Uh oh, it looks like a Republican was straying off the ranch.

Don’t worry, the Fox wing of the GOP will round him up and put him back in the barn.

Great job, Jarrett!

If removing subsidies is a tax increase, then Simpson-Bowles is absolutely a tax increase, even if you lower rates along with removing the subsidies. But subsidies are, by all acounts, anti-free market, and anti-competitive. Subsidies are the government picking winners and losers, instead of market forces.

Not that the GOP has any accountability to being logically consistent, but the inconsistencies should be pointed out nonetheless.

Modern-day Spanish Inquisition. 

“You support tax increases?”

“Yes.”

“Burn the heretic.”

Why never any stories on MSNBC weekend news shows ?

News happens every day , don’t it?

I’m pretty sure MSNBC just runs Lockup on weekends.

Sorry, but no one of the Republican nature finds him that much of a Conservative. He’s like Scott Brown. He’s the best you’re going to get at this stage in IL. All of IL’s businesses and people are leaving.

I can’t wait for the green energy subsidies to be removed. Let’s watch the Dems remove those.

Sorry Jarrett loses this argument…  it is time for tax reform…

Thank God for Fox News, the Koch Bros., and ALEC!

I’m still waiting for Mediaite to cover the story on the Palin documentary. That’s a legit media story.

Sorry, but no one of the Republican nature finds him that much of a Conservative.

Yes yes, I realize he is not fringe enough for most of today’s conservative wingnuts.
Thanks for pointing out the bloody obvious.

“The second poll Jarrett displayed was much more on topic, showing Americans much preferred spending cuts to tax increases.”

The graphic showed, and Jarrett said, that 70% of Americans favor a deal that includes both spending cuts and tax increases.  Watch it again.

The All-American Family http://bit.ly/nEdbbS

Yes, Jarrett was implying that 70% of Americans who supported spending cuts weren’t opened to tax increases. That interpretation is completely intellectually dishonest.

that’s fox, hard on the people they disagree with.

Do not believe the lies of “YOU LIE!” obozo and the lunatic-left d-crats socialists about any US default. Fact is, the US has defaulted MANY times in the past, and if the debt limited is reached in 2011, there will be a negliglible consequence, as clearly explained by John S. Chamberlain in his brilliant article in Mises Daily: Friday, July 15, 2011.

The FIVE PREVIOUS US GOVERNMENT DEFAULTS detailed by Chamberlain are:

-The Continental Currency Default of 1779
-The Default on Continental Domestic Loans in 1782
-The Greenback Default of 1862
-The Liberty Bond Default of 1934
-The Momentary Default of 1979

Chamberlain also clearly explains what would happen in August of 2011 if the debt limit is reached:

“In extremis, what will happen is that all the losses will be foisted onto the Federal Reserve. The Fed holds something on the order of $1.6 trillion in debt issued by the Treasury of the United States. By having the Federal Reserve purchase blocks of Treasury debt and defaulting on these non-investor-held securities, the United States can postpone a default against real investors essentially forever.”

Of course, one can be certain that “YOU LIE!” obozo will do the worst possible things to inflict a petulant, spiteful, petty, mean-spirited revenge against those who don’t give him his beloved MASSIVE TAX INCREASES, like stopping payments to the elderly, the poor and the sick – all without any real need to do so. Why? Because, as mark halperin so aptly described him, he’s a “d-i-*-k”.

Very much dislike the change in comments posting.  With negative reviews of posters  comments it used to be possible to recognize (largely) which side of an argument a person was on and skip agreeing comments if desired to get the next counter point being made.  Now with the only vote being ‘Like’ I’ve no idea whether the post is nonsense or making a valid argument, just because a post doesn’t have a large number of  Likes doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant, it may just have either been too new or otherwise skipped over.   Having negative reviews shows it to either be making an alternative point (that is unpopular to the current stream of posters) or BS.  I’d prefer to skip the BS and just read the pro and con arguments.  There’s a few posters who are clearly on one side or the other politically, and both sides often make thoughtful points.  This new system forces readers to either read all posts or to read hardly any at all (unless they are masochists or REALLY interested in the topic).  I’m disappointed Mediaite, bring back the Negative Post votes!

Did I miss something or did the poll Jarrett referred to saying 70% of Americans prefer spending cuts AND tax increases not make Kirk’s point? 

Grover Norquist’s head just exploded…

I pray that we never find a Republican sufficiently conservative for Republicans.

Yes, but MSNBC runs pure news in the mornings and leaves the talking heads to ABC, CBS, FOX (but not FOX “News” just the Simpson’s FOX) and NBC. Not much to wonder about, Big Petty.

pure news ……….lol

All reports are no one is showing up to see her propaganda film.

that was a interview………..a reporter playing devil’s advocate……..balanced

Nope – He’s just a moderate. He will do the Republican Party little good and in a normal year, he would’ve found difficulty in winning the seat. That’s all. Early on, he wanted Palin’s endorsement but she didn’t touch him – thank goodness.

Like I said, people look to MN, IL and Michigan as “lost” causes…but Michigan could turn around.

You apparently don’t want to know. The debuts have been disastrous. Poorly attended. People snickering. People leaving early. In Orange County, the attendees were two elderly women who left 20 minutes into the showing, Andy Brightphart, two (2) teeangers who went into the near empty theatre and set about their task until Brightphart oddly stood up and began talking to the teenagers and the other five (5) in attendance about eunuchs. Other theatres were less interesting, but none reported more than 20% attendance and many leaving early.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59188.html

In a bit more detail:

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/07/movie_review_sarah_palin_looks.html

This story is not about the “verbal spanking” that Senator Kirk took, it’s that a Republican has come out and publicly stated his party needs to compromise with the President and that revenue increases need to be a part of the debt limit ceiling bill–and he calls that “doing the right thing.”  He’s essentially supporting the President. 

I don’t see that going over too well with Mitch McConnell and the gang.

I’d pay to see that.

False. :)

Dude – That story’s already been debunked. And stop linking me to Politico. I dig credible sources, not ones with agendas.

Clearly, Obamo and all the other limp-wristed Leftists have concluded that they have no plan (nor desire) to get people back to work…which in and of itself would result in the ‘increased revenue’ they keep banging their little faculty-lounge fists over.

So.. increase taxes on the rich like 3%, done deal. Can we get back to doing real things in America again?

“Debunked” = confirmed by multiple credit sources and discredited by incredible sources like Brightphart.

I’d like to ask Obama that but he’s always campaigning, golfing or vacationing.

Oh no….Palin’s documentary wasn’t attended at the same time that Harry Potter’s movie was playing!!!!!!

Seriously….it’s been debunked and it was a one-off. The theater clearly was holding a place for it whereas other theaters went with the “advertised” (there was like zilch as its nearly all ground game) times. Connor has already been debunked. Sorry that it doesn’t fit your meme.

Basically the Fox “journalist” was telling the GOP senator that he better fall in line with the narrative we have at Fox.This is the first GOP Senator that has decided to do the right thing for the country in a reasonable way.The debt commission was very clear “you can’t balance the budget without revenue”

Seems like he’s been in lots of meetings with the ever petulant Little Eric Can’tor quite a bit lately.

Good, he deserves it :)

Hey everyone! The haughty, tweed-jacketed Paul Krugman says ‘We’re not like Greece!” I guess since he’s been right about everything else, he must be right in this case. He needs to find a tall Manhattan skyscraper and ‘Do The Right Thing For The American People.’

Seems like he’s been in a small amount of meetings. He’s a horrible businessman. I don’t care about the debt ceiling because if it gets raised, that only helps my cause. Obama’s downfall will be the ATF. Helloooo Nixon.

Don’t worry. Looks like he’s getting a long one come 2012! :)

you’re implying that Paul Krugman should kill himself? 

For your sake.. I sure hope so, or you’ll like like a colossal asshole. :P

you just did, if you think that is the right thing

A few reasons not to vote for Obama 2012

1. Obamacare

2. The failed $850 billion stimulus (where did it all go and to whom)

3. High, persistent unemployment

4. Gas prices

5. The 2012 budget’s fecklessness

6. Massive deficits each and every year

7. The seizure of GM and Chrysler, the transfer of bondholder wealth to unions, and the dumping of the GM stock at a loss

8. Dodd-Frank

9. Hostility to Israel, including attack on apartment expansion and icing of Prime Minister Netanyahu in basement of White House

10. Failure to support Iran’s Green Revolution

11. Failure to support Syrian revolution

12. The Libyan Fiasco

13. The incompetent handling of the Gulf Oil disaster

14. The unnecessary permitorium in the aftermath of the Gulf Oil disaster

15. The shutdown of Shell’s Arctic oil exploration by EPA

16. The president’s push for cap-and-tax in the Congress

17. The president’s attempt to unconstitutionally impose cap-and-tax via EPA when the Congress wouldn’t pass cap-and-tax

18. The president’s push for unconstitutional restrictions on free
speech on his political enemies while keeping the unions free to spend
money on campaigns via The Disclose Act

19. The president’s attempt to unconstitutionally impose The Disclose
Act on his political opponents but not unions via Executive Order

20. The president’s use of unaccountable “czars”

21. The president’s refusal to accept Congressional direction
vis-a-vis his “czars” contained in the last 2011 Continuing Resolution

22. The president’s verbal assault on the Supreme Court while the members of the Court sat before him in the state of the Union

23. The president and Eric Holder’s politicization of the Department
of Justice, including the black panthers case and the refusal to defend
DOMA

24. The president’s use of demonizing rhetoric towards his opponents,
such as accusing doctors of performing unnecessary surgery for money

25. The president’s hyper-partisan approach to governing including “I
won, you lost” in 2009 and the assault on Paul Ryan with Paul Ryan as
an invited guest in the president’s April 2011 “deficit speech.”

26. Bowing to the Saudi King and the Japanese emperor

27. Returning the bust of Churchill to Great Britain

28. Removing the missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic

29. Backing the would-be dictator of Hondorus when that nation’s Supreme Court rightfully removed him from office

30. Failure to push for quick ratification of free trade agreements with Columbia, Panama and South Korea

31. Indecision on Afghanistan surge coupled with announcement of eventual withdrawal.

32. Incoherence on Egypt, most obviously with the dispatch of Frank
Wizner and then rejection of Wizner’s advice vis-a-vis Mubarak.

33. Appointment Craig Beck to NLRB via recess appointment

34. Appointment of FCC commissioners who are pursuing “net neutrality” without Congressional authorization

35. Failure to resume full water deliveries to California’s Central Valley because of the Delta Smelt

36. Attempt to close Guantanamo Bay

37. Attempt to try terrorists in New York City

38. Janet “The System Worked” Napolitano

39. Government takeover of the student loan program

40. Cancellation of “virtual border fence” project with no replacement or indeed concern for border security

41. The “Beer Summit” and the attack on the Cambridge Police Department

42. The Department of Justice’s attack on Arizona for that state’s
exercise of its sovereign legislative authority on the issue of citizen
identification rules

43. The attack on Scott Walker and Wisconsin for the governor’s and
the state legislature’s exercise of their sovereign legislative
authority on public employment issues

44. Dabbling in basketball brackets while the Middle East fell into chaos and the gas prices skyrocketed

45. Arguing that American exceptionalism was the same as any nation’s sense of exceptionalism

46. Implying that Minnesota bridge collapse was the result of lack of infrastructure funding

47. Inserting himself into campaign for the Olympics

48. Attack on D.C. voucher program

49. Van Jones and a long list of other appointees

50. Teleprompter dependency and the worst run of presidential
rhetoric since Millard Fillmore combined with testiness in the few
interviews he grants.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/17/snl-alum-says-obama-is-basically-hitler/#ixzz1SPSCOi3o

I actually admire Jarrett’s tenacity–he’s good at this stuff. I’m just not sure he’s supposed to be practicing advocacy journalism on a “fair and balanced” network. He’s clearly an advocate for the teabaggers.

It’s simple business, Big Ed.  There is no need for them to be on Sunday morning with the competition already out there.  Every lib watches 60 Minutes on Sunday afternoon.  Saturday morning the libs watch cartoons, and Saturday night they are all out getting high and/or drunk.  It’s just a wise programming decision.

I’m waiting until it’s on cable and I can watch it with the sound down.

Sounds like non-Palinites are staying away in droves.

If you don’t like Palin, why comment on a Palin thread? Makes no sense.

it hasn’t been debunked, the guy provided the advertised list of movies from the paper, see the story on this website.

I think it was debunked, but ok let’s accept that it was a viable showing. Nearly every other ADVERTISED showing that was ONLINE proved to be a success!

