Republicans & Conservatives Archives

I think you might be miss reading the tea leaves [pun intended] Reagan’s approval ratings where no better at this point of his first term. And if we could go back to the tax rates under Reagan the deficit would be no where near as bad as it is.

C&J wrote: “Unfortunately, this group of “villains” also included the people who created most of the jobs and did most of the work and all that castigation made them cautious about investing.”

Alright, would you please explain why these, salt of the earth, investors failed to create any jobs after the Bush recession of 2001. The recovery from that recession was clearly a jobless recovery. Job creation during the Bush administrations was the worst since Hoover. Huge tax cuts, huge deficit spending and a friendly regulatory environment failed to spur the investment class during the Bush administration to create jobs. Why not?

Blaming increased regulatory control of the financial markets, high income tax increases, etc. for the lack of capital investment by the business community is a red herring. It avoids any real discussion about the structural problems in our economy. Why have corporations eschewed investment in US based production and jobs over the recent past? What has been the consequence of globilization on US employment and wage levels? Has the debt burden on the private sector to maintain consumer spending reached a breaking point? There are many reasons for the lack of investment in US jobs. The concern raised over the new regulatory actions and potential high income taxation are, in my opinion, the least important factors.

Jeff

Obama is no Ronald Reagan. Reagan would not have made a good professor. Obama does. Professors, however, don’t make good presidents.

Rich

Maybe Bush was the worst since Hoover, but it looks like Obama will manage to top (or should we say get under) that record.

Many times I have written that presidents get too much credit or blame for the economy and I figure many of the things you mention are true. But liberals and Democrats blamed Bush (as you did) and implied that Obama would do so much better. Well, he hasn’t.

So the new lefty argument will have to be that Obama is is not worse than Bush. But actually, it looks like he might be.

Obama: so much hope, so little result.

Well C&J I have to disagree. I voted for Reagan he was the right person for the time. Politics was less ugly back then and my point is the unrelenting attacks on this president has so soured and divided the country that I fear the divisions will only worsen. Nothing gets done politics comes first country a distant second.

C&J,

Once again, you avoid the question. Why was job creation so dismal during the Bush administration? I am not blaming Bush per se. The factors that would seem to promote investment, i.e., tax cuts, favorable regulatory environment, etc. were present but, no job creation. This problem of lack of job creation isn’t a new phenomena.

Jeff

Then you will recall all the attacks against Reagan.

The difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan started off being attacked by the MSM. Obama started off supported by most people. Remember - he had only a 13% disapproval record.

Obama came with a great reservoir of goodwill and with most of the media behind him. He squandered all that. His fall was hard, because he had been so high.

IMO - the problem was that Obama really didn’t have the necessary experience. He had lived a golden life. Things had been easy for him. With that resume, nobody would have guessed he would get to be president and maybe he was as surprised as we were.

Obama’s under 50%. Congratulations.

Meanwhile, Republicans are at 36% approval, from the same people.

If you don’t manage to get what you want this electoral season, it’s going to be a whole lot of rage for nothing.

And if you do succeed? Oh, you will have well and truly screwed yourselves. As a Minority party, you could be a moving target. As a majority in either house, you’ll be expected to deliver results, and you will be blamed, just like us, if the results don’t come. You will be, in short, sitting ducks.

And you will take this burden as a deeply unpopular party. You will win where you do, because you’ve depressed party turnout. People may make that mistake once from frustration. They won’t make it again. The moment Republicans actually stretch their legs, and actually do some policy writing, my bet is, they’ll remind people why they were kicked out in the first place.

So, celebrate your successful cramming down of Democratic Party Ambitions. Then, as must happen with such unearned victories, mourn the lack of imagination of your party, as people’s daily encounter of it on the news will be all the Sharron Angle/ Rand Paul BS that has your people running for cover anytime those two get microphones. If you think those people are toxic to your party while they’re campaigning? They’ll be like cyanide to it when they’re bloviating on the hill.

You talk about optimism. What a laugh. What a bitter, cynical laugh. You’ve operated this last couple of years on the principle of strangling whatever measures might bring some measure of optimism. Whether it’s Wall Street Reform, or Healthcare Reform, you’ve worked your magic by binding the Democrats into a position where they had to deeply disappoint their constituents. If you win, you win because of that disappointment. And your optimism? Optimism like that doesn’t feed the hungry or pay the jobless.

After all, it was Herbert Hoover who campaigned on “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” A whole lot of good his optimism did people.

Americans need more than from their government than the Republicans are prepared to give them, and that will be their downfall, whether it’s now or later. I’m going to push for now, because I’ve lost all patience with Republican policymaking ability. I used to think that out of sheer self-preservation, Republicans would be willing to compromise on their politics. Unfortunately, the last decade has shown that the Republicans are willing to let things go to hell so they can get the poll results they want.

So, celebrate your poll results. Cherish them. That’s all Republicans are good for nowadays: quoting polls and pushing them around. You can’t count on them for policy, even when our country is in the gravest trouble it’s been in for decades.

Rich

I agree with you about structural changes. We probably need some new thinking. Bush grew the government. It didn’t work. Obama is spending even more. It is not the cure.

So what do the Bush screw ups and the Obama screw ups have in common? Out of control spending.

As for blaming Obama. He clearly is not doing much good and it is costing lots of money.

Stephen

Please see above to Rich.

I have no rage against Obama. I feel a little sorry for him and even more sorry for us. Obama is spending too much. His programs are not working. I just want change we can believe in.

Well I disagree I for one have been without healthcare and I had kids at home then one broke his arm play sports and it just about broke me.

C&J-
You spent too much, taxed too little. Budget deficits don’t follow wishful thinking about supply side economics, they follow the actual numbers. We will be paying off the debt your President accumulated for decades, and ironically enough, that requirement’s going to be part of what keeps America in Deficits for quite some time to come.

Bush could have rescinded the tax cuts when it became apparent we were heading for a deficit, but he did not. Instead, rather than tell people they were giving the surplus back to the people (which was still fiscally irresponsible, since it could be used to pay down debts), they now were telling them that it was a fiscal stimulus plan.

It didn’t work, in either direction. Deficits became huge and stayed huge, and the economy still tanked.

Rather than admit this, Republicans are once again saying the same things. This ticks me off to no end. I expect people to learn from their mistakes.

Not blame them on others.

Obama’s share of the deficit is small. His spending is not out of control. It’s paid for in taxes, often enough, and also paid for offsets as well, at different times. The stimulus was unpaid for, but that was the point. You weren’t merely shifting money around, you were delibrately pushing it into the economy and paying for it later.

This was done as an acknowledged risk, rather than the nutty sort of “tax cuts don’t increase deficits like spending does” argument Republicans have tried.

Other aspects of the perceived increase come from the fact that Obama is counting in his budget things that Republicans spend for, but don’t budget for. In that respect, he’s exploded the deficit, but not really raised spending that much- the deficit numbers were more of a fiction under Bush, so you were actually seeing underestimated numbers.

Then there’s the financial crisis laissez faire economics brought on. That accounts for a large amount of the deficit

Isn’t that Ironic? Obama tells the truth where Republicans are lying, and Republicans lie to exploit the truth that they themselves brought to pass?

But no Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is going to tell you that. The people who failed your party before, in telling you guys what was actually going on will do so again, because their salaries are based on entertaining people and flattering the conservative movement, not informing them.

It’s not that both Obama and the Republicans were wrong in the same way, rather, that the Republicans were wrong in a way that’s going to make it very hard for either a Republican or a Democrat to make it right, especially when the Republicans are pushing to make the same mistakes all over again.

It’s easy for people to say things like “Obama spends like a drunken sailor.” How about proving it, proving that the bulk of the deficit is his doing, something he could resolve fast enough to make it something he could do?

It’s easy to say, “His programs have failed.” Come on, be more specific. You nag about the stimulus, but many economists agree that it did great good. Whether it was sufficient is another story.

We can suffer until things get really nasty, or we start paying attention to what’s actually happening, rather than dreaming up our own standards of what is right or wrong.

Do you have stopwatches. Stephen needs one to cover the next several weeks while his crystal ball turns to snow. And be sure to give him a good price. The economy under the dimocrats is hurtin probably quite bad. So if you got one of those democrat $.99 cent jobs that should do.

Did nearly 40% of the American people suddenly become racist or ignorant?

umm, no. not suddenly.

I doubt many Obama supporters are blaming lower poll numbers on racism - where does that come from? The economy heading back down is the obvious catalyst to the polls.

According to you, the answer to the economy is the private sector. Well what is stopping the private sector? Big businesses are sitting on piles of cash. Obama has championed tax cuts for small businesses. He is not opposed to businesses spending money and hiring people. Go ahead private sector - do your magic. It’s not happening. Why dig deeper into the problems when we can just yell socialism.

tom humes-
I’m not attempting to crystal ball anything. This is prophecy, instead. You know what the difference is? History may not repeat, but it rhymes, and when anybody looks at the Republicans nowadays, they don’t see heroes, they see the only alternatives to Democrats, and they’re only looking because Republicans have succeeded in blasting the Democrats off their high pedestal, and confounding their legislative agenda. That doesn’ mean they get to be where Democrats were in 2006, nor where they themselves were in 1994.

I’m simply telling you that Republicans are putting off the reckoning for what the last decade did to its reputation, the reckoning for it’s failure to heed American’s needs and desires, its reckoning for the political and policy stagnation. The Party’s rotting from the inside, because it will not admit, cannot admit that its glory days are over, and people are no longer in love with it.

Republicans won big in 2004, lost hugely in 2006 and 2008. There, too, the Republicans had plenty to reckon with, with Bush and the Republican’s policies delivering questionable results. If the Republicans win what they want to win in 2010, God knows what the price may be, but it will be high, because people will not expect this government to stay on the sidelines. They will not take their excuses, nor buy their reasoning about big government. They will compromise and risk losing their boiled down, far-right base, or they will become a party that can’t maintain support anywhere else.

Stephen;

I guess we will see who the rotting carcus is in November.

Schwamp;

Rush Limbaugh predicted 2 1/2 years ago that business would not spend cash, expand, hire, or invest as long as there was uncertainty about how Obama would work with them. In fact Rush predicted companies would start cutting jobs because of Obama’s taxes and healthcare. He was right on…

“Obama has championed tax cuts for small businesses. He is not opposed to businesses spending money and hiring people.”

Obama has done nothing for small business. Most small business falls in the category that the expiring Bush tax cuts will affect. My son owns his own business and the expiring tax cuts will affect him. So it s personal for me. He hires union employees and is seriously considering non-union workers, because he is being put in a place where his profits are eaten up by wages, benefits, and taxes.

It is private sector that creates the jobs. Government does not create anything…

“So what do the Bush screw ups and the Obama screw ups have in common? Out of control spending.”

The economy almost collapsed not because of Federal spending but because of unsustainable private sector debt which reached levels unprecedented since prior to the Great Depression (350% of GDP). In the past decade, consumer spending has inched up, accounting for 70% of our GDP. That spending has increasingly been dependent upon debt expansion supported by bubble inflations in asset prices (e.g., housing). Wage increases have simply not kept pace with increased consumer spending and are insufficient to service the resultant debt. Upon the bursting of the housing bubble, those factors became increasingly apparent.

