Political Discussion

[LimpDisc]

I think we should get rid of them all and start fresh

Your list is even better.

[justbroke]

Q: What do you call 50 Senators and 250 Congressmen of the 111th Congress at the bottom of the ocean?

A: A good start.

[WhatMoney]

Just wondered - who in the world is "Rosen Bush"?

"Laura Bush had a LARGER personal staff than Michelle and paid them more. So did Jacqueline Kennedy. So did Hillary, and Betty Ford. Your numbers comparing to other First Lady's are simply a pack of lies. Pretty much like most of the comments in yet another Obama bashing thread on the BK forum. Yawn... how predictable."

Did you read my original post? Obviously Laura Bush, as I mentioned her name at least four times. I have no idea why I typed Rosen at 4am in the morning after being up for 20 hours, I don't even know any "Rosen". Maybe I had Rosalynn Carter on my mind? Anything other than my brain farts you want to discuss?

[WhatMoney]

It might serve you well to know who is making such claims. I am a conservative and never have complained about Michelle Obama's servants.

The very fact you call the White House Staff assigned to the First Lady authorized by Congress in the 1970's, "servants" is revealing. You apparently have no idea what the Office of the First Lady's staff actually does.

You are so blinded by your rage toward anyone who is opposed to your Dear Leader and his "For once in my life, I am proud of my country" crony of a wife that you are forced to make ridiculous statements like the one above.

And your rage and hatred of the First Lady comes through loud and clear OF. Do you not realize how much constant hatred you spew on this board?

Michelle Obama is a political hack raised on the corrupt side of Chicago politics just like her husband with a blank page resume prior to being elevated to the position of POTUS. Michelle Obama has nothing in common with the common man (or woman). Her nonsensical attempts to portray herself as anything but a typical elitist is laughable.

Blank Page resume? What does that mean? Here's her brief "blank page resume" before becoming the First Lady:

Add mother of two children and First Lady - neither of which count to you OF do they? You hate mothers, or just accomplished intelligent mothers? You are something else OF. It really bothers you that both Obama's are accomplished and elite doesn't it? You really hate those elitists don't you? You would rather have Joe The Plumber running our country, with empty headed beauty queen religious fundie Sarah Palin at his side? Sorry, I want smart accomplished people representing my country, not uneducated dummies.

[backtoschool]

Not quite true that I'm unable to discuss anything with an open mind. I spent some time as a liberal and have come to appreciate the values of conservatism. I don't hold far right wing views (at least I don't think I do, perhaps you can define those for all of us).

I hold beliefs that are documented in the Constitution of our great country.

I have no desire nor need to consider liberal points of view. Most are too malleable to be given the time of day. Most require a tweaking of the Constitution to justify them. I did my research.

I have no rage. In fact, I usually laugh at liberal posts.

3. Able to adjust to changing circumstances; adaptable: the malleable mind of the pragmatist.


Most voter's views on either side of the spectrum, and even in the middle are "malleable" in the way that you meant the word.

My mind and views, as a liberal, are "malleable" in the way I have bolded above.

If you are going to insult liberals OF, then you should pick a word that does not have double meanings.

As for Michelle Obama, well she graduated from Princeton and Harvard law school, and was an associate dean at the University of Chicago and ran a large division of a hospital. I am not sure what in that resume is "blank".
Most first ladies have far less experience than she does. The only first lady in recent history that is more accomplished than Michelle Obama is Hillary Clinton, and I can only imagine what you would say about her.

[backtoschool]

Obama is neutered on health care reform and that was to be his legacy. This talk of jobs bills is a renaming of the stimulus bills and he'll have a hard time getting it passed.

Obama was forced by public opinion to ramp up the Afghanistan offensive. He is rolling back "don't ask , don't tell" for the gays. He hired Janet Napolitano to assuage both women's groups and gays when she is clearly unqualified.

What social program has he cut? What roll-back of abortion rights has he almost allowed?

Obama is a Marxist.

Alito has been proven correct by all who have fact checked Obama's distortion of the SCOTUS ruling. Obama can not overturn a SCOTUS ruling.

I trust all is well in California. Be careful, that state is close to bankruptcy. I wouldn't want you to become trapped at the Hotel California.