Not according to the ARC CEO. Can’t beat facts and numbers provided by C4P. :)

Don Young (H)He is a member of the Republican Party.Young is the 6th most senior U.S. Representative and the 2nd most senior Republican Representative, as well as the 2nd most senior Republican in Congress as a whole. Upon the defeat of SenatThad Cochran (H,S)or Ted Stevens, Young became the longest-serving member of the Alaska congressional delegation……a member of the Republican Party. First elected to the Senate in 1978, he is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations….Bill Young (H) He is a member of the Republican Party, and is currently the longest-serving Republican member of Congress. He was Chairman of Appropriations…..just a few of the many Republicans that are Voted out, oh, i forgot, they’re still serving……both parties leave them in office much too long, its not exclusive to any particular party!

Hey, wait a minute, isn’t Fox News just the propaganda arm of the Republicans? That’s what all you commie d-bags are always popping off.

They also get more viewers on the weekends, kind of funny isn’t it?

“verbal spanking”
LOL!

They leave to the state which offers the most concessions and protect workers the least. It’s a race to the bottom. We need to increase taxes on the top 2%. It won’t hurt business or take away jobs. The increase in taxes they would pay would go into savings and some would go to the market. At no time in the past 75 years has investments in capitals markets provided so little to the American economy. Much of the benefit go to multi-nationationals that invest overseas and continue to send jobs overseas. Letting them keep their taxes helps other country’s workers more than US workers. So increase their taxes. What, it’s not like they are going to move to another country. They’d only get taxed more there. Support the middle-class. Support the American Worker-Consumer.

I make fun of many people here on Mediaite, but I would never wish for anyone to kill themselves. Disgusting.
Bad karma.

gNOpig clowns, WE the LEFT, THE PROGRESSIVES TOLD YOU SO.

No frigging way you idiots are getting out of the hole without increasing taxes.

And cutting spending on your favorite pig project, the military.

Your idol, Raygun did the same. He run astronomical deficits in the name of “national security” only to have his best man Bush senior cutting military spending and raising taxes.

Are your idiots going to do your Raygun impersonation and say “I don’t remember”?

 just wish kirk had the balls to not try to talk around the situattion. i have no problem with him advcating for tax increases if that’s what he believes in. there’s no excuse for the doublespeak, though.

Why do you want to remove the only American investment in our future?

Say it ain’t so!
Palin promoting herself?  NEVAH!

I do like her.  I just don’t want her to be President.  She’s a great person who did a good job as gov until 3,000 groundless, Obama-supporter-spawned ethics complaints took away her ability to govern effectively.  But I don’t think her vision is what the country needs.  And by the way, I think Bristol is a pretty young lady who is trying sincerely to overcome her teen pregnancy mistake. But she ought to go to college.  Fame is fleeting, and sometimes wealth is, too.

Come on! Undefeated is showing in all of 10 theaters in the whole country, and those are in what are mentioned as “conservative” towns, and the per theater average of almost $7,000 is rated as decent, if not spectacular. So with few venues in conservative towns the the take is only 7 grand per theater, that is nothing to brag about. Consider, Transformers 3, which has been out for almost three weeks is taking in almost $6,000 per theater and it is playing in over 3,900 theaters! 

This isn’t a Palin thread.  Why did you bring her into the discussion about one wing-nut republican attacking another wing-nut republican for his debt ceiling position?

Why do you support corporatism instead of democracy?

Clearly, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The People’s Budget: What a “Centrist” Budget Should Look Like … It is the People’s Budget put forward by the co-chairs of the 80-member Congressional Progressive Caucus. Their plan is humane, responsible, 

the dem & repubs in office both support corporatism over the republic for the most part.

Kirk is probably better than any Democrat, but he does have his liberal streak that trips him up.

Instead of the effort needed for a Constitutional, Balance Budget Amendment, maybe, we could simply apply the “equal protection” clause already contained in the 5th and 14th Amendments?

“Tax the rich” is NOT equal protection!

Perhaps, American’s should not think of people as “rich,” but as successful.  Don’t YOU want to be successful?  Most people do.  Thats how you get rich.

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

Wow! BOVINE, you’ve persuaded me to repent and change my evil Conservative ways!  I’ll become an Atheist first thing tomorrow

If those amendments could be applied, wouldn’t the progressive tax system that we already have be unconstitutional?

Absolutely!

Curiously and cynically, I am beginning to see the wisdom in McConnells plan to hand the whole debt mess to Obama and the Socialists.

Win or loose, life or death of a Nation.  Then we’ll know who was right or wrong.

We have twisted that poor old piece parchment into pretzel.  I ask you, respectfully of course, what does “equal protection” mean?
 

I found the best way to listen to Palin is to TIVO it, mute it, play the “Benny Hill Show” theme song, and speed up the tape. Palin makes a lot more sense then.

I would have gone except it is not playing here (Austin, being highly educated, is not Palinista kind of town) and I went to the Bastille festival at the French Legation (transferred to Saturday). Great wine, great food (not a Slim Jim nor other jerky food to be found), great music and all of the women spoke two or more languages. I suppose if I wanted to hear a woman who is not proficient in any language, I might have driven to Houston to watch the “Undented”. Then, probably not.

 Naaa you wouldn’t do that purveyor:) See I now your smarter than that! Heres the deal the republicans are trying to avoid making a decision. If they kick it down the road now what makes you think they wont even if they have the majority? Me thinks they will. They want to avoid any responsibility but how  can they in good conscious do that? They know what its going to actually take to reduce this deficit and debt. But refuse to talk about it. Now granted they are stuck. Heres what they are gonna try and do. They are gonna push something through the house that they know wont pass(a balanced budget amendment). Sounds good but no sweat off their back cause it wont pass. Then they leave it up to Obama to raise the debt limit. Then they blame him cause the balanced budget amendment doesn’t pass. and Obama increases the debt limit. Then they hope this gets them elected in 2012. Then they get the majority and forget about above mentioned balanced budget amendment. Just as they forgot about term limits in their contract for america pledge. You may be cynical but im really cynical:)

Apparently, what you call cynicism, I call being realistic & 100% correct. I think most of the McConnell-like repubs have come to understand that a base that pays as much attention as the Tea Partiers do may tend to vote republican, but they will also go after those who lie in primaries.

If we are talking about removing unnecessary subsidies and closing loopholes rather than actual job killing tax increases, I’m all for it. As a matter of fact, I support a flat tax that removes the abilities of politicians to buy votes. My concern is tax increases that would hit small business owners in particular, which would be absolutely devastating for jobs and the economy in general.
The reduction in spending that Kirk supports doesn’t go far enought to correct the expansion of government in the past decade and that concerns me as well. The bloated bureacracy has to be cut back more to make me believe they are serious about mending their ways.

 Oh you may be right ateryue the tea party might go after these republicans but by then it will be two or four more years down the road. And who are they gonna vote for then. Both parties are trying to not make themselves look bad which isn’t good because it just kicks this problem further down the road. This is why and how we have a 14 trillion dollar debt as we speak. The republicans are kissing up to the tea party now but soon the tea party is gonna figure out that its a frog thats kissing them and not a prince. Problem is they aren’t gonna vote for the democrats so where do they go. They will actually have to form an organized political party and that will destroy the republican party as we know it. The republicans will not go down without a fight and in the end it will hand the election to the democrats.

as stated in the 14th amendment, it means that all laws are applied equally to all people. I think reading into it any further is dangerous, whether it’s being done by the right or the left. That’s what has twisted it into a pretzel in the first place. I think “no taxation without representation” was as far as the founders went. I don’t think the constitution was intended to be a living document (since it already allows for amendments to be made) so I don’t see any need for interpretation. Cleaning up the tax code is the purview of Congress and it is the voters’ responsibility to determine what form that should take through the election process.

 Well NonElite if this is how you feel and you are a tea party/conservative you may want to contact your representative and tell him that you don’t have a problem with closing loopholes and subsidies. Because apparently your republicans think that closing a loophole or getting rid of subsides is a tax increase and are afraid of you. Either that or to take a cynical view they may just not want to appear politically to give Obama anything. If they think thats going to work in the long term I think they are living in a fantasyland . But I don’t think most politicians think in the long term they only think what may make them look good in the short term. This hurts us all in the long run and why I think we need term limits.

OMG…..You found one person….like OMG….you are sooooooo right.

Don’t make me compare Dems to Reps. on longstanding in Congress and Senate based on age. It wouldn’t be a pretty picture. Literally.

Subsidies are subsidies.

I think all subsidies are unnecessary. Businesses need to adapt to new economic situations and to fail if they can’t adapt.

Sorry. A documentary cannot be compared to an action thriller. Just saying. Do you think that a Romney or Huckabee documentary would be getting the same audience? Like I said – Bannon is changing the way that you advertise documentaries. Bannon is a genius – simple as that.

Last I heard, Austin was liberal Texas. It’s also a college town. I was at the lake cabin and I have no desire to see Bannon’s documentary until it comes out through Netflix. I just find it hilarious that even when her documentary, produced by Bannon, is a success, you still can’t give it to her.

That is clearly PDS syndrome.

I also spent my time with relatives at my family’s lake cabin. Oh and beef sticks were enjoyed by all, especially the kids. Nor were they Slim Jim but a more expensive variety.

You seem to have Palin interest by responding to EVERY message that I leave of her. Quite odd for someone that doesn’t think she can speak any language.

Most Republicans and Tea Party folks want to address tax reform in a tax reform-type bill. That makes sense. I support the general idea of a flat tax too. However, explain to me how GE is going to like it. Among other companies that hold their monies off-shore. If it was such a good idea, why isn’t Obama front and center talking about the ideas that HE wishes were in place.

As I said, Obama is a poor President because he leads on nothing.

No, all of IL’s businesses and people are not leaving. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Unfortunately, that’s the way our election system works. If the people consistently vote out those on either side of the aisle who don’t keep their campaign promises, sooner or later politicians will start to have more loyalty to themselves than their parties since they will not be able to stay in Washington long enough to have accumulated any real personal power. I guarantee Chris Dodd doesn’t take one for the team without years of connections to fall back on. The GOP and its strategists loved the Tea Party until incumbents began to have problems in primaries as more and more people began to pay attention to their voting records, and hopefully that will continue. Remember, many tried to predict that the Tea Party would damage the Repubs in the 2010 elections and it didn’t quite turn out that way.

I’m not sure if term limits are the answer, because then you lose people who are really great at their jobs for no real reason. I would prefer to see every term changed to 2 years and meaningful campaign finance reform that limits the amount that can be fundraised and spent. Instead allocate equally public tv & radio time to each candidate.

I am neither a Republican nor a member of the Tea Party and I am 100% in favor of term limits. I haven’t looked to see what the Tea Parties say specifically on subsidies but it’s worth looking into.

Unfortunately, that’s the way our election system works. If the people
consistently vote out those on either side of the aisle who don’t keep
their campaign promises, sooner or later politicians will start to have
more loyalty to themselves than their parties since they will not be
able to stay in Washington long enough to have accumulated any real
personal power. I guarantee Chris Dodd doesn’t take one for the team
without years of connections to fall back on. The GOP and its
strategists loved the Tea Party until incumbents began to have problems
in primaries as more and more people began to pay attention to their
voting records, and hopefully that will continue. Remember, many tried
to predict that the Tea Party would damage the Repubs in the 2010
elections and it didn’t quite turn out that way.

I’m not sure if
term limits are the answer, because then you lose people who are really
great at their jobs for no real reason. I would prefer to see every term
changed to 2 years and meaningful campaign finance reform that limits
the amount that can be fundraised and spent. Instead allocate equally
public tv & radio time to each candidate.

You weren’t expecting a Republican to be logical? LOL

Unfortunately, that’s the way our election system works. If the people
consistently vote out those on either side of the aisle who don’t keep
their campaign promises, sooner or later politicians will start to have
more loyalty to themselves than their parties since they will not be
able to stay in Washington long enough to have accumulated any real
personal power. I guarantee Chris Dodd doesn’t take one for the team
without years of connections to fall back on. The GOP and its
strategists loved the Tea Party until incumbents began to have problems
in primaries as more and more people began to pay attention to their
voting records, and hopefully that will continue. Remember, many tried
to predict that the Tea Party would damage the Repubs in the 2010
elections and it didn’t quite turn out that way.

I’m not sure if
term limits are the answer, because then you lose people who are really
great at their jobs for no real reason. I would prefer to see every term
changed to 2 years and meaningful campaign finance reform that limits
the amount that can be fundraised and spent. Instead allocate equally
public tv & radio time to each candidate.