It is the debt. But it is not the debt of the federal sector that is of immediated concern, it is that of the private sector. Reducing federal spending at this point will only exacerbate the problems of an underwater private sector. On the other hand, just shoveling money into the economy won’t address the underlying problems.

It seems to me that the issues are much more complex than political rhetoric suggests. It would be helpful if we all moved away from simplistic explanations to a more detailed examination of the economy.

Baretta9,

“Rush Limbaugh predicted 2 1/2 years ago that business would not spend cash, expand, hire, or invest as long as there was uncertainty about how Obama would work with them.”

Did Rush similarly predict that businesses would not spend cash, expand, hire or invest as long as George Bush was President? Because, that is exactly what they did. Blaming Obama for the failure of the private sector to invest capital in US jobs turns a blind eye to its recent history. The truth of the matter is that corporations have found it much more profitable to sub their manufacturing to China and outsource their service sector jobs to India, etc. When was the first time that you heard a foreign accent on a service call? When was the first time that you noticed a “made in China” stamp on a US corporate product?

Baretta9,
Rush was right on? In what - pre-emptively blaming a clearly tanking economy and bursting real estate bubble on Obama. I’m guessing that when Bush took office at the end of the dot com bubble he didn’t blame the halt in business spending on uncertainty about Bush. Just a guess. By the way, businesses are smoked by health care costs without health care reform in case you haven’t noticed.

But where is the health care reform? That thing that is called health care reform is not reform, it is transform by way of dictatorial authority at the nationalist government level. Sec. Sibelius has extremely broad authority involving many things including health issues. No one person should have that much authority. That is why so many people are fearful of the continuing creaping socialism at the nationalist level. Also this is not a Dem or Rep issue. It is power and corrupt power at best. Health care is an issue that should be left to the states to deal with. The so-called health care reform that is noted as reform will only cause more chaos in the health industry. It has already had ramifications that are just simply astounding. My doctor had to take a recent cut for a thorax procedure that said he could not make more than a dog groomer for that procedure. He is a heart doctor. The nationalist government bureaucrats and czars have determined that my fine heart doctor is not worth as much as a dog groomer. Those are the people making decisions that are detrimental to everyones health. And they are making twice the salary they could make in the private sector. We cannot even vote directly for them or against them. They are rooted in. For four years straight, come June, I fall into the dog nut hole(which is more descriptive than doughnut hole). That means that over the next few months all my prescriptions will have to be paid for at the going price. For instance my Niaspan will now cost me $377 a month straight from the wallet. I am in no way in the worst shape. There are thousands of people far worse off than I am. Dealth panels still not going into action? You gotta be kiddin’. They have been here all along. Or to paraphrase Pogo, they are here and they have met us.

From Mr. Daugherty’s comments above I believe he has concluded that the R’s and C’s will be back in control of congress. Those comments include the usual crystal ball gazing to predict the future which he gleans to be dismal under new leadership.

Not using his much vaunted “fact” finding to substantiate his view, we are treated to a litany of comments that conjure a future from our past.

The obama “change” didn’t work very well as we remain with high unemployment numbers, ever growing debt, and legislation that is despised by the very same people who voted obama and his collegues into office. Now, we are wittnessing obama/biden touting their “summer of renewal” or some such insanity.

Too many folks gave obama too much credit for intelligence and leadership. This man hardly ever has an original thought and only rarely speaks from his head or heart, but rather, becomes just another talking head reading from a monitor.

Labeling obama as a legal scholar gives the legal profession a bad name. The only part of the constitution he understands and follows are those very few articles that give power to him as president. We will all be thankful when this person goes quietly into the night to write books and give paid speeches. And, I am looking forward to the grand speech he will give, reading from the monitor, about his victory in helping the mosque be built near ground zero in NYC and standing with all the patriots in the ribbon-cutting.

tom humes,
you’re free to give up your medicare and pay your doctor as much as you want for his services. And last time I checked he isn’t forced to take medicare patients.

Beretta9-
Rush Limbaugh’s logic is flawed.

1) No business is going to be that scared that they’ll pass up lucrative financial opportunities just out of uncertainty about the President.

2) The crash two years ago is more than able to account for much uncertainty.

3) So is the fact that most banks are weighed down by uncertain assets mostly acquired during the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress’s majority.

On the Tax Cuts-

1) Our income tax is set up in brackets. The money within the bracket, within its range, is taxed at the rate. When somebody achieves a new bracket in income, only the money in that bracket is taxed at the new rate. Everything else is taxed as before.

2) Which is important, since it’s the Obama White House’s intention to maintain the brackets under 200,000 dollars.

3) Obama has already enacted, through the stimulus, tax breaks and tax cuts for businesses, making your claim false on the merits.;

4) I would ask your son “how’s business.” The true uncertainty in today’s market is the lack of money that consumers have to spend, and that’s not government’s fault. Private enterprise isn’t hiring. The folks higher up are hoarding cash, giving themselves raises, but not doing things like giving out loans or financing big ticket items.

You’re assuming the problem is one of regulatory uncertainty, but in truth, it’s one of market uncertainty.

The Bush tax cuts were a mistake, In fact much of the reason we’ll be seeing higher deficits is the fact we’ll have to pay Bush’s tax cuts back to our creditors. You would have us do that again, and once more expose ourselves to more debt for a tax cut that failed to lift the economy the first time.

As for what creates jobs? Money creates jobs. Only political dogmatists demand that either government action or private action be the only driver of employment. Don’t make claims you can’t possibly back or defend with the facts.

tom humes-

But where is the health care reform? That thing that is called health care reform is not reform, it is transform by way of dictatorial authority at the nationalist government level.

How so? Lay it out to me. Tell me what you know about the lines of authority, the lines of power. What exactly is it that this new government cancer of power is supposed to be able to do that’s so horrible?

Sec. Sibelius has extremely broad authority involving many things including health issues. No one person should have that much authority. That is why so many people are fearful of the continuing creaping socialism at the nationalist level.

Again, what are her powers, what is her authority? What the hell is it that you’re afraid of? Be specific, so we don’t begin to suspect that this is all just political hysteria and scare tactics on your part?

And by the way, it would be national level. National is an adjective that describes something that is of a nation. Nationalist is an adjective that describes any entity, any person or political party that emphasizes a strong nation. I know you want to tar people with it because it lines up so nicely with national socialist and all that, but nationalist has also been used to describe many right wing governments, as well.

Also this is not a Dem or Rep issue. It is power and corrupt power at best. Health care is an issue that should be left to the states to deal with. The so-called health care reform that is noted as reform will only cause more chaos in the health industry. It has already had ramifications that are just simply astounding.

The trouble is, many healthcare companies do business across state lines, making it a federal issue by definition. Also, though, what chaos, what ramifications? You’re pushing a lot of hype, but you’re not filling in many details to back the heated language you’re using.

My doctor had to take a recent cut for a thorax procedure that said he could not make more than a dog groomer for that procedure. He is a heart doctor. The nationalist government bureaucrats and czars have determined that my fine heart doctor is not worth as much as a dog groomer. Those are the people making decisions that are detrimental to everyones health. And they are making twice the salary they could make in the private sector.

You should look into the Doc-Fix. See, the Republicans passed it back in 1997, but it was so poorly designed that it was dropping doctors fees faster than the market could bear. Democrats have tried to permanently fix this problem, but have run into resistance from Republicans who are looking to make this mess, which they created, into a fiscal political football. So the real question here is, which nationalists do you actually have to blame for this?

We cannot even vote directly for them or against them. They are rooted in. For four years straight, come June, I fall into the dog nut hole(which is more descriptive than doughnut hole). That means that over the next few months all my prescriptions will have to be paid for at the going price. For instance my Niaspan will now cost me $377 a month straight from the wallet.

You do realize that A) Healthcare Reform is already acting to close up that Donut hole, and B) That donut hole is wholely the result of the plan the Republicans came up with?

Dealth panels still not going into action? You gotta be kiddin’. They have been here all along. Or to paraphrase Pogo, they are here and they have met us.

The irony is, the Death Panel never existed, and the law that your people said would create them (It would have actually paid for counselling for living wills and other legal matters regarding terminal or critical care) got shot down successfully by Republicans and the Democrats they cowed with the rhetoric.

Just more evidence about why the Right’s current progress is not long for the world. You don’t even remember the battles you’ve won. All you have is free-floating rhetoric.

Royal Flush-

From Mr. Daugherty’s comments above I believe he has concluded that the R’s and C’s will be back in control of congress.

From Mr. Flush’s comments I see he indulges in the power of wishful thinking. I’m acknowledging the possibility, and nothing else. What I’m telling you is that winning won’t do you a great deal of good if you haven’t really figured out a popular course to take with your newfound power.

Not using his much vaunted “fact” finding to substantiate his view, we are treated to a litany of comments that conjure a future from our past.

Well, we have Republicans threatening investigations. We have Republicans indulging in silliness like Birtherism. We have a decades worth of Republicans and conservatives in the media making inflammatory comments about the situation on the border and about Muslims and Arabs.

I am old enough to remember clearly the kind of nonsense Republicans pushed during the Clinton years, including that Government Shutdown garbage.

Should we expect a Republican delegation that has by all accounts become more strident and more partisan, which has shown utter contempt for Democratic Party participation in government to start behaving radically different, especially when they’re saying the same things and pushing the same policies (like tax cuts and deregulation?)

If you want to lay aside the facts, and take a magic tiptoe through the tulips with your imagination, be my guest, but I believe its perfectly reasonable, given the unrepentant attitude of the Republicans, to expect that they will push the same policies with the same callousness as they did before, and that the public, even worse off than they were in 2006, will at the very least have the motivation to kick them out once again.

And if you think Democrats will simply take a win in the 2010 election on the part of the Republicans in stride, you’ve forgotten 2006.

The obama “change” didn’t work very well as we remain with high unemployment numbers, ever growing debt, and legislation that is despised by the very same people who voted obama and his collegues into office. Now, we are wittnessing obama/biden touting their “summer of renewal” or some such insanity.

You do know that Healthcare Reform is at 50% and rising, don’t you? See, that’s the funny thing. When Republicans had their noise machine at full tilt on the subject, people were polling against it in the majority. Now? The folks who are against it are in the minority.

As for that debt? I don’t know how many times Republicans can talk about tax cuts and not get called on it. If you’re truly going for austerity, if you’re not simply trying to play Santa Claus with money borrowed from the future taxpayers, renewal of the Bush Tax cuts is the last thing you should be doing. I know you think that will turnover into some magic kind of deficit reduction, but no tax cut, not Reagan’s, not Bush 41’s, not Bush 43’s, has paid for itself. All have raised the deficits, and encumbered taxpayers with additional debt.

Hell, if you’re going to blame Obama for the high unemployment numbers, say the stimulus did it or something like that, why not Blame Bush? He pushed a $150 Billion stimulus in 2008.

