to fight for your beliefs. No more shying away or being defined by other people. Liberals believe in a strong defense and punishment for crime. But not preemption and pointless jail sentences. We believe no American should be turned away from a hospital because they are too poor or lack a proper legal defense. We believe that people should make enough from one job to live on, to spend time on raising their family. We believe that individuals and not the state should dictate who gets married and why. The best way to defend marriage is to expand, not restrict it.

It was the liberals who opposed the Nazis while the conservatives were plotting to get their brown shirts or fund Hitler. It was the liberals who warned about Spain and fought there, who joined the RAF to fight the Germans, who brought democracy to Germany and Japan. Let us not forget it was the conservatives who opposed defending America until the Germans sank our ships. They would have done nothing as Britain came under Nazi control. It was they who supported Joe McCarthy and his baseless, drink fueled claims.

Without liberals, there would be no modern America, just a Nazi sattlelite state. Liberals weak on defense? Liberals created America’s defense. The conservatives only need vets at election time.

It is time to stop looking for an accomodation with the right. They want none for us. They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quiet I know what I am, what are you?

steve gilliard
rest in peace

beamangrow said:
notsofast says:October 23, 2010 at 6:57 pm notsofast(Quote)9 9When she said “aren’t you all proud to be American”, all the libs covering the speech ran from the room! why are you always saying liberal this liberal that. I’m a fighting liberal You know, I’ve studied history, I’ve read about America and you know something, if it weren’t for liberals, we’d be living in a dark, evil country, far worse than anything Bush could conjure up. A world where children were told to piss on the side of the road because they weren’t fit to pee in a white outhouse, where women had to get back alley abortions and where rape was a joke, unless the alleged criminal was black, whereupon he was hung from a tree and castrated. What has conservatism given America? A stable social order? A peaceful homelife? Respect for law and order? No. Hell, no. It hasn’t given us anything we didn’t have and it wants to take away our freedoms. The Founding Fathers, as flawed as they were, slaveowners and pornographers, smugglers and terrorists, understood one thing, a man’s path to God needed no help from the state. Is the religion of these conservatives so fragile that they need the state to prop it up, to tell us how to pray and think? Is that what they stand for? Is that their America? Conservatism plays on fear and thrives on lies and dishonesty. I grew up with honest, decent conservatives and those people have been replaced by the party of greed. It is one thing to want less government interference and smaller, fiscally responsible government. It is another thing entirely to be a corporate whore, selling out to the highest bidder because the CEO fattens your campaign chest. They are building an America which cannot be sustained. One based on the benefit of the few at the cost of the many. The indifferent boss who hires too few people and works them to death or until they break down sick. Cheap labor capitalism has replaced common sense. “Globalism” which is really guise for exploitation, replaced fair trade, which is nothing like fair for the trapped semi-slaves of the maquliadoras. In the Texas border towns, hundreds of these women have been used as sex slaves and then apparently killed,the FBI powerless to do anything as the criminals sit in Mexico untouched by law. For the better part of a decade, the conservatives made liberal a dirty word. Well, it isn’t. It represents the best and most noble nature of what America stands for: equitable government services, old age pensions, health care, education, fair trials and humane imprisonment. It is the heart and soul of what made American different and better than other countries. Not only an escape from oppression, but the opportunity to thrive in land free of tradition and the repression that can bring. We offered a democracy which didn’t enshrine the rich and made them feel they had an obligation to their workers. Bush and the people around him disdain that. They think, by accident of birth and circumstance, they were meant to rule the world and those who did not agree would suffer. Liberal does not and has not meant weak until the conservatives said it did. Was Martin Luther King weak? Bobby Kennedy? Gene McCarthy? It was the liberals who remade this country and ended legal segregation and legal sexism. Not the conservatives, who wanted to hold on to the old ways. It’s time to regain the sprit of FDR and Truman and the people around them. People who believed in the public good over private gain. It is time to stop apologizing for being a liberal and be proud to fight for your beliefs. No more shying away or being defined by other people. Liberals believe in a strong defense and punishment for crime. But not preemption and pointless jail sentences. We believe no American should be turned away from a hospital because they are too poor or lack a proper legal defense. We believe that people should make enough from one job to live on, to spend time on raising their family. We believe that individuals and not the state should dictate who gets married and why. The best way to defend marriage is to expand, not restrict it. It was the liberals who opposed the Nazis while the conservatives were plotting to get their brown shirts or fund Hitler. It was the liberals who warned about Spain and fought there, who joined the RAF to fight the Germans, who brought democracy to Germany and Japan. Let us not forget it was the conservatives who opposed defending America until the Germans sank our ships. They would have done nothing as Britain came under Nazi control. It was they who supported Joe McCarthy and his baseless, drink fueled claims. Without liberals, there would be no modern America, just a Nazi sattlelite state. Liberals weak on defense? Liberals created America’s defense. The conservatives only need vets at election time. It is time to stop looking for an accomodation with the right. They want none for us. They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quiet I know what I am, what are you? steve gilliardrest in peace