 Well in good faith WIinWI im not really sure what Obama has on the table in these negotiations as far as reducing tax loops holes or subsides. But isn’t that irrelevant if the republicans aren’t willing to discuss this at all? Most of their leadership have already stated that closing these loopholes or getting rid of subsides is akin to a tax increase which they will not except. I know that Obama has publicly supported getting rid of some of these loopholes but has not specifically stated which ones and how much. But he has stated that he wants to do this. No republican or at least none of the prominent ones have come out and said” Yes we will close loopholes and subsidizes in exchange for spending cuts. Haven’t seen it yet so who’s failing to lead?

From what I hear, they want to get rid of the subsidies that aren’t serving their interests. I live in Iowa and it’s amusing to hear people talk on local conservative radio all day about no handouts and no cuts to farm & ethanol subsidies.

 The tea party is in favor of getting rid of subsidies and loopholes. They aren’t specific as to which ones either. But they are under some illusion that the republicans think this is a good idea also. They will soon learn that they have as much in common with the republicans as they do the democrats. 

yup  the my subside is good yours is bad mentality. Exactly why we are 14 trillion in debt.

Too bad the republicans, democrats & media are united in making sure no 3rd party ever gains a foothold.

Attila the Hun wouldn’t be sufficiently conservative enough in today’s GOP.

 Yea not sure about the media, but I know the republicans and the democrats don’t want a strong third party. Somehow I think the media would love it they would eat it up lol

Respectfully, you are correct, you are more cynical than I am. Ouch!

Still, my thought was national life or death, either or. 

 Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?  They talk about “factions.”  America is chocked full of one issue “factions.”  If there ever was a complete meltdown, America would NOT separate into North and South, rather would splinter and “factionalize,”

If, God forbid, America comes unglued, Humpty Dumpty will look like a simple task!

WCinWI, The comparison to Transformers was more about how DO we determine what is or isn’t “success” in terms of movie showings? Undefeated was shown in 10 theaters, it grossed $65,000.00 for the three days of the weekend, so, obviously, that is $6,500.00 per theater for the three days, say the ticket cost was around $6.50 per person (I know that is low, but I figure there were a respectable amount of seniors getting a discount and also accounting for lower matinee prices). That means 1,000 tickets sold per theater for the weekend. Since I don’t know how many showings per day each theater had, I can’t break it down farther, so at best we know there were 333 viewers a day per theater. 
How ARE we supposed to read that? A howling success? A decent showing? A failure?

 I have read them but it was a long time ago. I wonder what factions prior to slavery they were talking about. Im sure the problems were just as great if not greater back then but reading general history just glosses over a lot of these great debates that took place at that time.

I am not completely sure if you talking an antagonist, or protagonist position? However, the first sentence of your response, I agree with, that is the beauty and simplicity of the document. However, your last sentence which reads: “Cleaning up the tax code is the purview of Congress… Aren’t you being contradictory? Maybe, maybe not, Im unclear as to your meaning.

The way I read that sentence is you grant Congress (sans Amendment) total power to interpret and write law?

Anyway, nice chat

insideguy, I added the media in because they want to protect their own relevance as well and because they routinely ignore 3rd party candidates.

My point was that America would not be at war with each other in North-South, Democrat-Republican sense. There would pockets of special interest klans in pockets all over the country and the homogeneity that was once so firm and solid would be lost forever. Our founders new the “American Experiment” was special. Have we forgotten such?

Furthermore, history, whether general or specific just might be our salvation? (Don’t minimize my education! LOL)

My point was that America would not be at war with each other in North-South, Democrat-Republican sense. There would pockets of special interest klans in pockets all over the country and the homogeneity that was once so firm and solid would be lost forever. Our founders new the “American Experiment” was special. Have we forgotten such?

Furthermore, history, whether general or specific just might be our salvation? (Don’t minimize my education! LOL)

This from a man who’s ICON is the STUPIDEST IDIOT EVER TO ASCEND TO THE VICE PRESIDENCY.  Speaks volumes about you. 

Yeah,  he might want to keep you from widening your arsehole with your boyfriends member and KILLING YOUR BABIES, what a beast.

does he ever know what he’s talking about? me thinks not. he’s one of the bedpan brigade, they live on this forum just waiting for a new blog post so they can swoop in and post their nonsensical extremist drivol.

Absolutely.  I have a lengthy thesis that I call Economic Treason which includes your subject.  The phrase I use is: “water must seek its own level.”  THAT, is free enterprise.

 Well with due respect purveyor I think that we are already there or very close to it. Look at an electoral map:) However let me be an optimist for one second. A lot of the problems we have had in the past seemed insurmountable.(slavery, womens right to vote, prohibition,civil rights, heck even the recent don’t ask don’t tell policy)  After much pain and death these things were resolved but it took a long time to do it. Maybe in this case(with the debt) we don’t have a long time to resolve it however im not sure if anybody really knows how long that may be. I think we are all guilty of saying armageddon is around the next bend and we want these issues solved now! But maybe we are all being impatient and our government may just work this problem out in one way or another. How that may get done is a mystery to all of us. But if you asked a good upstanding citizen in 1860 if slavery would be extinct in 5 years im sure he would have looked at you like you crazy. He couldn’t see the future and neither can we.

You don’t like this commenter’s post, so why do you comment on it? Makes no sense.

I’m just saying that I don’t see anything in the constitution or its amendments that goes against a progressive tax code. I myself am a fan of a flat tax, but it’s up to congress to change it and up to us to show our approval or disapproval of any changes with our votes. Maybe there should be an amendment regarding the tax code, but I certainly don’t see a tax “mandate” if you will in the amendments you cited.

I would love to read that thesis. I am struggling the most with how to define the practical scope of governmental involvement in economic matters, particularly regulatory issues.

ALL laws MUST be copacetic with the Constitution. That is an American Creed. The whole point of having a Constitution. Equal protection and progressive tax is, prima facie, un-Constitutional. But, such is the law of the land as Congress and the Supreme Court abdicated their fidelity to that august document. Or how about those White Fire Fighters who did not get the job despite a Constitutional guarantee of “equal protection?” Or, should “reverse discrimination” based on on the caprice of Congress, supersede the Constitution?

We are on the same page, of that I am sure. You may not have thought of Constitutional law in such a way. But, this is Con-Law

A flat Tax or consumption would, absolutely, be consistent with “equal protection.” Now, how do I pronounce “atreyue?” Phonetically, or accented, or is such a sobriquet?

This from a idiot!

You come from the land of Republicans acting like fake Democrats. 

Wow you can copy and paste with the best of them.  

like “atreyu” from the never-ending story, so phonetically.

I see the point you are making, and we are on the same page. But I think that a large part of that abdication of fidelity to the constitution that you refer to occurs because things are left to interpretation instead of amendment. I believe the requirements to amend the constitution to clearly provide the legality for progressive taxation would have kept it from ever happening because it was not in keeping with the spirit of the constitution. Thus people have been making the “living document” argument to condone anything they might want to do and have legislated from that convenient viewpoint.

*** {{w w w }} {{be tter whole saler }} {{ us }} *****
The website whol esale for many kinds of fas hion sho es, 
like the nik e,jord an,pr ada, also including the jea ns,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. 
All the products are free ship ping, and the the price is com petitive, 
and also can accept the pay pal pay ment.
,after the paym ent, can ship within short time. 

Like CA companies moving to TX, IL jobs are moving out of IL. This is fact. IL has a high tax structure and is not business-friendly. And the population is getting smaller and smaller.

No, it’s very relevant what the President thinks is important. Where is HIS plan? As I said, I don’t care if the debt ceiling is raised. I think it’s wrong to do it and we are slowly if not in fast movements turning into Europe. More and more people are becoming reliant on government dollars. His downfall will be ATF. Nixon is calling.

I believe the Ryan budget already addressed tax reform as an issue. Paul Ryan believes in a flat tax structure. I don’t agree with Ryan on everything (car bailouts, financial bailout) but I agree with him on tax reform. However, the Democratic Party has more to lose with a tax reform structure.

So yes, what the President thinks is very important which is why he has been a failure since Day 1.

I don’t belong to the Tea Party but I’ve been to at least a Tax Day Tea Party event and I empathize overall with the Tea Party movement. I lean libertarian on issues but I’m not a full libertarian. The Tea Party folks have already addressed ethanol subsidies and Palin has already addressed this matter. The subsidies argument hurts the green initiative more than ethanol. That’s why it won’t get touched until you have someone with a backbone (Palin) in.

I like Palin because she’s a Libertarian-leaner on gay rights issues, ethanol issues and wants to revamp multiple agencies. That’s the sign of a leader, regardless of Party affiliation.

Please stop commenting on the Tea Party like it’s some monolithic group. If you don’t belong to it or know people in it, then don’t comment on it. Simple as that.

thank you for sharing,great! I love zdeno chara Jersey!

They should increase taxes by a tiny percentage across the board – with higher income folks paying a little bit more than lower income. If, as Obama claimed, “80% of the people support” tax increases, than 80% should be paying them. 

And to small business and large business employers, they should allow them to keep their current tax rates if they increase their work forces by a certain percentage over the next year. Higher people, keep your current tax rates. Don’t, pay more taxes. And if you increase your work force by an even higher percentage, you can lower your tax rate. And Govt. should massively cut spending. 

Obama promised no new taxes for those under $250k, but claims everyone supports his tax increases. Well, increase them, than, and not just on the top 1% of the country. 

Too bad money is nothing like water. It is more like iron filings. They always go to the most powerful magnet. I wonder who can afford the most powerful magnets? Must be the people who already have the most money.

So, we are to ignore the Tea Party and let it stay small and impotent. I’m for that.

There we see it clearly. Fox News dictates the Republican agenda and demands that it be followed. The King has spoken!

Now for some side comments:
The chances of a third party candidate winning a Senate or House seat are small but it has been done about once per election. The chances of a third party candidate becoming president are much, much smaller because of our out-dated Electoral College system. Most of all, no third party candidate has been popular enough to beat the established Two Parties at the national level. Only a perfect middle of the road candidate could get enough votes from the right, left, and center. We all know what happens to extremists at the national level. They only steal votes from the party that is closest to them, and not enough to win.

Term limits have been mentioned yet again in this thread. Every term is limited. 2 years for representatives,4 years for presidents, and six years for senators. Nobody is elected “for life.” This keeps the politicians answerable. Imagine a politician in his second and last term. He can do whatever the heck he wants. He will probably suck up to a very rich man who can give him a very good job. (Of course many do that anyway, but you get my point.)

What is really behind the call for term limits? Let’s say I am demanding term limits. Is it because I’m too lazy to keep track of what my politician is doing? No.

Is it because I don’t want professional politicians? Not really. So long as my guy (or gal) is voting the way I want, I will be happy to let him stay in office forever.

Is it because I am a ______ but the person representing my district is a _____? No. I think I can get him voted out next time. And if I know my party is in the minority here, a term limit won’t fix that. The next guy in office will be of the same party in a solid blue or red state or district, term limits or not.

It MUST be because I don’t like the politicians I don’t have any vote on. I’m in the state of X, and I hate the senator from the state of Y. Maybe I hate McConnell or maybe I hate Reid but I can’t vote against either one of them because I’m in the wrong state. What can I do? I know! I will impose term limits on them and they will disappear, just like magic!

My God! What a moron. He is quoting the gallop poll which is stating what the Senator is stetting to do. This is what happened, when you are given a strict line to follow, the inability to use your own judgement is crippling. Note: I do not mean to cause offence to the cripples. 

atreyue, you have identified the very heart of all of politics. Politics IS the ongoing struggle to find the perfect scope of government. How much is too much? How much is too little? Some might call it balance or limits, but we are all looking for the optimum political solution.
The answer can only be found by experimentation and when we think we are close, there will always be more tweaking.
Anybody who thinks he/she has the perfect answer right now is the biggest fool of all. Anybody who says let’s try this direction but not go too far should be seen as a reasonable person.

Quoted from schmegma: “Equal protection and
progressive tax is, prima facie, un-Constitutional.”
Dead wrong on both counts. The very heart of the Constitution is equal protection of rights. Affirmative Action may not be constitutional, but equal protection is. You have simply confused the two.
As for the income tax, it is constitutional as of the 16th Amendment, and there is no requirement or prohibition about it being progressive. The only limitation on the income tax is that the federal government can’t say “Michigan has X number of people and therefore will pay $X in taxes.” The constitution allows the fed to decide what is income and how it will be taxed.
That is constitutional law!

Fact: Decipher to English please.

Fact: Decipher to English please.

Fact: Decipher to English please.

Fact: DISQUS isn’t working well.

Fact: All multiple entries for Skyfet’s stuttering.