All is going very well in California. I am actually writing this from my hotel-room as I wait for friends to meet me here.

As for Obama abandoning liberals, well he was ready to get rid of funding for abortions as part of the health care plan, and he has not supported any major gay or women's rights initiatives.

Obama is also willing to cut spending on social programs to reduce the deficit, even while he increases our commitment to the war in Afghanistan. As a liberal I cannot support either of these decisions of Obama's.

Putting a female figure-head in a powerless position to appease his voting base is patronizing and does not show a commitment to progressive causes, to women or to gay rights.

I actually agree with you OF that the Supreme Court has done nothing particularly wrong. They are not being a reformist court, but are sticking to the narrow letter of the law and that bothers many people, who prefer the Supreme court to reform and legislate with their decisions. I would prefer reformist decisions too, but I have to agree with you that the court was not wrong in their decision per se.

[DeadManCrawling]

Here is my issue with the Supreme Court ruling last week.

The Constitution addresses the rights of PEOPLE, not corporations. When the right to free speech is invoked, it is for CITIZENS, and NOT corporations.

The amount of money and the vast numbers of citizens involved in each corporation makes it virtually impossible, except in small or family held corps, to really speak as a unified voice for each and every shareholder or employee. So, the corporation is really using everyone's money to speak on behalf of the executive board, and I think we can all guess whose best interests THEY hold firmly in mind. It is not the 75 year old grandma from Topeka who isn't even aware that her pension fund is invested in that particular corporation.

Generally speaking, I believe the court should be free to interpret the laws without interference, but sometimes we all make mistakes. This is one such, in my mind. I hope Congress legislates effectively (fat chance) and closes this new opening for lobbyists and corporations, before it is widely abused.

[OhioFiler]

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, John Murtha, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham for starters.

Glad to see Ted Kennedy & Christopher Dodd gone.

Happy?

How about naming some Republicans you'd like to see removed?

Senators McCain, Graham, Ensign and Voinovich (who is not running again) and those two bimbos in Maine.

[OhioFiler]

Here is my issue with the Supreme Court ruling last week.

The Constitution addresses the rights of PEOPLE, not corporations. When the right to free speech is invoked, it is for CITIZENS, and NOT corporations.

The amount of money and the vast numbers of citizens involved in each corporation makes it virtually impossible, except in small or family held corps, to really speak as a unified voice for each and every shareholder or employee. So, the corporation is really using everyone's money to speak on behalf of the executive board, and I think we can all guess whose best interests THEY hold firmly in mind. It is not the 75 year old grandma from Topeka who isn't even aware that her pension fund is invested in that particular corporation.

Generally speaking, I believe the court should be free to interpret the laws without interference, but sometimes we all make mistakes. This is one such, in my mind. I hope Congress legislates effectively (fat chance) and closes this new opening for lobbyists and corporations, before it is widely abused.

Are you describing the NEA , SEIU and all the other unions who support Obama and the democrats with the dues of their members?

[OhioFiler]

3. Able to adjust to changing circumstances; adaptable: the malleable mind of the pragmatist.


Most voter's views on either side of the spectrum, and even in the middle are "malleable" in the way that you meant the word.

My mind and views, as a liberal, are "malleable" in the way I have bolded above.

If you are going to insult liberals OF, then you should pick a word that does not have double meanings.

As for Michelle Obama, well she graduated from Princeton and Harvard law school, and was an associate dean at the University of Chicago and ran a large division of a hospital. I am not sure what in that resume is "blank".
Most first ladies have far less experience than she does. The only first lady in recent history that is more accomplished than Michelle Obama is Hillary Clinton, and I can only imagine what you would say about her.

You can't pick and choose my intended meaning!

I meant Obama the Great had a blank resume. His wife has a salary increase of nearly $200K on her resume after her hubby was elected senator. Her resume is flattering.

[JRScott]

Senators McCain, Graham, Ensign and Voinovich (who is not running again) and those two bimbos in Maine.

I'm a firm belief that Senators should be limited to two terms just like the President, I also though believe we should repeal the 17th amendment and have them elected by state legislatures again rather than by popular vote. It would help restore the balance of power between states and federal power.