YOU GO GUY!!!! Totally correct.

Steve Gillard (Beamangrow), Many thanks for your brilliant defense of Liberalism. Unfortunately, I’m certain the RW’s will attack and/or ignore the obvious facts that you state. Many of the great things about our wonderful country come from the liberal traditions set out by our founding fathers. They were not reactionaries like the current crop of so-called conservatives. I’ve been trying to figure out what it is with these people. They don’t have any serious ideas of how we can get out of the mess we’re in. All they seem to do is hate Obama who , at least, has a brain and has prevented us from going over the abyss. Even worse, the teapublicans are backed by the very same people who got us into this jam in the first place. I recommend that you copy and post your comments wherever there’s a right/left discussion going on. If you can’t do it other people will, myself included.

AnonymousFinch said:
So your position is that the original 1789 Constitution (prior to the passage of the Bill of Rights) granted Congress unlimited federal jurisdiction over everything in the country, and that today the only limits on federal power are contained in the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. And, further, you take the Tenth Amendment to be meaningless because, in your view, in contradicts the Ninth Amendment. (Why would the drafters enact two Amendments, one right after the other, that contradict each other? And if they did, doesn’t the later enacted statute control the earlier?)

Actually I never made the 9th vs. 10th amendment argument. But in my view which has been the prevailing view in this country for over 200 years is that anything that the constitution doesn’t specifically forbid it allows. That is why the Air Force, NASA, the FBI and, yes, Social Security are all constitutional as is Congress providing funds for additional weeks of unemployment insurance.

AnonymousFinch said:
So your position is that the original 1789 Constitution (prior to the passage of the Bill of Rights) granted Congress unlimited federal jurisdiction over everything in the country, and that today the only limits on federal power are contained in the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. And, further, you take the Tenth Amendment to be meaningless because, in your view, in contradicts the Ninth Amendment. (Why would the drafters enact two Amendments, one right after the other, that contradict each other? And if they did, doesn’t the later enacted statute control the earlier?) Sorry, but you’re wrong. Here is Madison in Federalist 41 talking about the specific enumeration of powers contained in Article I, Section 8 (obviously before the Bill of Rights was passed): “It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.” “But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. “The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are “their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.” The terms of article eighth are still more identical: “All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,” etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!”

You can quote the Federalist paper (or rather cherry pick the passages that support your view) all you like but they are not enshrined into law. The constitution is. By your definition Social Security is unconstitutional but there are three Supreme Court decisions that say Social Security is constitutional. And I noticed how you have failed to address that now in your last two posts. Intellectual cowardice.

AnonymousFinch said:
Again, you are completely clueless. Even the most liberal Justice on the Supreme Court would reject the argument you’re making here. Pick up a book (any of the ones I mentioned above) and open your mind!

No you’re the one who is clueless. Pick up a book that is written by someone other than a RW ideologue. I would suggest you start with the 1937 Supreme Court decision Steward Machine Co. v. Davis.

Scott_in_MI said:
Mr. Finch, Leave James alone. You’re making him look like a complete dolt. The question “why is the Air Force Constitutional?” is all you need to know about his grasp of Con Law. Its obvious that you gave the poor kid a beating, so let him make a last incoherant argument and then ignore it so you can stop humiliating the lad.