Or don’t you remember? It was entirely tax cuts. No spending on infrastructure, no spending to shore up state budgets or entitlement programs strained by the economy.

All I know is, after the Bush Stimulus of 2008 went into effect, the job losses accelerated. I wouldn’t blame it for it, but you would have thought that it might make a dent. Instead, hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs instead.

We look at the Obama administration, and we se the opposite happen, real recovery happening pretty fast, at least compared with the two years and change it took Reagan’s stimulus plan in 1981 to get employment back where it was when he started it. You did know, didn’t you, that Reagan’s tax plan was followed by almost a full year of unemployment over ten percent, didn’t you? that his approval ratings were once in the thirties?

Obama’s economy spent maybe three or four months above 10.0%, and unemployment rebounded to what it was just as the stimulus was coming into effect.

The insanity here is pretending like the Republicans are better at stimulating the economy. Reagan’s policies, once you seperate the effect of lowered interest rates from the equation, helped begin a period of stagnation and economic instability. He may have brought optimistic feeling back, but his Administration was full of booms and busts, and they fell hardest on the average person.

Too many folks gave obama too much credit for intelligence and leadership. This man hardly ever has an original thought and only rarely speaks from his head or heart, but rather, becomes just another talking head reading from a monitor.

The irony of this statement, chocked full of standard Republican talking points about Obama, is simply astounding.

Labeling obama as a legal scholar gives the legal profession a bad name.

Oh, really?

The only part of the constitution he understands and follows are those very few articles that give power to him as president.

It’s been my experience that it’s the Republicans who have had trouble understanding with or agreeing with the provisions of the Constitution, this past year and a half.

We will all be thankful when this person goes quietly into the night to write books and give paid speeches.

I can answer that BS with one name: Sarah Palin. What’s she pulling down for speeches and books these days?

Republican recipe for returning to power: say bad things about Democrats based on the crap their own people are doing, so they don’t have to improve their behavior to get back into power.

And, I am looking forward to the grand speech he will give, reading from the monitor, about his victory in helping the mosque be built near ground zero in NYC and standing with all the patriots in the ribbon-cutting.

Obama’s victory will be not dirtying his good name by associating himself with the bigotry that’s been perpetrated by the Right against a moderate muslim in the name of scoring political points.

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson, widower of one of the 9/11 victims:

“Well it may not make me hap— popular with some people, but I think probably the president was right about this,” Olson responded. “I do believe that people of all religions have a right to build edifices, or structures, or places of religious worship or study, where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws and that sort of thing, and that we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith. And I don’t think it should be a political issue. It shouldn’t be a Republican or Democratic issue, either. I believe Gov. Christie from New Jersey said it well — that this should not be in that political, partisan marketplace.”

Stephen said:

“No business is going to be that scared that they’ll pass up lucrative financial opportunities just out of uncertainty about the President.”

What you say, sounds logical, but is incorrect. Since my son is in business and he is actually worried about expansion at this time in historym I believe you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking aout.

You said the crash happened 2 years ago, and I am telling you, I heard Rush make the prediction 2 1/2 years ago. Business was worried about Obama being elected, because he is so anti-business. What company would want to invest in hiring new employees and take a chance that obama would force regulations down their throats. I can understand that, but liberals cannot, because they have no idea what it means to own a business.

Concerning Ted Olson and Gov. Christie: so what, now you are supporting republican decisions? One liberal even called for Bush to come out in support of obama’s gaff on te mosque. I smell fear in the democratic party. Nothing helps a liberal cause like saying a republican supports it. What a joke…

Stephen:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/indy-a18.shtml

How about reading this liberal link and maybe you could write a disertation explaining why the unions (UAW) is trying to stick it to the union worker? Don’t the unions now own part of GM?

This is the latest example of how the left is out of touch with Americans and why dems are going to take a big, BIG, hit in November.

“You do realize that A) Healthcare Reform is already acting to close up that Donut hole, and B) That donut hole is wholely the result of the plan the Republicans came up with?”

And Dims voted for also. Your sainthood attempts for the Dims is as bad as the legislation they cram down our throats.

” All you have is free-floating rhetoric.”

And all you come up with after your cronies slapped us with 2700 pages of bureaucratic BS and some even criminal enforcement of something they think is not good enough for them. Just so you don’t slide off your cushioned chair, the criminal activity is forcing people to buy something that they have no need for, no desire for, and will cost them more than they dream of spending for a product that has a name of which they already have the product in a better package. You would file a police report if I came to your house representing your city government and said you must buy this package. I know you already have one of these and it is probably better, but the city government made it mandatory for everybody to spend the money for this less than desirable product that really will not help you one whit. That is a scam and that is what Obama care is.

Stephen:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Mosque-supporters-beg-George-W-Bush-to-come-to-Obamas-rescue-100977179.html

While your in a mood to write essays, perhaps you could explain why the liberal media wants the EVIL GEORGE BUSH to support obama’s position on the mosque?

There is something going on, on the left, and none of you libs are talking about it. Tell me, why don’t the left ask the Clintons or the peanut man from GA to comment on the mosque? In fact, where are the Clintons on this issue? Does Hillary plan to pick up the pieces after Humpty Imam Obama falls?

This is halarious, I look forward to watching the news each day and see a complete implosion of the democratic party.

Let me suggest that everyone listen to Rush each day, he is on a roll and I love the material. He’s like Beck, he has the proof to back up what he says…

Question:

What is the difference between McCarthyism and Nancy Pelosi?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/aug/17/audio-rep-pelosi-calls-investigation-wtc-mosque-op/

She should be tarred and feathered and run out of DC for calling for an investigation of Americans for exercising their right free speech. What happened to the 1st Amendment?

Is the left falling apart???

In some ways Mr. Daugherty’s comments sound like obama reading from the teleprompter…all politics, all the time, with little if any original thought. How sad it must be to have nothing new or original to say when commenting. It’s beginning to sound like an old record player with the needle stuck in the same old groove…an endless playing of the same five notes.

Should Mr. Daugherty go on vacation is there any one of us here on this blog that couldn’t write his pieces? Why would someone continue to write nearly the same comments month after month and expect different results from the readers?

P.S. In the future I believe I will simply respond to Mr. Daugherty’s comments with…Been there, done that, got the coffee cup, T-shirt and key ring.

Beretta9-
A liberal link? Sigh. If you can’t tell the difference and won’t learn the difference, then you’re going to keep getting the distinction wrong.

The Unions are having to deal with the realities of the industry. They just got back from the brink of not having a Domestic Auto industry, a fact we’re gladly out of the woods on, thanks to Obama’s timely intervention and Cash for Clunkers Stimulus.

If the folks push back a little? Well what did you expect in a capitalist system? People are going to stand up for their interests. Adam Smith never said that people would accept downward pressure on payment for things forever.

You know, that uncertainty stuff is just an excuse. It’s a lot easier for some stockbroker to talk about uncertainty in the market than to say the government should leave Derivatives alone. It’s an argument for ignorance.

Let me show you the problem.

Q: Why aren’t you going out there and making money?
A: Obama’s policies.
Q: What is he doing wrong?
A: He’s creating uncertainty in the markets.
Q: How’s he doing that?
A: New Regulations.
Q: What about them is doing the most harm?
A: Crickets

Damn it, isn’t it financial institution’s jobs to deal with uncertainty? Government can introduce uncertainty into a market, say by failing to regulate derivatives and mortgage lenders, but Free markets can create their own uncertainty on their own, just fine.

It’s an excuse, a way to fob off anxieties about what the Banks and the finance system has done to itself onto Obama and the Government, and thereby avoid badly needed reforms.

What company would want to invest in hiring new employees and take a chance that obama would force regulations down their throats. I can understand that, but liberals cannot, because they have no idea what it means to own a business.

Gee, broad categorical statements about liberals and owning business.

I’m not even going to bother knocking you down on that one, because it’s so obviously false.

Really, Reagan and Clinton both had better regulation than we have now. If people are worried, it’s because a bunch of people make hair-raising claims with more gusto than good sense.

Concerning Ted Olson and Gov. Christie: so what, now you are supporting republican decisions? One liberal even called for Bush to come out in support of obama’s gaff on te mosque. I smell fear in the democratic party. Nothing helps a liberal cause like saying a republican supports it. What a joke…

The joke here is that you take these conservatives agreeing with my “liberal” position to be evidence that we’re losing. You know, it could just be that the Republicans have chosen such an awful position in this debate that it’s notable when folks, especially Olson, come out against the regular Republican position.

The Republican Party’s become a cult, and in a cult, everything backs the cult’s point of view. I can admit where Democrats have problems. You can’t seem to admit where your party, which has lost two elections in a row and a majority has gone wrong.

I’m just saying, that even if you win, you have to deal with the reckoning your party’s put off for so long.

This argument is about which of the political parties is least disgusting to the American people.

When Republicans win in the fall:

Are they going to repeal the health care bill? No!

Are they going to repeal the financial reform bill? No!

Are they going to continue to gut the ability of government agencies to police corporate regulations? Yes!

Are they going to privatize Social Security? No!

Are they going to turn welfare into a Faith Based initiative? No!

Are they going to repeal the 14th amendment or any other amendment? No!

Are they going to further the cause of corpocracy and globalization? Yes, to the best of their abilities. This is were they can find common ground with the Democrats.

C&J, is that your answer, to Rich, for why job production was so dismal during the Bush Administration despite all the incentives for capitol, Bush grew the government?

Shouldn’t Bush receive credit for moving all those jobs to China and India?

Royal Flush-
It would be a privilege to sound as good as Obama does when he uses a Teleprompter. This is what Obama puts into it.

You keep on making this cut on him, but it amounts to a way to call him stupid despite the fact he doesn’t sound stupid to most people, to neutralize one of the best public speakers in the Presidency we’ve had in a while.

My positions may take on a consistency, but it’s because I have positions that don’t change with the needs of the argument. It may not allow me the flexibility Republicans have on saying whatever suits the moment, regardless of what they’ve said before, but it at least allows me to keep my head straight on what it is I actually do believe.

I mean, you folks say, for example, that you love the Constitution, but then you say things like These folks, who would repeal the 14th amendment and the 17th Amendment, which took Senate elections and made them at large popular vote contests rather than State Legislature appointments. Folks have been fighting us on the First Amendment rights of Muslims, and have been running afoul of the Supremacy Clause and the enumeration of immigration laws to the Federal Government.

The Republicans love the constitution, as long as its not in the way of them getting what they want or looking tough to their ever more strident base.

Me? I got it easier than you. I support the constitution back to front. I support the constitution, for the most part, as it is. I am content with it. I understand the reasoning that separates Church and State. I understand the need for Fourth Amendment protections. I understand what the Supremacy clause means, and what has a two-thirds majority requirement in the constitution and what doesn’t.

It makes it rather easy for me to debate Republicans, because I’m not arguing from what I’d like the constitution to say, I’m arguing from what I know it says.