[JRScott]

Here is my issue with the Supreme Court ruling last week.

The Constitution addresses the rights of PEOPLE, not corporations. When the right to free speech is invoked, it is for CITIZENS, and NOT corporations.

The amount of money and the vast numbers of citizens involved in each corporation makes it virtually impossible, except in small or family held corps, to really speak as a unified voice for each and every shareholder or employee. So, the corporation is really using everyone's money to speak on behalf of the executive board, and I think we can all guess whose best interests THEY hold firmly in mind. It is not the 75 year old grandma from Topeka who isn't even aware that her pension fund is invested in that particular corporation.

Generally speaking, I believe the court should be free to interpret the laws without interference, but sometimes we all make mistakes. This is one such, in my mind. I hope Congress legislates effectively (fat chance) and closes this new opening for lobbyists and corporations, before it is widely abused.

The problem is that through judicial activism they have pretty much assigned Corporations and Organizations the same rights as individuals, I agree with you that that is not the intent of the framers. That's one reason I support Prof. Barnett's Bill of Federalism amendments as it would counteract much of the dangerous judicial activism of the last century.

[OhioFiler]

All is going very well in California. I am actually writing this from my hotel-room as I wait for friends to meet me here.

As for Obama abandoning liberals, well he was ready to get rid of funding for abortions as part of the health care plan, and he has not supported any major gay or women's rights initiatives.

Obama is also willing to cut spending on social programs to reduce the deficit, even while he increases our commitment to the war in Afghanistan. As a liberal I cannot support either of these decisions of Obama's.

Putting a female figure-head in a powerless position to appease his voting base is patronizing and does not show a commitment to progressive causes, to women or to gay rights.

I actually agree with you OF that the Supreme Court has done nothing particularly wrong. They are not being a reformist court, but are sticking to the narrow letter of the law and that bothers many people, who prefer the Supreme court to reform and legislate with their decisions. I would prefer reformist decisions too, but I have to agree with you that the court was not wrong in their decision per se.

Abortion is not a right enumerated in the Constitution.

Obama doesn't know what a "cut" in spending even is.

I know you're just trying to tweak me with the comment about the SCOTUS being reformists. I'm not even going to discuss such silliness with you.

[JRScott]

Abortion is not a right enumerated in the Constitution.

Obama doesn't know what a "cut" in spending even is.

I know you're just trying to tweak me with the comment about the SCOTUS being reformists. I'm not even going to discuss such silliness with you.

I would agree, abortion is actually the antithesis of the founding documents.

From the Declaration of Indepence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where does abortion fit into the unalienable right of Life?

Since Life is not actually enumerated in the Constitution then the 9th Amendment apply:

"Amendment IX

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

Thus since Life is not an enumerated right in Article I Section 8 of the US Congress in the US Constitution it becomes a right of the 9th Amendment to the people. Thus abortion which robs life from an individual without due process is in fact unconstitutional. If only our activist judges would read it properly.

Of course James Wilson who signed both documents and was one of the first Associate Judges of the Supreme Court also wrote the original law manuals for teaching in universities. One of the first comments in that precedent is that you cannot have good civil law if it violates divine law.

[onwards]

Of course - and come on, you know this - the question here is whether an unborn fetus is considered "alive". That is the crux of the entire argument, and no, there is no obvious answer to this; it really does depend on one's point of view.

Thus your entire argument is based on a hidden assumption that is not necessarily one that would be adopted by the person you are arguing with. That makes the constitutional argument sort of pointless, dontcha think?

I would agree, abortion is actually the antithesis of the founding documents.

From the Declaration of Indepence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where does abortion fit into the unalienable right of Life?

Since Life is not actually enumerated in the Constitution then the 9th Amendment apply:

"Amendment IX

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

Thus since Life is not an enumerated right in Article I Section 8 of the US Congress in the US Constitution it becomes a right of the 9th Amendment to the people. Thus abortion which robs life from an individual without due process is in fact unconstitutional. If only our activist judges would read it properly.

Of course James Wilson who signed both documents and was one of the first Associate Judges of the Supreme Court also wrote the original law manuals for teaching in universities. One of the first comments in that precedent is that you cannot have good civil law if it violates divine law.