Third Party & Independents Archives

Sane Bush Hatred

The Wall Street Journal gave the top half of its opinion page yesterday to a long essay by Peter Berkowitz titled “”The Insanity of Bush Hatred”. If anything, it deserves a gold medal for political propaganda – make that political lies. What caught my attention immediately was the frequent use of the word “progressive” to describe the people Berkowitz was attacking. It was used ten times. In other words, progressives were attacked for hating Bush.

There is a major lie of omission. No mention was made of the vast number of Americans that certainly do not call themselves progressives that hate Bush. Surely there are many millions of sane independents, moderates, libertarians, conservatives and liberals that rightfully hate Bush. To ignore all these Americans betrays the intellectual legitimacy of the article and its arguments.

Here are the few core reasons given by Berkowitz for condemning Bush hatred:

It is not a rational force in politics. It clouds and impairs political judgment. It subverts sound thinking. It has addled minds. It damages the intellect. It reduces “complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil.” It “blinds to the other sides of the argument, and constrains the hater to see a monster instead of a political opponent.”

There is no detailed analysis of all the ways that the Bush administration has betrayed our Constitution. No mention, for example, of Bush signing statements that self-justifies not obeying the laws passed by Congress. No mention that the Bush claim of not using torture is so obviously a lie. No mention of using illegal surveillance of Americans and lying about it. No mention of countless lies used to get us into the absurd and costly Iraq war. No mention of the enormous amount of evidence showing that 9/11 was not solely an operation by foreign terrorists, but involved the federal government. And on and on.

The only rational and sane conclusion is that hating Bush is justified and completely sane.

There is some truth to the opening statement: Hating the president is almost as old as the republic itself. But the growing consensus that George W. Bush will go down in history as the nation’s worst president is a much larger truth. It is perfectly reasonable for ALL Americans to hate Bush for squandering the lives of the many people in our armed forces, for squandering the nation’s wealth, and for squandering our nation’s good name and reputation. Bush is a national embarrassment and disgrace, and for that he deserves to be hated.

All those with a clear and sound intellect, rational objectivity, sensible judgment, and the ability to know evil when they see it should hate Bush. Hating Bush is nothing to be ashamed of. The real challenge is moving beyond Bush hatred to seeing the need for deep political reforms that restores American democracy. We must convert the national Bush-hatred-energy into rebellious action. We must re-establish our constitutional checks and balances and removing the unlawful and excessive powers of the presidency. How do we achieve reforms? That is the right question.

As to insanity: I say we must stop doing the same thing and expecting different results. That same thing is voting for Democrats or Republicans. We must remember that virtually all the evil and corrupt things Bush has done could not have been accomplished without the tacit or explicit support of Democrats in Congress. The two-party partnership also deserves our hatred. It has removed political competition and the ability of third party candidates from winning national office. To let Bush hatred result in knee-jerk support for Democrats is a mistake.

The only way to restore American democracy is to remove the legitimacy and credibility of the two-party-controlled political system. The way to do that is through a voter boycott in the 2008 elections for the president and members of Congress. Neither Democrats nor Republicans faithfully represent the interests of the public and that makes our representative democracy a sham. To keep playing the game and voting for any candidates that are members of the vast two-party criminal conspiracy is plain stupid. If Americans keep sustaining this corrupt and dishonest two-party system, then they will continue to witness the decay of our society.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at November 15, 2007 4:01 PM
Comments
Comment #238473

Joel, from the article: …suggesting that however wrongheaded or harmful to the national interest the president’s policies may have seemed to my progressive colleagues, hatred tended to cloud judgment, and therefore was a passion that a citizen should not be proud of being in the grips of and should avoid bringing to public debate.

Do we not hate pedophiles for the wrong they do our children. Do we not hate muggers who injure or kill their prey for $20? Do we not hate those who would attack others without mercy, killing children, wives, daughters and sons? Are these other hatreds not brought into the public debate?

Then why should we not bring our hate into the public debate of a president who undermines our Constitution, our nation, our society, and our values which earned us the reputation, as Ronald Reagan put it: “America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere…”

Pretty much blows his argument out of the water. The man has no sense common with the common people of America.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 15, 2007 4:51 PM
Comment #238478
Joel Hischhorn wrote: The only way to restore American democracy is to remove the legitimacy and credibility of the two-party-controlled political system.
There’s another, better way. It is the method we were supposed to be using all along; the one simple, peaceful, common-sense, responsible way to do it:
  • Stop Repeat Offenders!
  • Stop Rewarding Bad Incumbent Politicians With 95%-to-99% Re-Election Rates!
Joel Hischhorn wrote: The way to do that is through a voter boycott in the 2008 elections for the president and members of Congress.
Sorry, but like Lee Jamison wrote in Comment # 238314 omment, that:
    solution is like protesting air pollution by putting a plasic bag over your head.

The real solution is right under our very own noses.
Don’t simply vote for the politician that spends that most money, because that is what happens over 90% of the time, and the winners are usually incumbent politicians, as evidenced by the cu$hy 95% to 99% re-election rates of our illustrious Do-Nothing Congress.

Joel Hischhorn wrote: Neither Democrats nor Republicans faithfully represent the interests of the public and that makes our representative democracy a sham.
Yes, our politicians are a sham.

However, who elected them?
ANSWER: Most of the 200 million eligible voters.