If you want to bash me for being a clear, articulate arguer, whose arguments don’t change capriciously, be my guest. People know where I stand, and why. If you want to take the Middle School route out of refuting my responses, be my guest. When folks tire of the Republican’s relentless negativity, their constant obstruction and scandal mongering (which will be quicker than you think), people like me will be there to make Democrats the long term choice for voters.

Mr. Daugherty wrote; “My positions may take on a consistency…”

Yup…one can also train a parrot to speak.

You can train a parrot to speak but the only thing you can teach a republican to say is no.

Stephen, You support the 14th amendment, but do you also support pregnant illegals comming here for the express reason to have that child become an automatic citizen? Where in the Constitution does it say seperation of church and state? I love the way you liberals use that phrase as a part of the Constitution when it isn’t. You understand the supremacy clause but don’t understand that when the federal government is derrelect in their duties to uphold the laws they took an oath to uphold, someone has to uphold those laws when they don’t. You understand the first amendment rights but whose first amendment rights are violated when an activist judge overrides the majority vote. I support the constitution to Stephen.

Stupid activist judges we had one of those here in Missouri turned over a majority vote.

“P.S. In the future I believe I will simply respond to Mr. Daugherty’s comments with…Been there, done that, got the coffee cup, T-shirt and key ring.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 05:17 PM

Way to go Royal, that would certainly be an improvement from the misinformation half truths and outright lies that we usually see from those on the right.

“Mr. Daugherty wrote; “My positions may take on a consistency…”
Yup…one can also train a parrot to speak.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 18, 2010 06:01 PM

Seems you not to be trusted eh, Royal? Well at least it wasn’t an intelligent comment from you, not that we expected one. But you just can’t seem to stop with the misinformation can you.

“the criminal activity is forcing people to buy something [health insurance] that they have no need for, no desire for, and will cost them more than they dream of spending for a product that has a name of which they already have the product in a better package”

How do you argue with a person who either ignorantly or purposefully misrepresents the facts? There is no requirement that a person who already has a better “package” of health insurance coverage purchase a more expensive package with less coverage.

The requirement for the purchase of minimum coverage applies to those without any coverage meeting that minimum standard. If you already have insurance through your employer, through private contract, etc., you would not be impacted at all by the new health reform law.

As for people being forced to purchase something that they don’t need, I hope these people never have an accident, contract cancer or have a heart attack. The inescapable truth is that we are all mortal and will all contract a catasrophic illness. It is only a matter of time. Some sooner than later.

MAG-
You know, if you actually asked me before telling me what my opinion was, I might have told you that I favor stopping them from getting into the country and settling down. If they want want to have their children, they’re welcomed to, welcome to give their children a brighter future.

But after they’ve arrived here and set up residence legally.

However, once that kid is born, my position is similarly unambiguous. They’re citizens. Do I take that position for their sake? No. I take that position for the sake of the son or daughter I may one day have, that I know that they, too, have that automatic citizenship. Maybe that benefits a few thousand illegal immigrants every year, but it benefits a few million Americans every year as well, so I think on the balance, Americans enjoy the better part of this right of being a citizen from the day you’re born in this country.

Where in the Constitution does it say seperation of church and state? I love the way you liberals use that phrase as a part of the Constitution when it isn’t.

It’s part of Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists. Thomas Jefferson, being one of the authors of the Bill of Rights.

The construction comes from three places.

First, the Constitution makes illegal religious tests for office. Nobody can require that you swear to a creed or a faith to be part of the government.

Second, the Constitution explicitly bars Congress from writing laws that intrude on religious freedoms. Nobody can say, you can’t be a Jew, or a Buddhist, or you can’t follow these dietary laws, or pray this prayer. Government doesn’t regulate faiths.

Third, Government doesn’t support faiths. It doesn’t put it’s thumb on the scale, or make the President head of church, it doesn’t fund a church the way England funds the Church of England.

Essentially, these three principles put Government out of the religion business.

And I think that’s a good thing. It’s let Religion, especially Christian Religion, flourish in this country. It means that Government isn’t necessarily enforcing the rules that folks in certain religions would want. But then, people have the freedom to observe the rules they want to, within the laws of this country, of their states and local governments.

That’s why I don’t fear Sharia law. I’m confident if folks try to apply it to the exception of our laws, they’ll be put in their place. I’ve read enough of the bible to know that there are certain Old Testament rules, though, that would also fail under such limits.

On the Supremacy Clause? We are a Federal Republic, a Republic that divides powers between a national government, State Governments, and local governments. Immigration powers are national powers. The Supremacy clause is what make federal laws, laws of the land, laws that apply across the country. To do so, they must pre-empt local laws, and local laws that come up that conflict with them, cannot be allowed to stand. Not even if they’re better. That’s beside the point. The Federal laws represent the agreement of all those who represent the states and the people within them. The policy has to be that kind of compromise for our government to be able to function properly. This is not just your decision, this is the decision of the whole country.

As for Activist Judges? Well, let me be blunt: those are loaded words, and loaded for a reason, and such words have a tendency to ironically obscure the sound legal reasoning behind those decisions. I trust in the constitution, but that means sometimes I don’t get what I want, or what I would think is wisest in Government. Constitution is about hard choices, and compromises you don’t quite feel right in making.

You know what? As a liberal, I’ve learned through hard, tough experience that living in a democracy, living in a republic sometimes means having to swallow disappointment, and I feel pity for those folks on the Right who have gone crazy trying to avoid facing that, and I can’t say if they win this November that they win in any way they really have the strength or maturity to maintain.

The Republicans have put themselves in a position of having been caustically critical of the other side, and if they do manage to win, they’ll end up having to translate their deeply unpopular party’s lack of broad public support into legislation.

And then they have to make their way past Obama, who holds the veto pen. Republicans are setting themselves up in a losing position.

Stephen You don’t have to write a essay telling me about the Constitution. I know what the Constitution says. I know that the seperation thing was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The question was why do you liberals always use the seperation of church and state when it isn’t in the Constitution, I know that the constitution says that “The congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment or the free practice thereof of religion” We differ on the illegal having a child born in this country for the purpose of auto. citizenship, and on the supremacy clause. I believe a state has the right to protect its interest if the Federal government won’t. Also the activist judge thing NO judge should be allowed to overturn the will of the majority but many of you liberals in the minority whine and cry and get some bleedig heart liberal activist judge to side with your little whims.

jlw

Job creation was poor under Bush. It will probably be worse under Obama. Bush let spending get out of control. Obama made it worse.

I am not defending Bush here. Both Obama and Bush messed up along the same lines.

So if your argument is “Na,Na, Bush did it too.” I stipulate that. That is past. Now Obama is in charge and he is the one who should stop messing up.

Obama bought the economy with his massive stimulus program. He bet the farm that it would keep unemployment under 8% and that it would create a quick recovery. How’s he doing?

Why is it that liberals who are always quoting “seperation of church and state” and are the most intolerant of Christian values, are the first to climb on the pedestal and proclaim the rights of Muslims?

My analogy of liberals being like the Pharisees still stands:

“Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

You Pharisees would have persecuted or founding fathers.

SD

” Folks have been fighting us on the First Amendment rights of Muslims, and have been running afoul of the Supremacy Clause and the enumeration of immigration laws to the Federal Government.”

You need to explain how the laws on federal hiways are enforced locally. You need to explain how bank robbery has as first responders local law enforcement. I have more but the redundantcy is not necessary. The supremacy clause is your only argument and it does not apply. The Obama/Holder law suit was even in error. The suit should have been filed with the US Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court of the United States renders a decision on this, I believe they will determine that your supremacy clause does not apply to a law that changes nothing except to enforce the law that is already in place.

“Me? I got it easier than you. I support the constitution back to front. I support the constitution, for the most part, as it is. I am content with it.”

You support the Constitution from back to front and for the most part as it is. Well, which is it? for the most part or from back to front?

And if the reps can only say no then why are they to blame for so much that others cannot see to take the responsibility for.

Rich
I will come to visit your position on requiring the purchase of insurance per big government. It is in the law and you should know when big government gets its talons on your arm you know there is not much you can say or do to change the possessor of the talons which are not that of an eagle.

SD
You liberals just love to use TJ’s Danbury letter to insert it into the first amendment. But, lets say that there is a remote possiblity you are correct, then should we not remove all scriptural references that are part of the Supreme Court building? Should we not also remove prayer from the opening of each days acitvity in both the House and Senate? Should we not also remove all references to the 10 Commandments both on the upper ediface as well as the door of the Supreme Court? Should we not remove the Bible as the instrument upon which an oath is taken by justices, congressmen, et al? There are of course many more examples. So why some and not others? Are some more Christian than others? Do some establish a religion more than others?

C&J stated in response to a post by jiw: “So if your argument is “Na,Na, Bush did it too.” I stipulate that.”

Speaking for myself, no, that is not the argument.

You postulated that the lack of capital investment in job creating enterprises by the business sector was a consequence of economic “uncertainty” created by Obama regulatory reforms and potential tax increases. In other words, Obama has created an unfriendly environment for investment.

I pointed out that if the above analysis were correct, then you would have expected a vigorous amount of capital investment in the US and job creation during the Bush administration. His administration cut taxes dramatically and relaxed regulatory control. It was certainly a business friendly environment. However, the recovery from the 2001 recession was essentially a jobless recovery. Capital investment in US job creating industries was weak resulting in the worst job creation period since Hoover.

Sticking our collective heads in the sand and ignoring the chronic lack of capital investment in US jobs won’t solve the problem. The US has been bleeding its manufacturing and service jobs to China and India for a long time. That includes high tech jobs. In a recent article, Andy Grove pointed out that Silicon Valley firms are not only outsourcing production to China, they are outsourcing development and engineering. This may be good for the corporate bottom line but ultimately very bad for the economy.

Re: Polls

They often simply measure how ignorant people are.

18% think Obama is a Muslim (30% of conservatives)

Beretta9,

Take it to the Jim Bakker Show forum.

boomxtwo:

Your comment is typical oof the left… If I had quoted the Koran, would it have been ok? I believe your comment has made the point.

The argument for automobile insurance is driver responsibility. It is the law that you have liability insurance against the possibility of injuring someone or damaging their property. Many people who have never had a wreck are required to be insured.

The same argument can be made for health insurance. If you become ill without insurance you become a burden on society, without paying your fair share. You may be of perfect health, but that is no guarantee that you won’t become seriously ill.

Those that decry universal health care coverage, must also be against automobile liability insurance if they are not to be hypocrites.

MAG-
You know what it says, it seems then, but do not acknowledge what you know.

I can show you the clause that makes federal law supreme. You can’t show me the clause that delegates federal power ot the states, in the event the states become dissatisfied with its exercise. So if you say that states are entitled to usurp this power, you are the judicial activist, not the judge who simply rules according to the law of the land.

I can show you three separate ways in which government is barred from involving itself in the religious lives of Americans. Can you show me what part gives Congress permission to stick its nose in the affairs of our faith? If you cannot, then you’re the one stretching the constitutional interpretation, when you say there is no such wall.