You’ll believe almost anything you’re told, won’t you?

Actually, Sarah N. Italy is better.

Ahh, I see your meaning. You are suggesting the “due process” clause is/could be over broadly interpreted? Much like other Amendments arguably have been. Perhaps, just perhaps, you err out of caution for fear of replicating mistakes of other decisions, based on “organic” decision making, such as “penumbras, cast by emanations,” in the controversial Roe v. Wade decision? (penumbral rights) I suggest that too much hermeneutical caution would render the document impotent? (now THAT was mouthful of Con-Law! LOL)

My compliments, you engage, you question, you are not pretentious.

I am stunned, speechless at your wisdom and logic. LOL

To: DEVILS SPAWN

Question, just for fun and grins:  The legal/Constitutional tool used during the 1960′s, CIVIL RIGHTS era: was?…

1. The “equal protection” clause

2. The “power to regulate commerce clause”      

Yes, its relevent, as I’d like to know just how deep your knowledge of Con-Law is, for you make unequivocal declarations.

I think you are relying on your emotions. (dislike for me)

I want to apologize to you for my criticism of your chronic Googling and posting materials without analysis. You’re obviously much better at mindless Googling.

I meant to send another Post, but, it ended up on the scroll right next to the others.  (I am assuming you are receiving E-mails)  Is a brief Con-Law test.  Enjoy, and don’t cheat

Most of the items you posted are flatly untrue or irrelevant, the rest are twisted and a handful are truly admirable acts by Obama. I guess it all comes down to perspective. Enjoy November 2012, because you’ll have a big hangover in December.

Actually, Krugman has been right about just about everything he’s said.

The same cannot be said of you, however.

Our country’s good name and credit is in jeopardy because Republicons believe that a pledge to a muppet named Grover is more important than the pledge to serve the American people when they were sworn in to office.

The saddest thing about all this is the continual drumbeat — which has now become conventional wisdom — that America is broke.

America isn’t broke. Individual Americans are hurting big-time; cities and states (locked into balanced budget straightjackets) are hurting big-time. But the rich are still getting richer and all the government needs to do to ease its money worries is 1) raise the debt ceiling; 2) generate some additional revenue by resuming historical-average tax rates; 3) Stop fighting two completely useless wars; and 4) nationalize the health insurance companies (I’d give a penny on the dollar) to put a brake on healthcare costs.

Of course those four simple things would require a vast amount of statesmanship and political integrity, which seem to be at all-time lows.

I just cringe when a commentator seems to think they know what the American people think.

Good for Sen Kirk, a reasonable man who is willing to make a decision that moves us forward rather than play political games. We’ve heard constant screaming about how the deficit is ruining our country, but hey, let’s do less now that it’;s really on the table.
Can some explain what he was talking about in Simpson Bowles that lowers the rate to 28% but still increases revenue. Obviously the details are more complex and detailed than repeating “tax increase” over and over.  
Intelligent reasonable moderates unite and kick some extreme ideology butt.

I am relying on the business law classes and that I have taken (which include how civil rights laws affect business) and textbooks, plus looking up the elements in the constitution. Are you claiming to be a constitutional law professor? I will answer your multiple choice question after I have looked it up.

PS. I have found that an intended post to e-mail shows up here, too.

Why is Obama’s good friend and economic adviser Jeff Immelt creating all of these stimulus-funded green jobs in China? This seems like an American investment in China’s future.

Good for you! (looking it up)  Respectfully

You may find the answer surprising.  I did, and I wrote a paper on it for a Federal Judge.  (got an A)

Also, If you didn’t notice, I recognized your point, and re-phrased my first assertion.  Thank you.

I went to school to be an attorney and never took the bar.  Con-Law I, found particularly interesting.  Anyway, I don’t like lawyers, they’ve become the new priesthood, in possession of incantations, recipes and knowledge only they are ordained to have.  AND THEY ABUSE IT!

There is definitely a lot of caution & fear in my standpoint. There definitely has to be some room for interpretation, as every single law change can’t go through the amendment process. But I also the that there may be things that the supreme court should punt over for submission to the amendment process. Unfortunately, I fear that the precedent of case law overrules the constitutional precedent at this point in our nation’s history.

And thank you, I have enjoyed speaking with you as well.

ARC Entertainment Announces Strong Opening for “The Undefeated,” with Multiple Sold-Out Runs and Vocal Audience Support

That’s because you’re so politically astute. Me, I like to listen to Obama speeches with The Wall playing in the background.

“Muammar, do you think they’ll drop the bomb?”

Unfortunately, many on all sides have allowed and encouraged the Tea Party to be a monolithic group. It even has a caucus. Although I understand why its detractors are eager to do so, I think you may be underestimating people’s need to band together with other like-minded people. I’ve been to multiple tea party events (on the fringes) and have seen this happen. I agree with you that the Tea Party wasn’t intended to be that, but I fear that it is becoming monolithic and losing a lot of it’s free-thinking membership to independent status, making it increasingly more just a republican party faction.

I certainly agree with you, but government has become (unsurprisingly) centered around the idea of making their changes last for perpetuity, even though it does retain the power to change it later, that is seen as taboo. I would like to see some kind of mechanism put in place that called for regular review of the regulatory system. But I guess that wouldn’t be needed if we could just kill of the 2 party system and let elections take care of that for us.

Regarding your research:  Case law Katzenbach v McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel Cases, are two salient Civil Rights cases that used, um, er, rather odd methods to remedy the alleged discrimination…

Talk about streeetch the Constitution?  But, the goal was noble?  So we stretch?

According to http://www.law.cornell.edu/, the 14th Amendment (the equal protection clause) was used. You can call a technicality and say that is not the “heart” of the Constitution, but then we would be arguing about the wording vs. the spirit of the Constitution. I further acknowledge that the strongest words on equality are in the Declaration of Independence, but I believe we can all agree that the two documents share the same “spirit.”

Meanwhile, the 14th is directed to the states, while the 5th Amendment requires federal equal treatment which logically includes protection. Several other Amendments also touch on the subject less directly, and it could be argued that the first ten Amendments (and most others) are clarification of the intent, not basic changes to it.

However, the federal govt and courts have used the power to regulate commerce for some issues that are quite a stretch from the basic element of commerce, so I did look it up to be sure it wasn’t a trick question. I do hope that looking it up is not cheating!

I certainly acknowledge that nothing in the Constitution guarantees equal outcomes, so we are still in agreement that Affirmative Action is questionable constitutionally. The argument then becomes whether the Constitution forbids it, and I choose not to deal with that at all, as you will note from my original response to you.

Finally, please do not attack me with oxymorons. Having spent the better part of a 22 year career in Military Intelligence, I know what an oxymoron is, and know that they are not by definition a bad thing.

We won’t and can’t realistically solve our financial issues in one voting session. Fortunately we are not in such a crisis that we have to. The Simpson Bowles compromise sounds like a good first step and then we can continue the work of becoming more fiscally responsible.

When subsidies are cut or loopholes are closed the group or company having to pay more will pressure their elected official to oppose such a move. We can’t move forward if everyone defends their own selfish interests. Our tax system is a mess. Such a mess that it will be a gigantic effort to reform it, but we need to begin the job.

elect as many independents as possible in 2012. Change the face of the house of representatives.

Just be wary of people who change their affiliation months before the election.

I believe he means the public understands that solving the deficit issue means raising revenue as well as cuts in spending. I tend to think most Americans do believe the wealthiest can afford to kick in a little more. I also agree with Mayor Bloomburg when he says “everyone should pay something , even if it’s just a dollar” and EIC needs to be examined. People getting back more than they paid in seems like a bad idea.

I think the idea to offer a tax break to those who increase their work force is a good one.

I think term limits {how many terms can one be elected to} will help keep long term corruption from being ingrained in the system. It has the  potential downside of eliminating  good public servants. The ideal is for people to make a little more effort in educating themselves on what their elected officials are doing and where their money is coming from.
I’d also like to see a change in how districts are drawn so we can’t protect a seat indefinitely by drawing districts in favor of a certain party. 

“Outstanding” LOL The old George Carlin joke about Military intelligence. Ouch! I have a rather large chuck of writing about the Commerce Clause. I maintain that the Courts have said: “when in doubt, hit it hard the commerce clause.” The proverbial BIG hammer. Inelegant, but effective. Also questionable application.

One last thought: As you noted, the Constitution cannot guarantee equal outcomes, as we are but men. But, there is room for improvement!

Nice to make your acquaintance, Talk later…

OK. These answers will show up in reverse order. Sorry about that. I now follow exactly what you meant to say.

How do equal protection and unequal taxation (differing tax brackets) combine logically, let alone in the context to the Constitution?

Did I get that right?

That does require some deep thought. I will go with this opinion (yes opinion): The description “progressive tax system” does not mean it was invented by progressives. Progressive means that as an individual progressively earns more income, the additional income is taxed at a higher rate than the previous income was taxed. Nobody pays any taxes on the first $X,000 dollars. Those who earn more than X start paying on the Y level income. There is another bracket for Z level income, it could go on.

Since ANYBODY (sorry, I don’t know how to use italics) can earn X or Y or Z income, though many don’t, everybody is treated equally under the tax laws.

Last time I looked it up, every government, whether state or nation, that had an income tax used a “progressive” system. Some have considered flat taxes, and I believe some have tried them, but economists agree that progressive systems get the most income for a government with the least economic disruption to the system (GDP). Even the traditional conservatives support this, and you don’t hear of McConnell or Boehner calling for a flat tax.

The progressive tax system is the most practical system, and that does not depend on politics. Loopholes depend on politics.

Fair ’nuff?

Damn you for making me read!
Here is what the plan says for individual tax rates:
Current Law
In 2010, six brackets: 10%|15%|25%| 28%|33%|35%. In 2011, five brackets: 15%|28%|31%|36%|39.6%

Illustrative Proposal (Fully Phased In)
Three brackets: 12%|22%|28%

(from pg 31 of: the Moment of Truth)

The rest of the info in the chart this comes from shows things like eliminating lower tax rates for capital gains & dividends, getting rid of itemized deductions, state & municipal bonds no longer exempted, eliminating most tax expenditures. There’s not much in the way of detailed info (like where the new tax brackets are), but this plan has about 74% of the extra money generated by the current top fifth of the tax bracket with everyone taking home at least a little less money (from 0.2% less at the bottom to 3.7% less at the top). So clearly Kirk is engaging in some doublespeak by focusing only on the 28% figure.

amen to that, CosmosDan

The way I’ve heard it described is this. A progressive tax system is meant to try and equally distribute the burden of taxes. 10% of a person making 20,000 a year and supporting a family is much more burdensome than 10% of the same family making 100,000 a year. Some referred to it as attempting to equally distribute the pain of taxes. That seems to get back to your reference of the letter of the law, {looking only at numbers} ve the spirit of the law {real world consequences for citizens}

This is exactly why I think they should all be done away with.

Thanks for the info and the link.
Why is it double speak. IMO it just sounded like he wanted to explain that it wasn’t as simple as “a tax increase”   and he’s right. We need to examine more details rather than just a catch phrase or buzz word. He might have said, “it will result in the some people paying in more, but also has the benefits of X, Y, Z. and the positive outweighs the negative in dealing with our fiscal issues” 

I was talking about focusing on the 28% bit. Obviously if everyone is projected to pay more than they do now then taxes haven’t been lowered. I would have preferred that he explain some of how the revenue actually gets increased better instead of trying to create a sound byte. Otherwise I agree with you.

I don’t agree.  Ceremoniously abdicating their responsibility to participate in the process of governing will do nothing to prove who’s right or wrong, except for those who have abdicated their responsibility. They’ll be wrong.

I don’t disagree, but we also don’t need to over react and slash and burn. We can reduce them over time to allow groups time to seek alternative solutions to dependency on subsidies.

Well said.   Our society and our government are not stagnant with a set of permanent laws that solve all our problems. We must constantly be examining and considering tweaking and changing to deal with a changing society. We must stop the panic that trying something will lead to our destruction, and be willing to reasonably compromise , move forward , and then examine and reconsider.

I don’t disagree. It would have helped if the Fox talking head had been trying to get at helpful information and asked questions aimed at that.

I like to see people outed as idiots, so I would have preferred that Kirk elaborate on his own and make Jarrett look even stupider than he already does.

I think that’s a very reasonable plan of attack, as long as the same period of time  and percentage decrease over that period is applied to all subsidies. We obviously can’t trust politicians to be fair if they are allowed to selectively set terms.

The great thing about a progressive tax system is that it is both morally best (the pain factor) and economically best (least disruption to GDP). The two are logically connected. Healthy economies depend on both. 