Not just the Air Force but NASA and Social Security too. Please feel free to explain how they are constitutional under Mr. Finch’s interpetation.

Beamangrow, that’s fascinating to learn that every one of our fighting men during WWII was a liberal. Wasn’t it the liberal FDR who locked up Japanese Americans because of their race? Do you really think liberal politicians have no rich contributors? Didn’t liberal LBJ lying about the Gulf of Tonkin start the flow of combat troops into Vietnam? Didn’t liberal Bill Clinton back NAFTA, promising us that our auto companies moving their plants to Mexico would be a good thing? Is Obama still trading with China and running up our trade deficits? And any time there’s talk of increasing military spending, isn’t it the liberals who complain the loudest? And now, isn’t it liberal political correctness that is strangling free speech, to the point that you’re not even allowed to mention the words ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorist’ in the same sentence? That was a nice rosy picture you painted of liberals, but it needs a dose of reality.

timzank says:

She did a helluva job!

At selling her brand, a spin on the failed Bush years, scaring knee jerks into thinking they don’t have their freedom, call to arms, get mad, scare grandma and having a bunch of sheep listening to her silliness! Yeah, she did a good job on all the above!

Kudos to James for exceptional scholarship.

While his argument may have some merit, AnonFlinch diminishes his case by dissembling and seeking to belittle James rather than proving him to be in error – which he fails to do.

From: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/p/10th_amendment.htm

“When the Tenth Amendment was originally proposed, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states; it applied only to federal law. States had their own constitutions and their own bills of rights. Some states also had slavery, which was protected under the Tenth Amendment. The American Civil War made it clear that this wasn’t a workable system, so the Fourteenth Amendment extended the Bill of Rights and made it applicable to both state and federal law. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment, while still relevant, no longer holds as much power as it once did.”

“[C]an Congress simply regulate anything at all in the country that it chooses to regulate?”

The ultra-conservative Supreme Court just shot down political campaign spending limits on people – as long as the “people” involved are corporations – so, no, Congress cannot regulate “anything at all.”

A better discussion might be the court’s ludicrous assertion that corporations are persons.

writer cannot “refudiate” beaman’s thoughtful rumination on the liberal history of the country and is forced to cherry-pick, ala Flinch, a few unfortunate episodes of less-than-stellar conduct by a few individuals over the last half-century or so.

Japanese internment was a tragic overreaction but understandable in the fear-filled context of the times. Right-wingers cheered on LBJ and Clinton in the above endeavors. The one thing they DON’T criticize Obama for is trading with Communist China (except for the occasional hypocritical crank).

“any time there’s talk of increasing military spending, isn’t it the liberals who complain the loudest?”

EVERYONE should complain about waste, fraud, abuse and needless weapons programs. We’ve spent a BILLION dollars on Reagan’s “Star Wars” program, even though it was long ago found to be technically unfeasible. (Making it work would require detonating a terrestrial atomic bomb – boy, would THAT upset the neighbors!)

We have something like 800 military facilities around the world. Why?

“isn’t it liberal political correctness that is strangling free speech”

Hardly. It’s neocon extremism that’s killing doctors who perform legal abortions and want to invade our bedrooms and tell us whom we should love or marry. Responsible speech is protected: racists are on their own.

The current crop of conservative extremists are “strangling the free speech” of their own, more moderate contemporaries.

Here’s some “liberal reality”: George Washington was a self-proclaimed liberal. You might recall a prolonged skirmish that involved him.

Many of our other founders would likewise be considered liberals. They were smart, courageous people, pledging “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to establishing this country. In many cases, their efforts cost them dearly. We owe it to them to honor their sacrifices by working toward the “more perfect union” they fought and suffered for.

Big_F-ing_Deal said:
Well, Obama didn’t EXACTLY follow Bush’s foreign policy. For instance, he didn’t start a war under false pretenses.

That is the gospel truth! Thank you, you’re my person of the week!

How soon the sheep forget and desire to return to a time that never existed…