I can show you the place where the Constitution gives all people born within its jurisdiction citizenship. Can you show me where it says that the children of Illegal aliens are excluded? If not, who is the stricter constructionist, me or you, the person who can point to the constitutional law he justifies his opinion by, or the person who cannot point to any such justification?

You folks on the right are so used to thinking of yourselves as the truer champions of the constitution that you’ve become very lax, very expedient about how you appeal it. It’s time to relearn what you’ve forgotten, and submit yourselves to the law where you’ve tried to raise yourself above it.

I can show you where the Feds are derrellect in there duties to Stephen. So what your saying a state has to sit around and wait until it is politically expediant for the feds to act. I can show you that place to about citizenship to Stephen but it was written after the civil war in answer to the Dread Scott act giving former slaves birth right citizenship, I don’t think the writters of that law meant it to apply to illegal aliens. I can also show you that government is not allowed to get in to peoples religious lives to Stephen but I can also show you where in history religious services were held in the Capitol Building, Treasury building, and Supreme Court building and prayer is still carried out but NOT favoring one faith over the other that is what that part of the Constitution means Not that BS liberal Seperation of Church and state which is NOT part of the constitution. NO Stephen it’s about time you liberals learned you can’t always have things your way most conservatives recognuize this. We don’t run to the nearest activist judge to get things are way.

Beretta9,

It would be “OK” to quote anything you wish, The Koran, The Talmud, The Bible or Green Eggs and Ham. You find no intolerance toward any religion or book with me. For you to suggest otherwise is not surprising given your paranoia all things left. It would be “OK” to write whatever you wish. However, since you’ve chosen to submit your musings on a public forum, you can expect others to comment, agree, criticize, support, or even laugh at them. That’s how it goes. No need for all your typical anger.

My point that you apparently missed was that it’s just wacky to think on a political forum you can simply type out a long list of King James quotes as part of a debate and be taken seriously. I’m sure there are plenty of “What’s Your Favorite Bible Verse” forums that would be more appropriate for this, where you can display your own intolerance about how all those not subscribing to your dogma will be going to Hell.

That you spun it in your mind into ‘the left hates Christians and loves Muslims and that the left has an hypocritical double standard’ is expected. But, can you provide a mainstream example of where “the left” in America has been hypocritical in their support of Muslims over Christians. Have they been against Christian Churches being built? Are they OK with Muslim prayer in schools? I haven’t seen the hypocrisy you keep wailing about.

But, if ye are looking for some good quotes, might I recommend “The Sneetches.” Some good lessons in that book for ye. Ye might even find a quote or two here that would fit here.

And once again because someone disagrees with a liberal they are angry.

Get a life.

C&J-
It’s rich for you to accuse us of the tu quoque fallacy. You keep on trying to say that Obama’s doing it, too, when actually he’s kept spending under control to a much greater degree than Bush, doing the offsets and the raising of taxes that Bush doctrinally refused to do.

Most of the deficits Obama’s facings are Bush’s deficits having to be paid back. That’s the simple fact of the matter. You think of tax cuts as free money, but in a deficit period, they’re just more money to pay back. You folks repeatedly bet that tax cuts for the rich would generate good for the economy. Reagan did that, too. Bush did that, too. All their tax cuts were followed by extended periods of economic squalor.

Meanwhile, Obama’s program is followed by profound growth, and a halting and reversal of the momentum of the recession. He didn’t stick around for more than a year over 10.1 percent, like Reagan did after his “stimulus” He didn’t have to wait for the Fed’s relaxation of interest rates to do its economic magic, and despite your headline, Obama’s never been as unpopular as Reagan got over the economy.

You keep on riding the hobby horse of that 8 percent prediction. Well, he was wrong, but he wasn’t wrong because he misjudged the stimulus. He was wrong because nobody expected the hole was so deep on the Economic collapse. We have to measure our progress from where the Bush Administration’s policies left us, not from where Obama mistakenly predicted unemployment would be.

By many accounts, Obama’s stimulus has done a great deal for the economy, bringing growth where there wasn’t any, funding where funding was running short, investment where investment was absent. He gave tax cuts to people who actually needed money, and backed programs intended to soften the impact of the bad economy. By many accounts, his only failure has been not doing enough, and that’s a failure, unfortunately, you are working hard to see come to pass.

Beretta9-
When Jesus fed the five thousand, he didn’t worry about the moral hazards of feeding the hungry. When he talked about the Good Samaritan, he asked whether the religiously pure guys who avoided the beaten, robbed man on the road were the better guys, or the religious heretic and outcast who gave him care. He didn’t stick up for the folks who denied that man what he needed. When he healed the guy on Sunday, he didn’t claim that the misfortune of that man’s blindness had anything to do with what he did wrong, or his parents.

So, you call us hypocrites, as you seek to cut off people from help in these tough times. You call us hypocrites as you fight against us as we try to give care to those who need it, and cannot afford it. You call us hypocrites while you and yours blame people for getting hit by hurricanes, for getting hit by terrorist attacks, while you blame the poor and unemployed for a crisis caused by the rich and the powerful.

Jesus once told people that when we see a speck in somebody else’s eye, we should remove the log in our own, before we try to take the speck out of theirs, so we can see to properly remove it.

I think he would tell us, go and do likewise.

tom humes-

You need to explain how the laws on federal hiways are enforced locally.

Well, Federal laws often urge state and local authorities to write their own laws in response to federal guidelines, and it is those laws that they commonly enforce. Also, the Federal Government can decide to delegate enforcement to local authorities.

In the case of bank robberies, two things are at work: it is already illegal by state law to commit armed robbery. You can try and get away with holding up a liquor store or kwik-e-mart if you doubt that. What puts a bank robbery in federal jurisdiction is that deposits are insured by the federal government, by the FDIC. That said, the Feds don’t necessarily involve themselves.

States, though, don’t regulate immigration, and never have, and never should. Not only is that constitutionally delegated to the national government, with a plain language dictate to make it a uniform code of naturalization. The Framers explicitly decided to make immigration federal, and uniform.

There is no state role in legislating here, except to legislate cooperation. They don’t set the policy.

As for original jurisdiction, do you hear those crickets out there? That’s the sound of anybody actually rushing to correct the mistake that you perceive.

No, really, have you actually heard about anybody rushing to push for the Supreme Court? Your case on this is ambiguous at best, too.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,[…] to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; […] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

So, since the United States is a party, there is a conceivable reason for trying the case in the lower courts, since the US is a party to this case. However, since it does involve a state, your logic might still apply, right?

Not necessarily.

Article III of the Constitution confers original jurisdiction on the U.S. Supreme Court over cases involving ambassadors and suits involving states as parties. This grant, however, does not preclude Congress from granting concurrent original jurisdiction to other courts. Recognizing that the Supreme Court is better suited to exercise appellate review than to conduct trials, Congress has granted concurrent original jurisdiction to the federal district courts in all controversies except those between states. While the Supreme Court has not abdicated its original jurisdiction, the justices clearly support statutes that authorize cases to be heard first by the federal trial courts. Consequently, the Supreme Court hears very few original jurisdiction cases, with most involving a state suing another state over contested borders. When such cases are filed, the justices normally appoint a special master (frequently a former judge) to determine the facts and recommend an outcome. The Court then treats the report of the special master in much the same way as an appealed lower court ruling and issues a final opinion accepting, modifying, or rejecting the recommendations.

The long and short of it is that the Supreme Court neither likes to be swamped by appellate cases, nor bothered with the hassle of trying cases on the facts. They prefer to be what they often are, appellate interpreters of the law.

You support the Constitution from back to front and for the most part as it is. Well, which is it? for the most part or from back to front?

And if the reps can only say no then why are they to blame for so much that others cannot see to take the responsibility for.

Sigh. You want to play word games? I’m not in complete agreement about everything in there. But my disputes are minor. If you want to blow up every little hairsplitting detail into a discussion, have fun, I’m going to take a pass. As for what you are to blame for?

Well, Republicans spent the last thirty years rather successfully pushing their agenda, and now they’re fighting like hell to prevent the Democrats from undoing that agenda. That’s what they’re saying no to: Americans leaving their failed policies behind.

As for what you’re saying about the Danbury letter?

I really am not that invested either in removing or protecting the references you write of. I don’t see them as a major imposition.

I just don’t like the way Dominionists on the right are trying to force their religion into the framework of government. I don’t think they’re doing the country or the religion much good. You make Christianity a political issue for the good, and it can turn around and become a liability when people associate such piety with a failed leader. Better to keep religion a private matter than to put it on your sleeve and let it get all kinds of stains from the mess of of worldly politics.

MAG-

I can show you where the Feds are derrellect in there duties to Stephen. So what your saying a state has to sit around and wait until it is politically expediant for the feds to act.

The place to act is on the federal level, so yes, that’s exactly what the state has to do on its end. Immigration laws are a national decision.

I can show you that place to about citizenship to Stephen but it was written after the civil war in answer to the Dread Scott act giving former slaves birth right citizenship, I don’t think the writters of that law meant it to apply to illegal aliens.

And do you think a court will make that distinction on those grounds? Or will the text of the Amendment take priority? The test case on the matter, Wong Kim Ark backed the claims of a man whose parents could never legally claim citizenship. The traditional exceptions have been Native Americans under the reservations system (until sometime this last century), and Ambassadors and their staff.

You assume you know what things mean, but such an assumption and actual knowledge are two different things. I tend not to call judges activists until I find out about their legal reasoning. Court cases can have outcomes you don’t like but reasoning you can’t really argue with. We should have the maturity to recognize that.

Stephen Typical liberal thinking. Wait for the feds to act while a state goes down the tubes and let the country get overrun by illegals having their kid here so they can become auto citizens. Maybe you and all your liberal buddies ought to take care of them because I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for some illegal. We have enough problems taking care of the people here legally. Your thinking and the liberals we have in congress is why this country is in the crap tank. You talk about Reps self distructing think again Stephen people are wakeing up to your idiotic way of thinking and your party is the one self distructing.

C&J, my argument is not “Na,Na, Bush did it to.

My argument was in the first sentence.

But, to continue, my argument is that Obama and Bush work for the same people.

My argument is that the argument that business is worried and waiting to see what Obama will do is a false argument.

My argument is that many of the multinational corporations have no intentions of investing in a lot of jobs in this country.

My argument is that Bush and the Republican/Democrats were good jobs producers, just not American jobs.

My argument is that wealth and their allies, the investors have commandeered the government for their purposes and that whittling down the middle class is one of those purposes.

Mag, there are conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and progressives opposed to illegal migrants. Both political parties support illegal migrants on behalf of business interests. Many on the left support their party in this effort. Many on the right support their party in this effort, some unwillingly, unknowingly or without thinking.

The Democrats want voters, but since most of the migrants are Roman Catholic and possibly socially conservative, that may be pie in the sky.

The Republicans want cheap labor and possibly socially conservative voters.