I, too, find the study of the law fascinating, but to actually practice it would too often stretch my moral bounds. For one thing, I know I could find a way to violate any civil rights law and get away with it. But that is not as bad as other tricks available to lawyers in civil and criminal situations. 

My counter to your debate point is that the corruption will continue to exist in the unelected part of the establishment where it is already ingrained. That is the unelected consultants, aides,and of course lobbies who have the politician’s ear and can fill his wallet. Those who would tempt the politician will always be there, and are more likely to be able to corrupt the short term legislator who cannot be reelected than one who has a chance to be a long term statesman if he stays (relatively) honest.

As for the average voter acting more responsibly, I doubt that term limits (we can drop the definition now) would make a difference. If anything, Mr. Average would be less attentive on the same grounds that “this one will be gone soon so I’ll just listen to what the next one promises.” 

The elimination of Gerrymandering is essential, but a separate issue. California is in the process of doing that. The state’s redistricting commission is composed of persons who have not run for office and are not registered to any party. They are sworn to consider only natural and civil boundaries with equal numbers of citizens. There will be no cities and counties that are divided into Democrat or Republican heavy districts. The shapes will be regular geometric areas, not snakes, dragons, and “Lincoln riding a vacuum cleaner.” 

‘Republicans like to vote out their candidates’….excuse me, but those are your words in print, correct? ‘OMG…..You found one person….like OMG….you are sooooooo right’…..look closely, there was more than (1) posted above, but no need to worry, there are many more;-)!
‘Don’t make me compare Dems to Reps. on longstanding in Congress and Senate based on age. It wouldn’t be a pretty picture. Literally’…no need for that, its clear to me that both of the Parties(Dems. & Repubs) play in the same yard…and both are playing ‘The People’ like yo-yo’s!!!!
 
 

Because there is no dislike button?

I generally agree with you, but this time I have to point out the obvious. :-)

good point. If you’re going to take a stand be courageous enough to not mince words.

I think we’d have to judge each case by how many would be hurt by the cuts. I can believe that removing some subsidies would have little effect, while others would hurt more. But I agree, perhaps a standard is better to prevent politicians from playing games.

Excellent points. I think you’ve convinced me. I completely agree that we have to look at the behind the scenes influence. I think we do that by insisting that our elected officials make all relevant information available , and then as citizen groups we pay attention and spend some time educating ourselves rather than diversionary entertainment. {although that also serves it’s purpose} I continue to think and propose that a government for and by the people requires more of the people as well. The citizenry, myself included maintain some responsibility in our plight because we failed to fulfill our roll as informed active participants.

That’s your plan, tax the rich? Nearly 50% of American workers are not paying their fair share, or for that matter, anything at all, so taking more from those who are already paying exorbitant taxes should pay for those who don’t, in your opinion, is fair and just?  

Respectfully, I’ll try this one more time as it is as simple as the Constitution itself:

“Equal protection,”  means everyone is treated equally.  OK?  A progressive tax is the anthithesis of equal protection as it punishes some and rewards others.  That is NOT equal ptrtection.  A flat tax is a perfect example of equal protection. (or a consumption tax)

A progressive tax that offers equal protection, is an OXYMORON!

Your XYZ example claims that as long as you apply equally to an unfair tax , you have “equal protection!”  LOL  I am sorry, but it is preposterous.  Almost Orwellian.

Double Speak: Big Brother says “Unfair taxes are fair Taxes”.  As long as the Unfair Taxes are collected fairly!  Man, thats right out of 1984… LOL

Everybody pays the same rate for X amount of dollars earned , and only pays the higher rate on the amount over X dollars. That translate into everyone having the same opportunity to earn 30,000 and pay the same rate, earn 100,000 and pay the same rate {on everything over 30k} etc. So while the tax rate is called progressive, everyone essentially has the same tax rates on dollars earned. It’s just that some earners never reach the higher brackets. In that case it is equal protection, since everyone is treated equally.

OK. Now I’ll try again.

If you and I earn equal amounts, we will pay equal taxes. If Abe and Ben earn equal amounts, they will pay equal taxes.
If Abe and I do not earn equal amounts, we will not pay equal taxes.
Caveats: To keep it simple, we exclude loopholes, or we assume the loopholes are available to all.
The “equal” part is that it does not matter if one of us is black or female or a Muslim or all three, while the other is white or male or a Buddhist or all three.

Fact: The Constitution does not define fair. As you know, most of what is considered fair is determined by Common Law and court precedent. For taxes, the voters decide what tax system or rate is fair and necessary. That is what the big fight is about right now. It is not based on some Constitutional definition of fairness, it is based on what the majority of people think is fair. On those grounds, your opinion and mine are equal under the Constitution.

Questions: Are taxes a punishment, or a civic responsibility? Is not paying taxes a reward? For what? For knowing how to scam the system?
“Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.” – Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. 

Who benefits most from public services and infrastructure? Is it the poor person who can barely afford to pay for food, shelter, and doesn’t have a car, or the owner of a fleet of trucks that carries things across the country on federal and state built roads? Who benefits most from police protection? Is it the poor person in a ghetto that police are afraid to enter, or the very rich person who has much more property to lose to theft, kidnapping, etc, and will get a response to a 911 call in five minutes or less? (Yes. I am giving extreme examples. So sue me. ;-) )

You have probably heard about the Marcus Bachmann Christian Family Clinic. Did you know that the clinic has a sliding scale fee? Those who have a significantly lower income pay less for the same service. This serves those who could not otherwise afford it, but those who can afford to pay a higher price do so and apparently do not complain about it. Isn’t that just like a progressive tax system? Furthermore, the Clinic does accept federal and state aid for those patients who need it. I guess that is downright socialist of the Bachmanns. 

In summary, to not rely on a constitutional definition of fairness, because there is none.

You forgot one essential part of tax formula. the “percentage” of income taxed. “Abe and I do not earn equal amounts, we will not pay equal taxes.” True, however, the tax system as it now stands varies tax rates by income. THAT, is prima facie, a violation of “equal protection.” You are giving one group of people an advantage (usually low income) and penalizing the successful. Nothing could be more obviously an example of “un-equal protection.” That is what a flat tax eliminates, the unfair disparity of tax rates applied.

What about arbitrarily increasing the scores of minorities so they can get into better law schools. Is that equal protection? You penalize one group and give an advantage to another group?

What about the firefighters who did not get the job because they scored too high?

My response is already at the Mediaite thread. Not wise to double post it. Sorry.
Growing respect for tenacity as much as logic. :-)

>________________________________
>From: Disqus <>
>To: geoangle@yahoo.com
>Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 2:09 PM
>Subject: [mediaite] Re: Watch GOP Senator's Verbal Spanking By Fox's Gregg Jarrett Over Debt Stance
>
>
>Disqus generic email template
>
> schmegma wrote, in response to Devils_Spawn:
>Respectfully, I'll try this one more time as it is as simple as the Constitution itself:
>
>"Equal protection,"  means everyone is treated equally.  OK?  A progressive tax is the anthithesis of equal protection as it punishes some and rewards others.  That is NOT equal ptrtection.  A flat tax is a perfect example of equal protection. (or a consumption tax)
>
>A progressive tax that offers equal protection, is an OXYMORON!
>
>Your XYZ example claims that as long as you apply equally to an unfair tax , you have "equal protection!"  LOL  I am sorry, but it is preposterous.  Almost Orwellian.
>
>Double Speak: Big Brother says "Unfair taxes are fair Taxes".  As long as the Unfair Taxes are collected fairly!  Man, thats right out of 1984… LOL
>
>Link to comment

For some reason, I am not receiving yours and DEVILS SPAWN’s Posts.  This is an easy concept, 
“equal protection.”  I have Law book and papers I wrote on the subject right next to me.

COSMOS, your post from 1 hour ago, strikes me not so much as lack of comprehension, rather, to support a political agenda.  Whether Conservative or Liberal, the temptation to find a judge that will convolute the is great.  When you are doing it, you only deceive yourself.

  Were I grading your response, that is what I would say.  You are convoluting the most basic of concepts which is what political charlatans have done for millennia.  (That may sound like pejorative, it is not. I’ve taught seminars on Legal Philosophy and Con-Law.  

Let me ask this question: the companion clause to “equal protection” is the “due process” clause.  Did the Founders mean substantive or procedural due process?  Cogitate on that for a while. 

“The proliferation of Laws in this country has become a shoddy excuse for self discipline”

A. Solzhenitsyn

“The right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men”

Associate Supreme Court Justice Brandeis.  Olmstead v. United States. 1928

Holmes and Brandeis were known as the “great dissenters”

The Bachman example is irrelevant except anecdotal.  However, I’ve heard she may receive Federal money, so maybe?  Private business can do what they want.  At least that is what Conservatives like me want codified.  Well, not exactly?  LOL

Equal protection is so basic I can’t explain it anymore.  However, the companion clause is the “due process” clause.  There is a reason the two stand together in the 5th and 14th, hence, what does “due process” mean?  Do you think the Founders meant substantive or procedural due process?  Also, is due process necessary for equal protection?

There, chew on that for awhile!  LOL

What brach of the Military were you in?  Air Force, right?

Let’s stay on one subject.

In progressive taxation, everybody pays the same rate for the first 30K , even the person that made made 250k Everybody pays the same rate on the next teir  , even the guy who made 250k, and so on. There is no advantage given to low income with the progressive tax as it stands. The wealthy pay the same amount on the dollar amount earned by the poor. The flat tax looks fine in simple math but it’s real world consequences do not work so well. Take 20% from the family with an income of 100K and they have 80K to support their family. Take 20% from the guy making 30K and supporting the same size family and he’s going without some essentials to make ends meet.

The progressive tax makes a lot more sense. I haven’t really examined the fair tax. The only other alternative I’ve heard that seems to work is a flat tax with a very large individual and dependent deduction in order to protect those with the least. 

I’m not seeing them either.Still figuring out this new format.
I think I get your point. I don’t agree with your assessment so it I must be doing it to support an agenda.  Couldn’t I very easily offer the same theory about your posts.

I mean , IMO, it’s fairly obvious I’m correct. What’s the real reason you won’t acknowledge it?

Now where are we?

COSMO, got your message at 21:35 hrs Dear Lord, the point of Constitution and Jeffersonian Democracy was to transcend predispositions. You and I and Jefferson know/knew that impossible. But< the Founders gave us the perfect Treatise. Unfortunately it fails from time to time. What does the 4th Amendment mean to you? The 5th?

My Legal Philosophy is "Neutral Principle," so is my personal. Hence I live for neutrality and objectivity in the Law and Politics.

try this on: Hill v Colorado was an abortion case that decided a woman has a right to at least a 10 foot bubble of protection when entering an abortion clinic. The protesters rights to free speech are maintained and the woman's right not to be accosted is also. Has a principle been established? If NOT, then law law lacks foundation. If one has, the law has substance

Now, what about a man, a "Scab," in the vernacular, crossing a Pickett Line, should he too be accorded under the precedent of Hill v Colorado, a 10 foot bubble of protection? Thats Neutral Principle, and that is "equal protection."

Now you have to pay the big money at law school if you don't believe me. Be careful, the professors do not countenance recalcitrant students! LOL

Note: You do understand that my assertion on taxes being unconstitutional, based on the equal protection clause, is a very legitimate assertion. However, the law of the land is the "progressive income tax." Constitutional Lawyers will use, if necessary, a similar argument to mine, to overturn the progressive tax, for a flat/consumption tax? Ergo, I assert, your Honor, a Progressive tax is Prima facie Unconstitutional!

I don't practice law. I am a legal philosopher and writer.

I see you are forced to resort to the lawyer’s trick of obfuscation. :-)

That is a problem for those who insist on strict following of the Constitution. (Opinion statement follows) The Constitution was intentionally written to be specific enough about what cannot be done, but but vague enough to allow for the infinite possibilities of the future. The “must nots” are few but powerful. They are sufficient to protect the innocent (in so far as man is capable of doing so) from the tyranny of dictatorship, but vague enough for the people to determine what government functions are necessary and how they are to be paid for.

You and I can argue all our lives about what is necessary and what is not, and about how much of the necessary our country can afford, but you will not find those answers in the Constitution. That is the great weakness of those who want to insist that all laws must be checked for approval within the wording of the Constitution.

Imagine italics here: Every law will be checked against the Constitution to see that it is not prohibited (the job of the court system), but cannot be checked against the Constitution to see if it is “authorized” by the Constitution. That which is not prohibited is permitted, provided that the majority of the American People wish it to be so. You can quote me on that. :-)

I did not bring up the Bachmann example to attack them. (OK, I got a little snarky with the socialist comment, but that was just for the irony of it.) The intended point was/is that the sliding scale based on affordability was the very, very best business decision to optimize revenue flow. It is good business for the Bachmanns and it is good business for the government. 

My military experience: US Army Infantry, Intelligence, Special Forces. 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne (Air Assault), 5th SF Group and 7th SFG. (Yup. Really.)

Nothing in the current taxation system violates any of the percepts of the Constitution! There is no violation of due process or equal protection. As final proof of the argument that CosmosDan and I are supporting, the current tax system is in effect and has been for almost 100 years. If it were unconstitutional, it would have been struck down long ago.
So, it is time to stop pretending you have a legal leg to stand on.
Case dismissed!

Sorry, schmegma, but you are being pejorative. Stating that you are not does not relieve you of the charge. Political charlatan? Really?
You are promoting your philosophy, but not presenting yourself well as a legal scholar when you must resort to words like those in response to concise and clearly worded logic.
It is the utmost arrogance to imply that you cannot lose an argument because you teach the stuff, and you are therefore entitled to GRADE someone’s response to your philosophical (by now) rant.

As for the case Hill v. Colorado, the case provides a Precedent, and under the Doctrine of Stare Decisis, it now has standing. Sure, it can be challenged, but since you brought it up, you must now show whether it has been successfully challenged, or you must accept the fact that whether it has “foundation” or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is valid in and of itself and can be used in further arguments when applicable.

In short, I strongly suggest that you concentrate more one the philosophies and implications of Common Law, and less on Constitutional issues.

By the way, why did you even bring up Hill v. Colorado, unless you were attempting to obfuscate by creating a total change of subject? Or is it that you simply wished to impress us uneducated trolls?

This philosophical stuff was fun until you started being pejorative. Now, it is just sad.

Sorry, schmegma, but you are being pejorative. Stating that you are not does not relieve you of the charge. Political charlatan? Really?
You are promoting your philosophy, but not presenting yourself well as a legal scholar when you must resort to words like those in response to concise and clearly worded logic.
It is the utmost arrogance to imply that you cannot lose an argument because you teach the stuff, and you are therefore entitled to GRADE someone’s response to your philosophical (by now) rant.

As for the case Hill v. Colorado, the case provides a Precedent, and under the Doctrine of Stare Decisis, it now has standing. Sure, it can be challenged, but since you brought it up, you must now show whether it has been successfully challenged, or you must accept the fact that whether it has “foundation” or not is irrelevant to the fact that it is valid in and of itself and can be used in further arguments when applicable.

In short, I strongly suggest that you concentrate more one the philosophies and implications of Common Law, and less on Constitutional issues.

By the way, why did you even bring up Hill v. Colorado, unless you were attempting to obfuscate by creating a total change of subject? Or is it that you simply wished to impress us uneducated trolls?

This philosophical stuff was fun until you started being pejorative. Now, it is just sad.

Your Honor, I’d just like to add that I fully concur with Co council’s Smack Down.

Now I see our problem, You are correct! The 16th amendment is the “Law of the Land,” I apologize. Regardless, the “Progressive Income Tax” which was the spawn of the 16th, may not be Constitutional.

I was making the case, for progressive tax being unconstituional, as one amendment, the 16th, ran contrary to two others, the 5th and 14th. This was/is LEGAL THEORY and History. I assumed, incorrectly, you understood that. This is what students do in a Con-Law class. The professor would ask the class if anyone could make the case: “the 16th amendment was Constituional, or, Un-Constitutional and could anyone make a legal case for, or, against a “flat tax?” That is what I was doing, Legal scholars and philosophers do that! HOWEVER! I, firmly assert “Progressive Income Tax” is UN-Constitutional! I made that case to you half a dozen ways to Sunday, to no avail. You and I were not on the same page, so to speak. Now have some fun reading case law. If you think my arcane musings are tedious, have fun. LOL

In 1916, A Supreme Court case, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., is about applying “equal protection and due process” to taxation methods. The Court ‘rejected’ arguments similar to mine. But as you well know, in the Holmes and Brandeis dissent in Olmstead, (4th Amend.) effectively,became the law of land years later. So the ebb and flow of the Constituion and Legislation has traditionally been , um, er, slow.

The “Wisconsin Income Tax Cases” of 1916, were all about the “equal protection and due process” clause(s) of the 14th amendment. My very argument. Again the journey of Con-Law can be long.

The whole point of this exercise is not necessarily repeal the 16th Amendment, but to eliminate a progressive tax and replace with a flat tax Have fun reading!

You know, people pay me this kind of thing! LOL

No I was using a very good analogy, (Hill v, Colorado) to clarify Neutral Principle and equal protection. Why didn’t you simply respond that you see the relationship and are beginning to understand? Rather, you simply construed a retort. Try writing a brief in support of my position, sometimes that helps clarify things?

Perhaps you are attempting to offend me? ( I anticipated you might be offended my use of the phrase “political charlatans” and politely gave warning. I have social graces.) The truth of the mater is, what I wrote is, historically, true. Whether you were/are offended or not? Thats life.

Lastly, you seem to pick up the mechanics of Law, but, miss the substantive and or subtle issues. You quickly grasp the vernacular, but have trouble connecting the dots, so to speak. Do you question my motives?

One last thing I wanted to mention.

Note: You do understand that my assertion on taxes being
unconstitutional, based on the equal protection clause, is a very
legitimate assertion.

Ergo, I assert, your Honor, a Progressive tax is Prima facie Unconstitutional!

Yes I understand that it’s a legitimate assertion, but it is ultimately just an assertion. An informed opinion if you will. As we can clearly see in our legal system , the intent of the law is subject to interpretation and even our SC Justices do not agree in interpretation. So you and I disagree on how equal protection is interpreted in regard to our tax system. I’ve explained my thinking which is also a legitimate assertion.
Every citizen pays the same %  on the amount of dollars earned , the only difference being that not everyone reaches the higher tiers. It seems perfectly obvious to me but I don’t assume anything negative of you for simply disagreeing.

OTOH, your implication that my opinion is not objective or sincere but is disingenuous in pursuit of some political agenda is more unnecessary faux analysis that reveals more about you than it does me. Do you think your position is somehow strengthened by casting doubt on my motivations? It isn’t. It’s your opinion, no more or less. Is this part of your military tactics discussion board strategy? Personally I find it more productive to assume people are arguing in good faith until the evidence mounts that they are not.

WOW!  As an avocation, I am a bit of a Military Historian.  Soldiers have always been my heros.  Right above me is a Photo of my Grampa in his Doughboy Uniform, Springfield and Bayonet.  I still have his helmet with the 37th Engineers  emblem.

There is bullet hole through the brim where a 7mm penetrated and took his earlobe with it!  Hence, my gene pool might be different for only a few mm.  Ouch!

Humor:

I fi had a nickel for every kid I meet lately who was a Navy Seal or Special Forces, I’d have a lot of nickels?  Such is the lie du jour lately. LOL

I am not implying anything regarding you.  I take your word.  But,  I thought you might smile at my observation.  Even kids (young men) who have served admirably seem impelled to embellish and tell me they were “snipers?”

Incidently, between 1981 and 1985, also 1995 and 2000, I participated in some activity that might even curl your toes, briefly. I enjoy intense stimulation!

My sincere compliments  ”opresso liber”

Looking for the best place to reply while keeping the thread fairly chronological. Hope this is it.

Yes. It is sad that as special ops units get more attention there are more and more phonies who claim to have been Special Forces, but now they will all be SEALs. Maybe Rangers will have a short vogue in imitation of the most recent Medal of Honor winner.

I forgot about snipers! No doubt popular because of NCIS on TV, then the FBI agent and Army Reservist on Bones. Snipers is cool! The only suggestion I can make is that the phonies are sure to find a way to bring the subject up, while the real ones will never tell unless they are asked. The real ones just don’t feel a need to brag about it.

By the way you forgot one part of the official motto (or you are testing me). It is De Oppresso Liber. It translates as To free the oppressed, or word-for-word “From oppression free.” Or, one could pretend it says to oppress the free. The unofficial motto is “If you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying.” It is a cynical way of saying you will complete the mission, no matter what it takes. Meanwhile, we both know that anyone can claim anything here, so I don’t
sweat it, and I don’t give extra credence or credit to myself or others 
for military service when it comes to postings here.

I don’t know whether you Air Force guess should be taken as insulting (nowhere near combat for most) or flattering (smart people join the Air Force). :-)

OK. Chatting out of the way, I still say that it is not playing fair to be pejorative and then claim it was only for historical reference. As I see it, you have lost the basic argument–the current tax system has withstood all legal attacks on it over many decades–and are now trying to (in your opinion) take it to a higher plain of legal philosophy and theory.

Quiz for you:
Does your Neutral Principle fit best in or belong to one of the following Schools of Jurisprudential Though?
A. Natural Law School
B. Historical School
C. Analytical School
D. Sociological School
E. Command School
F. Critical Legal Studies School
G. Law and Economics School (AKA Chicago School)

 I think your use of the phrase Prima Facie is way too loose. Clearly, it is not obvious to us, and you have not made it so. I would expect the “prima facie” claim to be used at the start of the trial in a request for a summary judgement. At that point the judge would say, “Summary judgement denied proceed with your case.” I do hope you are not asking for a retrial. :-)

Yours and Cosmos, hurt feelings not withstanding, I have reasonably concluded, judging from his rhetoric or lack thereof, that COSMO is a Socialist-Democrat. (Progressive)  You, Devils Spawn are an aberration, a “warrior weenie?”  (Is that pejorative enough for you?)  LOL

I don’t understand your inability to fathom Legal History in relation to contemporary American issues?  I assert that both you and COSMO, are diverted by your political proclivities?  (Does that offend you? It is a reasonable conclusion)  Anyway, does the name Robert M. LaFollette, mean anything to you?  LaFollette was “Big Wampum,”  in Wisconsin during the progressive tax debates in the early 1900s.  LaFollette felt as you two do, that the successful (wealthy) should pay a higher tax RATE, than the less successful and made arguments similar to yours.

100 years later, History has exposed LaFollette as a charlatan, who was not motivated by honorable pursuits, such as the Constitutional philosophy of equal protection, applied to the 16th amendment.  Like you two, Lafollette was desirous of sticking it too the successful, (wealthy) just like Marx and every Socialist after him. Lafollette was one of the first and foremost PROGRESSIVES in our Nations history.  Hence, a dichotomy with the two of you and Lafollette, would find similarities.  Ergo, a desire for “re-distributive justice”.

In conclusion, Neutral Principle/equal protection are hallmarks and characteristics of an objectively reasoned mind. (like my own)  The support of progressive, (rejection of equal protection) Tax is an accoutrement of an envious and self righteous mind!  (Progressive, Socialist, Democrat) (like yours)  No offense meant…

PURVEYOR

Amigo, I just sent you a letter that demonstrates how vicious I can be, rhetorically. Sort of a boys will be boys fight, that can precede friendship? I know, you know, what I mean. anyway, there is substance within, about a man named LaFollette. You and I will be friends, me thinks. Your admonition about “DE oppresso liber”. But is frequently truncated in BOOKS I read, but not in the reality you have lived. So, yes I was testing, but, I was very certain of your veracity.

I wish I had yours and a few others E-mail for better conversation. I don’t know to accomplish that without risk? Regarding my query about Oppresso Liber and the Air Force, which you assessed correctly. The assumption being Air Force guys are Brainy, Marines are Jar-Heads and GI’s are grunts was correct. I told COSMO that I study and apply military philosophy and history (Chess) and ask seemingly mundane questions to gain insights into my opponent? He told me flat out, that I was full of it! LOL “All warfare is based on deception.” He seems to like you, maybe you could mentor him?

Give me some time to address you questions today. I will get back. one way another. Man, this thread is totally ours! LOL Vaya con Dios

Yours and Cosmos, hurt feelings not withstanding, I have reasonably
concluded, judging from his rhetoric or lack thereof, that COSMO is a
Socialist-Democrat

ftr; You don’t have it within yourt power to hurt my feelings because I have no reason to value your judgement.

I only pointed out what I see to be a flaw that smells of hypocrisy in your presentation.

In conclusion, Neutral Principle/equal protection are hallmarks and
characteristics of an objectively reasoned mind. (like my own) 

If only typing this repeatedly made it so. The fact that you repeatedly judge those who disagree with you as being motivated by a political agenda indicates it isn’t. But hey, that’s only my reasoned conclusion.

Is “you’re full of it” how you interpreted what I wrote? 1st, you did quite a bit more than make a chess analogy. You indicated you studied military tactics and applied them in an ongoing discussion,{even giving quotes concerning strategy} as well as your study and knowledge of debate.