Business, from the lowly contractor to the giant corporations, just wants cheap labor and greater profit percentages. Come to think of it, investors, from the 401Kers to the multi billionaire’s, want that to.

jlw-
I don’t support illegal immigration. Obama, who has deported far more aliens than Bush ever did, doesn’t support it. This debate would be a lot more illuminating if you could actually point to Obama Administration policy that amounts to what you say. Then we’d have something to talk about.

MAG-
Typical liberal thinking? Well, that phrase is a typical right-wing crutch. Never acknowledge the unconstitutionality of your argument, just make it a political matter.

My party is at least maintaining its sanity, and my typical liberal friends are trying to find practical, workable solutions to the problems out there, rather than just ranting and raving about them.

Stephen Your party maintaining their sanity LOLOLOLOLOL. The comedy network could use you. Have you heard Pelosi lately. Find practical workable solutions another Joke. Like I said Stephen the people in this country are waking up to that stupid liberal thinking.

boomxtwo:

I am not angry about anything. But there is more to my KJV quotes than you are aware of; it is an ongoing parley between SD and I. So, I had a specific reason for quoting the verses and it wouldn’t have had the same effect on the Jim Bakker.com forum.

But that being said, there is a standing hostility toward Christians by liberals, especially when Scripture is used…

Stephen:

I call you hypocrites because like the Pharisees, you love to stand in the highest positions and proclaim how humane you are, how you love the poor; well shoot, let me just quote you:

“So, you call us hypocrites, as you seek to cut off people from help in these tough times. You call us hypocrites as you fight against us as we try to give care to those who need it, and cannot afford it. You call us hypocrites while you and yours blame people for getting hit by hurricanes, for getting hit by terrorist attacks, while you blame the poor and unemployed for a crisis caused by the rich and the powerful.”

You claim, as did the Pharisees, to be the champions of the downtrodden and at the same time you say, we (conservatives) are the opposite of the champions.

In reality, you want men to be in debt to you, you want men to beg government for the “scraps that fall from the table”. The left has made slaves out of entire races of people. You think government is the “god” that can solve all the problems of the world. On the other hand, conservatives want to see people succeed; we want to see people do well, we want to see them educated and provide for their families. We believe this is what the founding fathers tried to give to us through the Constitution. The Constitution does not say we have rights guaranteed to us by the government; the Constitution guarantees us the right to pursue happiness, to be the best we can. We believe the Constitution was set to provide the least government as possible, and to stay out of our lives. You believe the same way as Obama when it comes to the Constitution, that it “doesn’t say enough about what the government can do”.

“In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=79225

Do you agree with this Stephen???

jlw I know both parties are are at fault for the illegal immigration problem and both have their idiotic reason for preventing the fixing of the problem.

Stephen;

The left tries to make Americans slaves to government. It is apparent from obama’s statemets, that his goal is “redistrbution” of wealth. The American people are becoming wise to his goals, and are objecting. Call it what you want, but it is robbery. Robbing those who are successful and giving to those who have been made indentured slaves. This is the reason the left plays class warfare. Rich against poor, white against black, educated against uneducated, employees against employers. You play the Pharisee who stands and says, “can’t we all just get along, can’t we just work together for the good of mankind”, and in the same breath the left seeks to drive a wedge between the American people. It is disgusting…

MAG-
So you say, so you say. Why is it that Republicans basically have to hide their candidates from public sight when they start speaking their minds?

You are going to win some battles, but I’m confident the champions of reason and enlightenment-style philosophies will win out over the purveyors of fear and hate.

Your comments are getting funnier and funnier Stephen. I like your last sentence. That is the best joke you have told in a long time.

People have seen your enlightenment-style philosophies and don’t like them Stephen.

DRR:

It doesn’t take an ecconomics degree to see the failure of TARP, bailouts , and stimilous. Money that bailed out banks was sent to overseas banks and was hoarded, money given to the auto industry was used to prop up the unions, money for education was used to bail out NEA union pentions. Stimulous money given to states, was used to bailout their over bloated budgets. Cash for clunkers was nothing more than taxpayer money being used to pay for the cars for people who had already decided to buy one.

Sorry, I don’t buy the critical, “pass the stimulus now or we’re all going to die” lie. We have bankrupcy courts to handle companies that are too big to fail. The best thing for GM and Chrysler would have been to go to bankruptsy court. They would have been acquired by other companies and would now be producing, but no, we had to bail out the unions…

There are an increasing number of ecconomic experts now coming out and saying Keynesian ecconomics are not working and Obama’s whole ecconomic policy is based upon Keynesian ecconomics.

It’s all really moot; the economy is down the toilet, obama owns it, and it’s not going to get any better any time soon…

Berreta9-
Tactically, your choice of quote was a poor decision. I know this document and I know what he meant: Black folks made a mistake in depending mostly on the courts to help repair the damage of years of racism. He was suggesting, actually, remedies along the lines of building up communities, dealing with social issues, and getting businesses into those neighborhoods.

As for this Pharisees BS? Knock it off. Your party is known more for how worldly its social policy is, than how Christian. The Republicans do not have a reputation for helping those that Christ called upon us to help, they have a reputation for leaving those people to fend for themselves. Republicans have bred God knows how much cynicism about Christianity.

In reality, you want men to be in debt to you, you want men to beg government for the “scraps that fall from the table”. The left has made slaves out of entire races of people.

Brilliance! Tell me what I really think! I didn’t know myself, so I’m glad you’re here to make me better informed on what I really believe.

Seriously, Liberals have not been at the forefront of forcing people to work for less money, or shipping their jobs overseas so they have to work at menial labor. Even as your party’s influence extended into the Democratic Party, the left protested this.

As for scraps from the table? We want people who are forced to seek government assistance to recover, and follow their ambitions out of that situation. We call it a safety net, you know. And what are safety nets for? Safety nets are for people who are willing to go out and take their chances. They’re not for people who just want to sit around all day and do nothing.

You think government is the “god” that can solve all the problems of the world. On the other hand, conservatives want to see people succeed; we want to see people do well, we want to see them educated and provide for their families. We believe this is what the founding fathers tried to give to us through the Constitution.

Oh, really? I don’t recall making that kind of blog post.

You know, I bet you’re speaking from the heart on the rest of that. I don’t doubt your sincerity on the fact you want people to succeed. What you fail to realize is that Democrats are little different. You’re so wrapped up in the middle of a cocoon of party propaganda that you can’t even see us for being people like you.

The Constitution does not say we have rights guaranteed to us by the government; the Constitution guarantees us the right to pursue happiness, to be the best we can. We believe the Constitution was set to provide the least government as possible, and to stay out of our lives. You believe the same way as Obama when it comes to the Constitution, that it “doesn’t say enough about what the government can do”.

Pardon me, but who exactly do you believe would enforce those rights? What we have is a system of checks and balances. If somebody violates your free speech rights, you take them to court. If some prosecutor from the executive branch prosecutes you, it’s the court that guarantees your rights to a defense.

The Constitution, if you know your history, was not about pulling back on the powers of American government. It was decidedly a step in the direction of greater, stronger government. We had already tried the government under the Articles of Confederation, and found it soo ineffectual, that people feared for the future of the nation.

Which is not to say everybody loved the idea of greater power in the national government. Jefferson and others believed more power should rest with the states. They formulated the Bill of Rights, and that was their price for support of the stronger national government under the Constitution.

If you really look at the history, the constitution neither represents fully those who preferred less government, nor those who preferred more. It didn’t put all the cards in the hands of the small states, nor let the large states determine things. It was neither sparsely populated states that would have disproportionate power, nor densely populated ones.

The Constitution is a product of many views, an e pluribus unum kind of work. Recognize that, and you’ll recognize why Republicans are having such problems trying to impose their will on the Government, force smaller government by appealing to the constitution.

I celebrate the compromises that made the constitution the great document that it is, even as it sometimes makes what I want more difficult.

You, unfortunately, don’t want to see that. The constitution has to fit your political narrative.

Well, no, it doesn’t have to. With the constitution, sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar eats you. That is the nature of its compromises. It was never meant to flatter anybody’s ideology.

Stephen:

That’s why your candidates are conviently out of town when Obama shows up, hahaha

sd

“In the case of bank robberies, two things are at work: it is already illegal by state law to commit armed robbery.”

OK. AZ passed a law that made it illegal to trespass illegally in AZ. It is a state law to trespass in AZ.
And what policy is AZ setting? They are enforcing law both fed and state. They were and are continuing to do that. Law enforcement in AZ are authorized under 287(g) to roundup illegal aliens. The AZ law only puts AZ law enforcement all on the same page.

Every state sets it own speed limits on fed hiways. Isn’t the interstate road system a federal jurisdiction item? And the states help in that area.

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,[…] to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; […] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

In all the other Cases before mentioned… is refering to Article III, section 2, Paragraph 1 and 2.

I think you knew that when you excerpted the above quote. To try to abase the Constitution as you just tried to do is an abomination.

Even in defeat SD won’t go in humility.

LOL…SD talks about candidates hiding, what a joke. I posted a link not long ago that showed the majority of dem candidates were not having conferences with the folks back home during the last recess. They got their ears burned and butts kicked last time and just have no stomach to face the voters in any kind of public forum.

Most dems apparently are scared to death of facing the voters and try to explain the harm they have done in this congress.

As for SD’s comments on the interpretation of the constitution advocating a stronger national government he is just being silly. He could sleep with that document under his pillow, eat it for breakfast, or find a way to marry it and would never get any ink on his fingers or understand its meaning.

There are republicans here that are so delusional that it really is sad. But don’t worry Obama care starts in 2014. I here there are some really good meds for what ails you. LOL!

Jeff:

There has been a standing 60% of likely voters who favor repealing the obamacare. While that is not likely, even if Republicans gain the House and or Senate, due to Imam Obama’s veto; it is still possible for them to cut funding to it. At least until it can be overhauled to a workable healthcare program. Once the taxes take effect in 2011, these polls will change even more to the negative.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Stephen;

I don’t believe you have any idea what the Constitution says. Sorry, but I believe you get your interpretation of the Constitution from Wikipedia.

Between 2003 to 2009, 17 opinion polls showed a simple majority of the public, i.e., nearly 50-60%, supports a single-payer system in the United States.[43] These polls are from sources such as CNN,[44] AP-Yahoo,[45][46] Quinnipiac,[47] New York Times/CBS News Poll,[48][49][50] Washington Post/ABC News Poll, [51] Kaiser Family Foundation[52] and the Civil Society Institute. I got polls to.

David

41% approval is not the problem. It is the 51-54% disapproval that he needs to worry about. The two are not mirror images.

I like historical comparisons, but they have to be qualified. You mention Carter. That is the one I think is most like Obama’s. Not good for Obama. Reagan had the personality and leadership that Obama lacks. Beyond that, look at the trends. Reagan came in with high disapproval ratings and brought them down. Obama’s disapproval rate was 13%. He managed to bring it up to 51-54%. Clinton could be Obama’s. Clinton was lucky that the Republicans won and gave him some discipline. This could happen for Obama too, but then Obama will need to take advantage of the “teachable moment.”

C&J:

It will never happen, Obama is too arrogant. He will have a real problem if the republicans take control. IMO, he don’t work well with “teachable moments”.