My comment was that it seemed like serious overkill to apply military tactics to a comments section . when a simple honest discussion seems to suffice.

I did however imply you were “full of it” when you described your ability to accurately analyze other posters and assign motives to them.

I ALWAYS play to win. Our new Warrior friend, probably does too. Ask him. After all, it is “the game of life.” COSMOS, ever since we met, so to speak, it has been “parry and thrust,” (to use a militarist analogy) yet you claim to be passive? What should I conclude, are you an enemy or an ally?

Why do I have to be one or the other?   People come here for different reasons and that’s fine. I don’t mind a little playful verbal jousting, occasional sarcasm and trash talking. I just think comparing a discussion board to tactical military strategy is a little over the top but so what? It’s only an opinion.
I don’t know if your so called analysis is serious or just part of that strategy. Doesn’t matter. By giving you a direct and blunt answer I dealt with both possibilities.

I don’t claim to be passive. To win, you have define what victory is.For me victory is an honest exchange of thoughts an ideas, advancing understanding, and dispelling false memes {even if they’re my own} IMO,.It’s the kind of victory both participants can have. If we don’t frequent the board for the same reasons, no harm, no foul.

“Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth,

so TRUTH be in the field,

let truth and falsehood grapple:

whoever knew the truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

John Milton, AREOPAGITICA

Please do put me in whatever box you designate for CosmosDan. He and I do seem to be in agreement on enough to be in the same box, but you may not be as accurate as you think in your use of the word socialist. The box I would put you in is closed-minded libertarian. I do not see the hallmarks and characteristics of an objectively reasoned mind. You see an atom, and think you know the molecule. (Be thankful I didn’t go for Fascist-Republican as an exact opposite to me and maybe Cosmos.) 

One big giveaway was your assumption about the attitudes and relative intelligence of military people in general and specific branches in particular. For example, my list of the toughest (and smartest) military members includes Air Force para-rescue men, called PJs.

Chess and the military? In all my years of military experience,
training, and study, I have never come across a single use of a chess strategy/tactic among
military personnel. If chess ever did resemble actual warfare, it became
obsolete long, long ago. (Probably with the invention of the Long Bow.) If you
want to impress the military minded, quote–no, understand–Sun Tzu for the big picture and
theorists/practitioners of the 20th century for specific elements such as
armored warfare, counter-insurgency, etc. By the way, Special Forces are the experts in counter-insurgency because they are the experts in insurgency. Training insurgents behind enemy lines was their original purpose, and it is still the basis of the final phase of SF training. Back to chess, in that game, you move one piece at a time. In military operations, you combine the efforts of hundreds or thousands of pieces for each “move” and you don’t give the enemy a turn if you can help it. As for legal history in relation to contemporary American issues, well, sometimes history is just history, and the 14th Amendment is no more significant than the 16th (or 15th) just because it is closer to the date of the original Constitution. Things change. Adjust or die. (Oops. Not a death threat ;-)) Adjust or fail the course.  LaFollette? Ulterior motives? Don’t be naive enough to think that only “socialists” have ulterior motives. I know. You are being specific in that LaFollette was messing with the tax system for his own gain. Do you really believe that any politician does not consider the effects upon him/herself when proposing a system? A rich conservative clearly has a strong self-interest in keeping his taxes low. A “poor” one can be proud of his theory, and won’t be hurt by losing that battle. Look up every country or state that has an income tax. You will find that it is a progressive system, no matter what the philosophy of the government. The only difference between the most conservative and the most liberal is in the spread. Why is that? Because it is the most practical! That practicality is directly reflected in a country’s GDP. In the real world, economics does trump ideology. Ask China.

Well, Sun Tzu ‘is’ required reading at West Point and they do have a chess club. But then again, they train students to be Officers and Gentlemen (Ladies) at the respective Military Academies. LOL

Now, go away… LOL

“The Volstad Act,” (18th amendment)

Quote: “The 21st Amendment cancelled (repealed) the 18th Amendment.  Which Amendment is Constitutional now?”

There are still “Dry Counties” in the South.  Is that Constitutional?

A Law born of one amendment that conflicts with another cannot, prima facie, be Constitutional.

How about the 2nd Amendment.  America has a hodge podge of Law regarding the “right to keep and bare arms.”  Are New York’s, Chicago, Washington DC gun laws, Un-Constitutional?

PURVEYOR

To the reader, this has become and convoluted dialogue, now, completely out of chronologic order.  Sorry.

You are African American? 

 That is the only reasonable conclusion I have for your Political/Legal views?Just as men and women such as Farakhan, Sharpton, Jackson and Congressman Lee have little regard for historical accuracy and Legal exigencies, neither do you.  Ergo, men and women of your socio-political ilk are only concerned about the ends and Not the means.  You want the money (wealth) transferred to you and the “downtrodden?”That is NOT the hallmark of an enlightened culture.  The means (warts and all) as applied by America throughout our history, has made our Nation Successful and wealthy.

Am I African American????

Now you have really crossed the line of sanity and common sense. I am Scots-Irish American with a touch of French on my mother’s side. Maybe, just maybe, you will now see just how messed up you are! By the way, I looked up LaFollette, and his only “crime” was being a progressive. There was no scandal associated with his tax recommendations or his political career. He was a progressive, and he was WHITE.

Learn to live with the fact that you cannot guess a person’s race, religion, level of wealth, or anything else by his/her politics.

I suggest you pop over to a comment section on Sharpton taking over for Cenk Uygur. You will see that I excoriated both of them. I have no patience for fanatics of any stripe.

He is a short timer. Will never make another term.

How about a game of Chess?  LOL

Jeez you are obtuse.  I did not suggest there was a crime or scandal associated with Lafollete.  My point was that his opposition claimed progressive taxes were unconstitutional by way of the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.  NOT the 16th Amendment, the TAX CODE was/is UnConstitutional.  GET IT! LaFollete and the progressives won, However, todays tax protesters like the Tea Party desire a Flat Tax or Consumption Tax and they will use the same Equal Protection Argument in Court.  Unless Congress and the President are sympathetic.TAKE THIS AND SHOW IT TO A HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY TEACHER!

June 27, 2011
 
Dear Mr. Lee:
 The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case”
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Sincerely,
William K. Suter, Clerk
 
 Rule 45. Process; Mandates
“1. All process of this Court issues in the  name of the President of the United States.”
U.S. Supreme court case # 10-9061 U.S. Supreme Court of the  cognizable  crime    action by injuries suffered NOW am a Homeless It is had been 5 years Homeless “injustice no WAIVER or no objection is filed-or if upon objection going only to the amount of damages and cost in this Court, the party  Bluefield Housing WV. Should be Award amount Damages URGENT HELP? John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice, Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice, Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, William K. Suter, Clerk and Mr. Gail Johnson
 Justice Let us go home Central, FL” Land about The Star-Spangled Banner” and “Rule of Law.” Throughout our country’s history our Constitution, Let us to safe, free, Land of America’s promise of equally Justice.
William K. Suter, clerk By Gail Johnson(202)479-3038
.by Jay Lee on Friday, July 1, 2011 at 12:20pm.May 13, 2011 Dear Mr. Lee: The petition for rehearing in the above-entitled case was postmarked April 21, 2011 and received May 13, 2011 and is herewith returned because the petition exceeds the 15 page Limitation set out in the rule 33,2(b). Please correct and resubmit as soon as possible. Unless the petition is subm…
and Petitioner I, JAY H.LEE     request “Honorable Justice of the United States America  to address in This case, A writ of On Petition for Writ of Certiorari Rehearing remedy that issue the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief. Honorable Justice,  
Respectfully Submitted, Jay H. Lee 7/11/2011        
 
Mailing  Address: , 207 Tulip ST, Bluefield, WV 24701 Email:jayyejay@gmail.com Phone:304-308-4820
Seeking Attorney am Korean American and Hurricanes 2004 OCOEE,FL end up WV Homeless for 5 years CORP. FRAUD

Hmm, I guess one could say that I am gifted with the patience to teach the unteachable.  Curiously you seem to be suggesting that you prefer to follow a “middle of the road” course?  That you would prefer NOT to take a side, as that would require commitment and resolve.

Conversely, I would call such, political cowardice. (no offense meant) To take and hold a position, both physically and  requires “Commitment,” character and fortitude.  Scholarly pursuits and the acquisition of knowledge is an endeavor that may, and frequently does, cause “cognitive dissonance.”

“Dissonance” which questions an individual, or groups, “sincerely held beliefs.”  Cognitive dissonance is NOT a pathology, or illness, rather, is a somewhat temporary psychological state which causes psycho-discomfort to the afflicted.  Ergo, new ideas that threaten old ideas can be painful!

Some people are better suited or equipped to meet educational pressure and idea overload, others, not so much.

PURVEYOR

  Curiously you seem to be suggesting that you prefer to follow a “middle
of the road” course?  That you would prefer NOT to take a side, as that
would require commitment and resolve.

Implying there are only two sides to pick from on issues so complex is abandoning reason and critical thinking to partisan bias and extremism.

Why have you not commented on John Milton’s poem? Or, Solzhenisyn’s quote?

Anyway, Like everything I write this piece below is extremely well written and cogent, offering new ideas and connecting them with old. I know how well I write. I have a unique writing style that can morph into cryptic humor.

I am disturbed that both you and DEVIL lack humility as there is much you could have learned, from me, (I from you) in our past discourse. Anyway,Your response below lacks relevant substance. I can’t understand your point? Furthermore, you do not address my ideas, particularly “cognitive dissonance” in political ideology. (That is an A paper waiting to happen for a college class)

New quote: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson.

Then again, according to DEVIL: “sometimes history is just history.” Wow, that is profound!

 
Hey Help me This someday you need me My Family there for You
KnightNews.com – Media/News/Publishing – Orlando – Links ….KnightNews.com – Media/News/Publishing – Orlando – Links …www.facebook.com/knightnews?sk=app_2309869772Cached
 
 Jay Lee NOTICE To Set Up Trust Fund $ 10 donation to a My Family returns Home…
 
Please Help US Set Trust Fund?  One Village to next City spread the word, Please Keep spreading the word to friends and Coworkers who might benefit from the information. we will share on Facebook. Fundraising Give $ 10 and you could Win UP to $10,000s to million Should be…!!!  U.S. Supreme Court case # 10-9061 1% Give way and Life time Jay Lee Family Hope Foundation members benefit with Officer of Corp. Open the door! Alexus Juliana Perez Julz Lee Diamondz Family + PA PA Jay Julz Jay Lee Diamondz et al. Resubmitted Meaning for Players 10/10/2011 U.S. Mailing Address At; 207 Tulip ST Bluefield, WV 24701 U.S.A.

Help Us Set UP Trust Fund?
Dear, Friends Help US take a My Grandchild HOME This Our***NOTICE To Set Up Trust Fund ? One village to next City spread the word, pleading the word to friends and Coworkers who might benefits from the information. We will share on Facebook. Fundraising Give $10 and You could Win UP $10,000s to million should be…!!! U.S. Supreme Court cases # 10-9061 1% Give way (When Reach the Settlements). $ 10 donation to a My Family return Home OCOEE, FL (Central, FL) *** U.S.A. 2004 Hurricane Charley, Frances, Survivors Set UP Seeking receive donations. Make a $ 10 donation to foundation Set UP for Jay Lee Family hope Foundation. Please Send to U.S. Mailing Address At: 207 Tulip ST, Bluefield, WV 24701 U.S.A. More information Email at:jayyejay@gmail.com Situation Urgent “PUBLIC DONATION REQUEST” SOME MY FAMILY MEMBER NO WATER, ELECTRIC, UTILITY FOR OVER MONTHS, 10/9/2011 I stop by no Water and no Electric P.S. My sons Charly Jay Lee live with his Mother They Help us and They lost House in Sept 2010…!!! Injustice for 6 years…!!!
 