Beretta9-

OK. AZ passed a law that made it illegal to trespass illegally in AZ. It is a state law to trespass in AZ.

So, you’re saying that Arizona has declared itself a sovereign nation, right? That’s the only way it could legitimately take that kind of control of its own territory, and set immigration laws.

But then that would be Secession, and of all the things I’ve heard on the news, nutty or not, that has not been one of them.

Let me introduce you to a concept here. The federal government gets states to do things by using the power of the purse to encourage them to write state laws to that effect. A good example are the speed limit laws. At risk of oversimplifying it, the bargain is, you set a state law that put the speed limit at such and such a speed, or you lose highway funds.

But can a state defy the Federal Government on these sorts of things? The answer is, yes. On these matters, it is a simple thing for states to just forgo the funds, and write their own laws their way.

Simple, but in practical terms, states tend to go for the funding. Thus, the speed limit.

Why the runaround, though? It’s pretty simple: the Tenth Amendment forbids direct commandeering of the State and Local governments for the purpose of enforcing federal laws. Did you notice that one of the laws that Judge Bolton did not strike down was the one forbidding Sanctuary cities?

There’s a reason for that. Put simply, the Federal government cannot force State governments to enforce federal laws. But the states are free to cooperate with the Federal government, when that government asks for their help. They are also free to tell the jurisdictions in their states that they have to cooperate. Sanctuary cities are a function of the fact, that absent a state or local law requiring such cooperation, there is nothing the Federal Government can do to force a city to enforce Federal Immigration laws.

But of course, if a state legislates that they must cooperate, then they must. It’s a states decision as to its own policies of cooperation.

Let me be blunt on the Supreme Court issue: if I am wrong, then where is the lawsuit or the motion filed by the folks representing Arizona to that effect? Where is their dispute?

I don’t see one, and you haven’t offered any. It would be interesting to see if somebody was trying that, and even more so to see whether they could succeed.

As for this?

I think you knew that when you excerpted the above quote. To try to abase the Constitution as you just tried to do is an abomination.

Even in defeat SD won’t go in humility.

Oh, stop being melodramatic. You just don’t understand federalism all that well. You assume everything’s unconstitutional, so you don’t bother to study up on how federalism operates in practice and principle. You operate off of the logic of rhetoric, rather than the logic of the system itself.

Royal Flush

LOL…SD talks about candidates hiding, what a joke. I posted a link not long ago that showed the majority of dem candidates were not having conferences with the folks back home during the last recess. They got their ears burned and butts kicked last time and just have no stomach to face the voters in any kind of public forum.

Really?

Through mid-June members of Congress had held more than 920 town-hall meetings this year, outpacing the total for the first half of 2009, according to a Congress.org report. Democrats held some 490 of those sessions. Members who held public events over the July 4 recess reported that “there was not the hostility that they saw the year before,” says Hoyer, who believes the party’s efforts to fix the economy are “resonating.”

Oh, damn. I’m sorry, I went and did my own research again.

I should have just accepted your thesis and believed the Democrats were running scared.

As for SD’s comments on the interpretation of the constitution advocating a stronger national government he is just being silly. He could sleep with that document under his pillow, eat it for breakfast, or find a way to marry it and would never get any ink on his fingers or understand its meaning.

I knock down your arguments just fine. I have no need to compose eloquent verse about how wrong my opponent must be. I can tell people in plain language what you have wrong, and you can’t stand it because you don’t have a response that actually answers my challenges in substance.

The truth is, the Constitution bulked up the national government, gave it powers the states once exercised, went from a wishy-washy Congress that could only pass legislation if two thirds agreed, and made it a two chamber majority rules legislature with much stronger, much better defined responsibilities

I mean, hell, it’s amazing that the States Rights people don’t recognize where the whole states’ rights controversy started! They don’t remember what the compromise of the Bill of Rights is about. Don’t you remember that the Federalist includes an argument against the Bill of Rights? The Federalists against the anti-federalists?

The real problem is, you’re trying to ride two different horses at once. You’re trying to claim to be the party of the Constitution, the party that upholds it and truly defines its provisions properly, but at the same time, you’re more or less trying to cater to the centuries old deep-south Dixiecrat state rights crowd, whose political roots go all the way back to Jefferson and his dispute with Hamilton and the Federalists.

When Democrats got this stupid about the Constitution, they spent the better party of the next seventy years recovering from the mistake. Check yourself, Republican Party, before you wreck yourself.

C&J-
Reagan went down into the thirties, for crying out loud. Why do we have to pretend like the Republicans are politically brilliant?

Stephen:

I think you might be loosing it; it was not me that made this statement: “OK. AZ passed a law that made it illegal to trespass illegally in AZ. It is a state law to trespass in AZ.”

But I looked it up and it was Tom Humes in Comment #306374. So even though I may agree with Tom Humes, I am assuming everything you wrote after Beretta9 had nothing to do with me? You may want to get some rest.

“As for SD’s comments on the interpretation of the constitution advocating a stronger national government he is just being silly. He could sleep with that document under his pillow, eat it for breakfast, or find a way to marry it and would never get any ink on his fingers or understand its meaning.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 19, 2010 06:04 PM

Royal wasn’t it Hamilton and the federalist that won out soon after the Constitution was signed? They won with a national bank and taking over the debt of the states. They instituted many of the particulars that are still in use today within the halls of Congress. They favored a stronger national government after the articles of confederaton proved unworkable. Cripes at one time Madison, Hamilton and others considered a 21 year criteria for the sitting president. Jefferson and his followers fought this as they were still slave holders and farmers. But industry won our over time.

Why is Stephen so wrong. You, Tom and the other self proclaimed constitutional experts that blog here never explain why you believe yourselves correct yet you are first to attempt to make fun of Stephen and his interpretation. If you truly believe that you have it right it should be rather easy to challenge the status quo at the SCOTUS level as all of these things you claim to be unconstitutional have been in effect for some time yet instead you and others like you continue to spout nonsense as if were not.

It is time to put up or shut up IMHO. Your and Tom’s nonsensical responses in this thread is more typical of an ignorant school yard bully that hasn’t a clue, cannot prove his case yet continues to act like his arrogant responses are factual. You have not disproved one thing he said with your foolish comments.

Stephen’s a big boy, does he need you to protect him from the big bullies in the school yard? These conversations can only get better as we get closer to November, and then everything will be silent.

So when all else fails just say the opposition is ignorant and stupid. Pass the Kool-Aid for another round.

That is quite an argument, if you don’t agree with me then you are below my dignity, you are stupid, you are ignorant, you do not understand the Constitution, you do not research, and you know the rest of the story better than I.

What gall!!!

Liberals always know the other person better than they know themselves. They are so brilliant. That is not a very high standard. Pass the Kool-Aid for another round.

Gone for the weekend. Have fun Royal Flush and Baretta9. The liberals are crying in their beer and I just don’t see them having fun whether I wish it upoon them or not.

A Kool-Aid and a beer, a Kool-aid and a beer. Yuk

Why is it almost every time Stephen makes a well-reasoned, fact-filled post, he get a response like “so you think you’re smarter than me?” And then the response doesn’t address the well-reasoned, fact-filled post, it usually just blasts insults.

Just wondering.

Have fun Tom Humes.

boomxtwo:

“Why is it almost every time Stephen makes a well-reasoned, fact-filled post, he get a response like “so you think you’re smarter than me?”

Could it be….duh….because that is what Stephen does? He is a “liberal talking points”, poster boy. No original thought, just liberal rhetoric, with the ability to put dem politicians on an untouchable pedestal. No matter how corrupt a democrat politician would be, Stephen would still defend him. This defense of democrats makes his posts not credible.

This is great, talk about “Underwater Obama”:

“How To Lose A Guy In 75 Days
Two years after his coattails helped sweep two dozen Democrats into office, President Obama is proving more a boon to Republicans than to Democrats during the midterm elections. His poll numbers are so morose that Democrats are planning ways to avoid his shadow, while Republicans plot strategies aimed at tying Obama to every incumbent member of Congress they can.

The advice from Democratic consultants and strategists is almost unanimous: Run away from the president, and fast. A prominent Democratic pollster is circulating a survey that shows George W. Bush is 6 points more popular than President Obama in “Frontline” districts — seats held by Democrats that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees as most vulnerable to Republican takeover. That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear.”

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/08/how_to_lose_a_g.php

Mr. Daugherty writes; “

Royal Flush

In response to my statement…
“LOL…SD talks about candidates hiding, what a joke. I posted a link not long ago that showed the majority of dem candidates were not having conferences with the folks back home during the last recess. They got their ears burned and butts kicked last time and just have no stomach to face the voters in any kind of public forum.”

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Really? Through mid-June members of Congress had held more than 920 town-hall meetings this year, outpacing the total for the first half of 2009, according to a Congress.org report. Democrats held some 490 of those sessions. Members who held public events over the July 4 recess reported that “there was not the hostility that they saw the year before,” says Hoyer, who believes the party’s efforts to fix the economy are “resonating.”

Oh, damn. I’m sorry, I went and did my own research again.

I should have just accepted your thesis and believed the Democrats were running scared.”

Mr. Daugherty links to a liberal/dem website for his proof.

Once again Mr. Daugherty’s comments about a foray into “fact-finding” would lead the readers to a false conclusion.

I wont’ use a republican propoganda website to discount the post by Mr. Daugherty, but rather, the New York Times, clearly not a newspaper in the pocket of R’s and C’s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.html

“If the time-honored tradition of the political meeting is not quite dead, it seems to be teetering closer to extinction. Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts.

It was no scheduling accident.

With images of overheated, finger-waving crowds still seared into their minds from the discontent of last August, many Democrats heeded the advice of party leaders and tried to avoid unscripted question-and-answer sessions. The recommendations were clear: hold events in controlled settings — a bank or credit union, for example — or tour local businesses or participate in community service projects.

And to reach thousands of constituents at a time, without the worry of being snared in an angry confrontation with voters, more lawmakers are also taking part in a fast-growing trend: the telephone town meeting, where chances are remote that a testy exchange will wind up on YouTube.”

It appears to me that dem candidates have opted with Twitter and Teleconferences over face to face meetings with constituents. Mr. Daugherty may wonder why…we don’t.

“Why is it almost every time Stephen makes a well-reasoned, fact-filled post, he get a response like “so you think you’re smarter than me?” And then the response doesn’t address the well-reasoned, fact-filled post, it usually just blasts insults.

Posted by: boomxtwo at August 20, 2010

boom…read my post directly above and tell me again about Mr. Daugherty’s “well-reasoned, fact-filled post”.

RF:

Speaking of Dems twittering and teleconferencing; Imam Obama has been communicating with God via his blackberry:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/05/obamas-relies-blackberry-religion/

This is because he don’t actually have time to go to church because he is saving the world….. except for the 6 weeks of vacation.

royal flush,

That’s better. It’s good to see some reference and rebuttal instead of the tired insults. Thanks.

But your NYT article, a supposed rebuttal to Stephen’s quote about the increase in Town Hall meetings, doesn’t really refute what he wrote at all. It only states, from the June 6 article, “only a handful…last week” with no factual reference to numbers. Hardly a dispute of the information provided showing the increase for the entire year.

It’s a better effort than usual, but your article doesn’t refute his information at all. More anecdotal than factual. Score this round for Mr. Daugherty, but at least you showed up.

Beretta9,

You complaining about the number of Obama’s vacation days is one of the funniest posts ever!

Apparently boomxtwo is prepared to swallow the info from a political website (I wonder if he bothered to even go to the link Daugherty provided) rather than the link I provided from the NYT’s. I can provide many more links proving what the Times reported but doubt you would read them.

Frankly boom, I have lost interest in responding to you as your comments don’t provide any new information or original thinking.

It appears the liberals on WB are spending as much time propping each other up as they are defending democrat politicians, lol.

If the republicans pick up enough seats to take the house [AND THATS STILL A BIG IF] I believe two things will happen one they will have to govern two it will be short lived once the American people see and remember how bad they do govern.

Agreed Beretta9, they’re all joining hands to whistle thru the cemetary. One would think the “Summer of Recovery” tour and vaudville show would have encouraged them. However, they just can’t catch a break…the more they tout an imagined recovery the worse the economy becomes.

The stock market is swooning, unemployment continues to stagnate or grow worse, the polls are showing even more disgust with the dem/libs, and while the Great One takes another vacation there is a rumor he will not be allowed back in the WH when he returns. It has to do with fumigating for bugs or something like that.

Jeff;

I am glad to see you recognizing the fact that the Republicans could take control, but you make the mistake of quoting the same old liberal talking points.

They will be able to push an agenda, and it will probably be in agreement with the majority of voters, but what will Imam Barry do? Will he fight the republicans or will he do as Clinton did, and let the republicans make him look good? I place my money on the former; he is arrogant and I think he is starting to believe the messiah crap he is being spoon-fed. So he will be combative when the republicans try to get something done; result, he’s gone in 2012…

RF:

Wait until Black October, you think the market is bad now! I’ve heard several economists already predicting a bad October for the market.

royal flush,

I went to the website links provided. Not sure why you would feel otherwise. As you may recall, I’m the same person who went to website links and found you had plagiarized. So you can stop with the juvenile “you probably didn’t even visit the site.” When I make a point, I can back it up with fact, and when I reference a link, you’d be prudent to just accept that as fact as well. I’m simply challenging you to do the same.

For now, Daugherty’s information still stands - more Town Hall meetings this year than last year. I found it referenced elsewhere as well. And you can do the same. Me posting the same facts found in another source provide none of the new information you are so desperately seeking me to provide you. So, I’ll ask again, do you have anything to refute his information. The NYT, “only a handful…last week” doesn’t, no matter how proudly you point out you quoted the NYT. You indicated you can provide “many more links.” Hopefully these would refute the information that there have been more Town Hall meetings this year than last year. So, why don’t you start with one and we’ll go from there. Hello? Hello? (Crickets)

boomxtwo:

Here is a good article that explains why politicians are nowhere to be seen in townhall meetings and it’s dated today:

http://www.redstate.com/

“Posted by Brian Darling (Profile)

Saturday, August 21st at 9:00AM EDT

5 Comments
Heritage Action for America has a very funny new video out featuring actor Clint Howard titled “August Recess Excuses.” Many Congressman are not holding Town Hall meetings this August. The video shows what must be happening behind closed doors with members who are trying to avoid any embarrassing public meetings.

Some great examples of why Senators and House members are avoiding Town Hall meetings are below

1.Senator Claire McCaskill’s “We Don’t Trust You” Moment - August 2009;
2.Representative Kathy Castor’s “You’ll Get Nothing and Like It” Moment - August 2009;
3.Representative Sheila Jackson Lee “Hold That Thought While I Take a Call” Moment- August 2009;
4.Representative Pete Stark’s “Who You Going to Kill Today” Moment - June 2010
5.Representative Baron Hill “This Is My Meeting and You Will Follow My Rules” Moment - September 2009;
6.Senator Arlen Specter - “God is Going to Judge You” Moment- August 2009;
7.Constituent Question of the Year - September 2009;
8.Representative Melissa Bean - “No Questions or You Will Meet My Strength and Conditioning Staffer” Moment - August 2010;
9.President Obama’s “Why Does Everybody Hate You” Moment - October 2009; and,
10.Representative Russ Carnahan - “Unfriendly Constituents Will Receive A Beat Down” Moment - August 2009.

Constituents are so angry, it is understandable why Members of Congress are avoiding meetings with constituents and avoiding the scary Town Hall moment.”

beretta And while the repugations may gain seats they will have done it based on lies {death panels the Pres is a muslim etc} so how does that square with you god?

Hef:

We are talking about a government controlled healthcare system. Do you honestly think the government can run a system economically? If the bama is cutting Medicare/ Medicaid benefits, whom do you think this will affect and will it affect their life style? Perhaps you could name one government run benefit that is operated efficiently? I can’t think of one, not even the military; of which dems have also complained. It is entirely feasible for the government controlled healthcare system to determine who is treated and who is not. The Canadian and English government healthcare systems are guilty of this very thing and it doesn’t take much Internet search to find this out. As time goes on and more is discovered about the obamacare, we will find out just how discriminatory this HC bill is. So I wouldn’t toot my horn to much, you might have to eat those “Death Panel” words.

Imam Obama to cut military health benefits by 50%:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/2185271/posts

CBO says Imam Obama H will cut benefits to seniors:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/23/obama-says-health-care-reform

http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/uncategorized/obamacare-does-cut-your-medicare-benefits/

Secondly, the Muslim situation is a monster created by the democrats. Don’t try to blame this on republicans. The liberal MSM has created this monster and Imam Obama has done nothing to help his cause. He states he is a Christian and yet has catered to the Muslim world for the past 20 months. He is the one who ran his mouth in front of a bunch of Muslims at a Ramadan dinner. He was not asked to give his opinion. Then, for political reasons, Reid, Dean, Pelosi, and other dems get involved by adding their 2 cents. Why did any dem politicians get involved? Why wasn’t it left in the hands of the local government? I’ll tell you why, because it was meant to move the discussion from the economy and jobs to something else. And, it backfired on the dems.

Beretta9-
I’m sorry, it’s so difficult to tell you folks apart these days, what with the lack of individual positions. ;-)

I don’t need protection, but I don’t mind having friends on the site, so I welcome his efforts to push back on the BS that flies around here.

As for silence? LOL. Simply LOL. You didn’t get silence after 2004, we didn’t get it after 2006 or 2008. If you win, or I win, neither of us are getting it after 2010. This is not a country built for silence on any side that dissents from the winners of the election.

On the subject of corruption politicians, I’ve always encouraged them to step down, and for others to vote them out if they won’t resign.

If you can’t be bothered to read what I actually say, you will have the credibility problem.

Frankly I think you just say things thinking people won’t go back and actually look up what you’re talking about, because there’s no other way to explain the disconnect between what you say and reality.

The real problem here is that you’re not alone. You have the Republican leadership basically backing a campaign of negativism and misinformation, meant to scare people, meant to push them into despair about what’s happening in Washington. Yet the fact remains, if you clear off the emotionally wrought debris, the Republicans are basically trying to revive Bush Economic and tax policies.

Which didn’t work the first time. That’s your dead end. That’s where all Republican Progress slows down. If Republicans can’t solve the problem they’re trashing the Democrats for not being able to solve, if all their self-righteous fighting against economic reform and regulation doesn’t bring back the economy in a stable way, in a way whose benefits people can see, they will not enjoy the advantages of having bashed down their opposition.

On the subject of the recess town halls, let me ask you a question: did you examine the dateline? It would be logical, would it not, to compare apples to apples here by comparing one August recess to another. But still, also, even in consider that article the objective number of townhalls still remained high, so I don’t know where you can go with that point.

But really, what are they playing against, going out there and being with the people, or going out there and leaving themselves open to organized political operatives?

As for Obama’s vacation? I think after doing so much to piss you people off you would be glad to see him get some R&R. I mean, he’s only passed Wall Street Reform, Healthcare Reform, money for states, money for the unemployed over your folk’s objections. He’s moved more agenda items than most Presidents ever do in both terms within the first half of his first term.

Really. Have you forgotten how much time off Mr. Bush spent up at that Ranch of his? And if so, did you forgot accidentally, or deliberately?

As for this Imam Barry thing? That’s screwed up. That’s really screwed up. First, you’re obviously treating Islam as a bad thing. Second, you pushing that lie about Obama and Islam. What is it? Are you just that unhappy about the fact that the constitution isn’t just forcing everybody to get down on their knees and make everything as your infinite wisdom would have it be? Obama has to be a muslim, Being Muslim has to be bad, and the Constitution has to be a formality to you getting the shape of society you want.

Well, tough luck, man. Because you are fighting the nature of this country. You’re fighting against everybody’s else’s freedom, because you only feel free when everybody else thinks like you do. You’re a prisoner of your own prejudices, and I don’t envy being in your position, whether you win or not this next election.

You look at all those silly, silly townhall confrontations, and you know what you see? You see the angst of the folks who were formerly in the majority. You see people pushing talking points, deliberate shouting, deliberately showing anger, having already discussed how to make the biggest splash on deliberate terms. It was all BS! That’s what makes me the angriest. They didn’t have the humility to build their cases on first principles and facts. Instead, all we got from them is emotionally overwrought political partisan garbage, meant to scare people, meant to make people feel intimidated, meant to do everything else, but level with people about why they should agree.

The Republicans are treating the country like nothing so much as a herd of cattle to be pushed around and lead to the slaughter.

This country, its citizens deserve better than people who just try to hype fear and anger, who celebrate denigrating and bashing people.

tom humes-
Look, mister, I don’t know how smart or dumb you are. All I know is that when I go and look at things for myself, I discover angles, arguments, and defenses that just sitting there, stewing about the comment, wondering about the doubts it raises, I never could have thought of.

What’s more, it makes me feel less like I’m some manipulator of words, and more like I got some kind of integrity, like I don’t just believe something because some talking points says to.

I’ve always felt more comfortable in the world of the verifiable. Politics is sort of an extreme sport to me, where I’m judging intentions, judging political strategies, and all kinds of other things that often seem frustratingly dense to me.

But being a practical field, politics gives a person like me an advantage: sooner or later, things come back down to the facts. Even if nobody every really acknowledges them, if a policy doesn’t fit the facts, events will not go well, and the politicians will suffer for it.

And so, it becomes important for people to move towards the facts, and the people, the constituents out there, have it in their interests for fact and policy to converge.

You can fantasize about how your policy will work, what wonders it will do, but there will always be a point where your expressed beliefs about how things must go runs into how things actually work.

You can talk about Kool-Aid, but really, when’s the last time your people had a new idea? When’s the last time your people just said “To hell with the politics, how do we do this right?” everything seems to come back to the dogma.

DOH Hef should have been Jeff. Too many smashed pickles{fingers} over the years.