“ANY AMOUNT WELL-COME” ALSO JOB OPPORTUNITIES OPEN “MUST MAKE HAPPEN”! TIME IS COME NOTICE TO REFORMING Corp. OFFICER OF JAY LEE FAMILY HOPE FOUNDATION (CORP.) ALSO Notice to Public, 4thCir. U.S.Supreme Court I defeat the over 10 Attorney! U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE # 10-9061 BEGGING OF U.S. Supreme Court TEAM OCT 3, 2011 REQUEST Dear Americans and WORLD Nations?  $10 DONATIONS Send TO MAILING ADDRESS AT: JAY H. LEE 207 TULIP ST, BLUEFIELD, WV 24701 USA. EMAILING ADDRESS AT:JAYYEJAY@GMAIL.COM We are 2004 Hurricanes Family From OCOEE, FL 34761 USA “We are player to GOD”TEAM OCT 3, 2011 reopen U.S. Supreme Court Justice for My Grandchild Family et al. Supreme Court’s supervisory authority Impact the each every community United States America. Importance to public of the issue, And “Land about The Star-Spangled Banner” and “Rule of law.” Throughout our country’s history our Constitution, Let us to safe, free, Land of America’s promise of equality and Justice. Thanks for Help us spread the word; Time is matter our Family Safe, Free, Equal Justice. God Bless You 1 You is All Beautiful! Jay Lee Julz Lee Diamondz Juliana Perez Lee, Charly Lee Jay Lee U.S. Supreme Court Case # 10-9061 Jay Lee GOOD FAITH AND RESPECTFULLY RESUBMITTED MEANING FOR PLAYERS!  10/10/2011 /S/JAYHLEE JAY LEE
 
 
 
 -CURRICULUM VITAE/RESUME-
 
 
 
 NAME: Jay Lee Family Hope Foundation
 
 
 
ADDRESS: 207 Tulip Street , Bluefield, WV 24701 U.S.A.
 
 
 
Email Address At: jayyejay@gmail.com
 
 
 
      -   Profession Goal: Return Home Also Non-Profit Practitioner in rural setting
 
 
 
 -   1971: Korea high school graduate
 
 
 
 -   1971: Home town military a duty over 2,000.00 man Home town (coordinator)
 
 
 
 -   1971-1973: IN THE KOREA military Office Academy assists a professor
 
 
 
 -   1987: LVMPD small business owner, City in Las Vegas, NV
 
 
 
 -   1994-2004: attend the business (Taxicab/puppy Love Kennel Family business)
 
 
 
             Attend City Orlando Public hearing/business meeting
 
 
 
 -    Employment: 1994- Founder / President Non-Profit Corporation exempt by IRS 501c3 status in 1994
 
 
 
           Orange County Taxicab works CORP. (P.S.42 CO. World Nation Join tighter)
 
 
 
 -   1994-1999: Provided needy people giving free transportation service.
 
 
 
 -   1995-1996: Members of Committee THE BOARD about Vehicle for Hire for Hire Task Force Orange County, FL Also 42 CO.
 
 
 
 -   Sponsored the City of OCOEE, FL Local needy children HOME BOYS basketball Team to
 
 
 
             HOOP IT UP SEA WORLD ORLANDO, FL
 
 
 
 -   1995      : ORANGE COUNTY, FL Citizen’s join 1 week Huge Yard Sale with 100% of Profits going to Hospice,
 
 
 
             Heart leaf Farms, Char lee of Central, FL and Association Of the Central FL POLICE.
 
 
 
                                          Jaylee6038 – Google Search
 
 
 
             Jay Lee Family built Easter Baskets for local needy children’s Homes.             
 
 
 
 Assent Inquire To One Village to next City U.S.A. And  World Nations equal Opportunities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Assent Request  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) OPEN to Public
 
 
 
             from : non-Profit Foaming Member of non-Profit Team.
 
 
 
Re-forming  Jay Lee Family Hope Foundation Founder/President
 
 
 
           Recommit  the   Sincerely, Jay H. Lee        10/9/2011 /s/jayhlee      Jay Lee
 
 
Message from UCF Nation 10/3/2011
 
 
Jay’s Profile • UCF Nation’s Profile • Jay’s Wall
 
 
 
Public Jay Lee posted toUCF Nation
 
P.S. U.S. Mailing Address At: 207 Tulip ST, Bluefield, WV 24701 U.S.A.
 
 NOTICE To Set Up Trust Fund $ 10 donation to a My Family return Home OCOEE,FL(Central, FL) U.S.A. 2004 Hurricane Charley, Frances, Survivors Set UP Seeking receive donations. Make a $ 10 donation to foundation Set UP for Jay Lee Family hope Foundation. U.S. Mailing Address At: 207 Tulip ST, Bluefield, WV U.S.A. More information Email at:jayyejay@gmail.comSituation Urgent Jay Julz Lee Diamondz
 
 
 
 Google Alert – U.S.Supreme Court case # 10-9061 NEWS
InboxX
 
 Reply |Google Alerts to me
show details Oct 6 (2 days ago)
 
fromGoogle Alerts googlealerts-noreply@google.com
tojayyejay@gmail.com
 
dateThu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:21 PM
subjectGoogle Alert – U.S.Supreme Court case # 10-9061 NEWS
mailing list Filter messages from this mailing list
mailed-byalerts.bounces.google.com
signed-bygoogle.com
unsubscribeUnsubscribe from this mailing-list
Images from this sender are always displayed. Don’t display from now on.
hide details Oct 6 (2 days ago)
 
Video2 new results for U.S.Supreme Court case # 10-9061 NEWS
 
 Supreme Court Considers Case on Hiring, Firing in …
6 min
The Supreme Court justices heard arguments in a case regarding the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the …
youtube.com
 
Immigration, Affirmative Action on New High Court …
8 min
For more: to.pbs.org The US Supreme Court returned to work Monday and the court has a docket full of controversial cases on …
youtube.com
2 attachments — Download all attachments  
Help Us Set UP Trust Fund Please Keep spreading the word….docx
21K   View   Download  
KnightNews -Orlando-.docx
15K   View   Download  

Jay Lee Central, FL  Profile
 
  -    Employment: 1994- Founder / President Non-Profit Corporation exempt by IRS 501c3 status in 1994
 Orange County Taxicab works CORP. (P.S.42 CO. World Nation Join tighter)
  -   1994-1999: Provided needy people giving free transportation service.
  -   1995-1996: Members of Committee THE BOARD about Vehicle for Hire for Hire Task Force Orange County, FL  USA
  -   Sponsored the City of OCOEE, FL Local needy children HOME BOYS basketball Team to  HOOP IT UP SEA WORLD ORLANDO, FL
  -   1995      : ORANGE COUNTY, FL Citizen’s join 1 week Huge Yard Sale with 100% of Profits going to Hospice,Heart leaf Farms, Char lee of Central, FL and Association Of the Central FL POLICE.
 
 
 
                                          Jaylee6038 – Google Search
 
  Jay Lee Family built Easter Baskets for local needy children’s Homes.           
-2008   :Jay Lee Family hope Foundation(Corp.)
Founder:     Jay Lee Family et al.
Headquarters:    Central, FL (Temporary Office Bluefield, WV USA 
Slogan: Hope for Promised Land lights Signal
Email At: jayyejay@gmail.com
 
Hey Homeboy need some Help  11/17/2011 /s/jayhlee
RE: ABC NEWS maybe Air on Fundraising
X
 
 
InboxX
 
 
 Reply |Jim Sutherland (LinkedIn Messages) messages-noreply@linkedin.com to me
show details 6:51 PM (20 hours ago)
 
fromJim Sutherland (LinkedIn Messages) messages-noreply@linkedin.com
toJay Lee
 
dateSun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:51 PM
subjectRE: ABC NEWS maybe Air on Fundraising
mailed-bybounce.linkedin.com
signed-bylinkedin.com
Important mainly because of the words in the message.
 
hide details 6:51 PM (20 hours ago)
 
LinkedIn
Jim Sutherland has sent you a message.
Date: 11/13/2011
Subject: RE: ABC NEWS maybe Air on Fundraising
Please dont spam me
 
On 11/10/11 10:00 AM, Jay Lee wrote:
——————–
URGENT Donation I need first come first 10,000 Tickets Only You give $10 Received 1 Tickets
Everyone
.by Jay Lee on Thursday 10, November 2011 at 10:15am. MAILING ADDRESS At to; Jay H. Lee 207 TULIP ST BLUEFIELD, WV 24701 U.S.A. Email at:jayyejay@gmail.com you send to $ 10 Received 1 Tickets you could win Millions. Real deal for You’re Part of history “Land about the star-spangled Banner” Thank you Help us spread the word. You 1 you are all beautiful…!!! “Life is short. We can live better.” Join us bring God’s glory God Bless America
 
God Bless you. You have a good cause for Support Land of Free, Safe, equal justice Dear Friend. 11/17/2011 /s/jayhlee P.S. URGENT Donation I need First come first 10,000 Tickets Only You give $10 Received 1 Tickets everyone …!!! /s/jayhlee 11/17/2011 U.S. Mailing Address: Jay H. Lee 207 Tulip ST, Bluefield, WV 24701 USA

I need Your Help year 2004 Hurricanes Family from OCOEE, FL 34761 USA Seeping GOV. deter fraudulent Judges! Homeless for 6 Years HEY HELP ME THIS SOMEDAY YOU NEED ME MY FAMILY THERE FOR YOU
 Jay Lee NOTICE to Set up Trust Fund $ 10 donation to a Take a My Grandchild returns Home Challenge NOW! 2004 Hurricane Charley, Frances, Survivors Set UP Seeking receive donations.
 
Please Keep spread the word See, Google Search:  Jaylee6038 – YouTube,
KNIGHTNEWS.COM – MEDIA/NEWS/PUBLISHING – ORLANDO – LINKS ,
Chicago Cubs Radio on WGN Radio 720 with Pat Hughes and Keith Moreland
Meet the Press NBC, Anderson Cooper 360, ABC Good Morning America, ABC World News Miss Sawyer, 20/20/20, Nightline/ABC News Specials, Roxanne VargasNBC Miami, Melissa Smith WPBN-WTOM TV 7&4 News ETC al.
 
Please Help US Set Trust Fund?  One Village to next City spread the word, Please Keep spread the word to friends and Family’s/Coworkers who might benefit from the information. We will share on Facebook. “Fundraising Give $ 10 and you could Win UP U.S. Supreme Court case # 10-9061 Give way Award Support Fundraising Professional Group include”  1st winner 1 million. 2nd winter 100,000 each (10 winters). 3nd Winter 10,000 each (100 winters) send to $ 10 Received 1 Tickets. 10,000 tickets Only Real deal for You’re Part of history “Land about the star-spangled Banner” Thank you Help us spread the word. You 1 you are all beautiful…!!! “Life is short. We can live better.” Join us bring God’s glory “God Bless America” Please send to:  MAILING ADDRESS AT; Grandchild Return Home Challenge Jay H. Lee 207 TULIP ST BLUEFIELD, WV 24701 U.S.A.
God Bless you. You have a good cause for Support Land of Free, Safe, equal justice Dear Friend. 11/17/2011 /s/jayhlee

I need Your Help year 2004 Hurricanes Family from OCOEE, FL 34761 USA Seeping GOV. deter fraudulent Judges! Homeless for 6 Years HEY HELP ME THIS SOMEDAY YOU NEED ME MY FAMILY THERE FOR YOU
 Jay Lee NOTICE to Set up Trust Fund $ 10 donation to a Take a My Grandchild returns Home Challenge NOW! (Granddaughter Alexus Julianna Perez Lee) 2004 Hurricane Charley, Frances, Survivors Set UP Seeking receive donations.
 
Please Keep spread the word See, Google Search:  Jaylee6038 – YouTube,
KNIGHTNEWS.COM – MEDIA/NEWS/PUBLISHING – ORLANDO – LINKS ,
Chicago Cubs Radio on WGN Radio 720 with Pat Hughes and Keith Moreland
Meet the Press NBC, Anderson Cooper 360, ABC Good Morning America, ABC World News Miss Sawyer, 20/20/20, Nightline/ABC News Specials,  Roxanne Vargas NBC Miami, Melissa Smith WPBN-WTOM TV 7&4 News ETC al.
 
Please Help US Set Trust Fund?  One Village to next City spread the word, Please Keep spread the word to friends and Family’s/Coworkers who might benefit from the information. We will share on Facebook. “Fundraising Give $ 10 and you could Win UP U.S. Supreme Court case # 10-9061 Give way Award Support Fundraising Professional Group include”  1st winner 1 million. 2nd winter $100,000 each (10 winters). 3nd Winter $10,000 each (100 winters) send to $ 10 Received 1 Tickets. 10,000 tickets Only Fundraising Challenges $100,000  Real deal for You’re Part of history “Land about the star-spangled Banner” Thank you Help us spread the word. You 1 you are all beautiful…!!! “Life is short. We can live better.” Join us bring God’s glory “God Bless America” Please send to:  MAILING ADDRESS AT; Grandchild Return Home Challenge Jay H. Lee 207 TULIP ST BLUEFIELD, WV 24701 U.S.A.
God Bless you. You have a good cause for Support Land of Free, Safe, equal justice Dear Friend. 11/17/2011 /s/jayhlee