The voters have it within their power to thoroughly disrupt our severely corrupt Congress and other corrupt portions of the severely bloated, Do-Nothing Congress:

    Stop Repeatedly Rewarding Bad Politicians With Re-Election!

Voting Guidelines NOTE: If there are no acceptable candidates, including the incumbent, then vote for a challenger, rather than let the incumbent become more corrupt, powerful, and difficult to oust from office.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 15, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #238482

I would not, on general principle, try to defend hatred. (I don’t that the feds had any role in 9/11, either.) But I certainly agree with you that the op-ed is ridiculous.

What really kills me is the same Republicans who have been complaining for seven years about “Bush hatred” now like to talk about how much Hillary Clinton “unifies” Republicans. Well guess what, Bush unifies the left.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 15, 2007 5:47 PM
Comment #238488

From article:

In short, Bush hatred is not a rational response to actual Bush perfidy. Rather, Bush hatred compels its progressive victims—who pride themselves on their sophistication and sensitivity to nuance—to reduce complicated events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil.

How ironic, that when Bush & co started to reduce complicate events and multilayered issues to simple matters of good and evil that I *started* to hate him.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 15, 2007 6:31 PM
Comment #238492

Unfortunately, low voter turnout was part of what gave us Bush. Apparently people said that Bush was no different than Gore. People got the sense that who you elected didn’t matter.

That went well.

You can hate both Democrat and Republican, but don’t pretend that they’re the same. And don’t pretend that not making a choice will solve the problem. Somebody else will make the choice, and you might not like the result.

If you want third parties to provide new choices, they have to build up the farm leagues, so to speak, in order to provide experience to people looking to run for higher office. The rise of third parties cannot simply be a rejection of the two main parties, it must also represent the evolution of a new power structure.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 15, 2007 8:02 PM
Comment #238494


David,

No, I don’t hate any of those you enumerate. Nor do I hate Bush, or Clinton, or any other politician.

I do hate actions and attitudes. I do hate what pedophiles do to children, I do hate what muggers do to individuals.

I also hate the perfidy, hypocrisy, and down right lying of many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle. This is one reason why I will have a very hard time voting in the 2008 elections. At this point, there is not one candidate that I trust to run this country.

Posted by: Old Grouch at November 15, 2007 9:07 PM
Comment #238499

Old Grouch, good for you. I take it you are opposed to the death penalty, because killing a person for vengeful justice is hate no matter how you cut it, for the condemned. You certainly can’t call it humane toward the condemned. Well, not logically and ethically anyway.

My daughter was accosted at the age of 13. Despite being a Buddhist, I hated the son of a dog for what he did and cost my daughter in looking over her shoulder every where she went as roamed free for 3 years awaiting trial. He accosted another female, 16, in the interim. And we were told there was another before my daughter whose parents didn’t press charges. I hate him.

And in a plea bargain, he never served prison time, though he is in rehab and tethered to an ankle bracelet and must report to an officer of the state on a regular basis like a conditional parolee. And if I ever hear that he has changed and is no longer capable of such acts, I will no longer hate him. It would not be healthy for him however, to step onto our property or come anywhere near my daughter, however.

I actually don’t believe in the death penalty, never have, and I do believe in rehabilitation and have seen it work first hand with federal prisoners in a halfway house program where I worked. But, hate, while it is often a destructive emotion for the hater and hatee, is also one that evolution provided to motivate one to protect and defend one’s own.

I truly hope no one ever gives you cause to hate. But, it is a natural and very human experience. One to be controlled and channeled for one’s own good. But to deny it, has led many to act it out under unusual circumstances. Unusual for these modern times in America, that is.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 15, 2007 11:59 PM
Comment #238501
but don’t pretend that they’re the same.
Why not? They are very similar.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at November 16, 2007 12:11 AM
    Comment #238573

    David,

    I must disagree with you on philosophical grounds. As a general rule, hatred causes little harm to the one who is hated. It can and does cause harm to the one who hates. The energy involved in maintaining a good hate can be put to much better uses. The time involved in maintaining a good hate can be spent more profitably in getting on with our lives.

    Look at it this way, using one of Joel’s ideas from above: what good does it do me to hate President Bush, or Harry Reid, or Newt Gingrich, or Nancy Pelosi. I’m spending my time and energy hating them and they don’t even know I’m alive! What has been accomplished? Nothing! So, why hate?

    David, I do agree with you in some respects, I am against the death penalty and this stupid war we are presently engaged in. In my mind, we could spend 1.2 trillon dollars(and counting)in ways that would have been much better for our country than using it to destroy another country and then have absolutely no idea how we are going to exit the conflict.

    Posted by: Old Grouch at November 16, 2007 9:59 PM
    Comment #238579

    Old Grouch, you must not have lived through, or you turned a blind eye, to the civil rights struggle in the middle of the last century, and to the treatment of Black Americans from the beginning in this country to the present day. Hate does indeed harm those who are hated, horribly, including rape, castration, hangings, bombings, assassinations, and all manner of intimidations and beatings, burning crosses and nooses hung out as public warnings.

    Sorry, I find your statement “As a general rule, hatred causes little harm to the one who is hated.” ABSURD. There was this little hate fest called the Holocaust. How can you possibly say hate doesn’t harm the hated as a general rule? Absurd on its face.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at November 16, 2007 11:53 PM
    Comment #238961

    Love is an emotion not an act. There are a lot of things I love. The fact that I love them does not benefit these things. It is only if and when I act to show my love that they benefit from my love. A lot of things never benefit, because I control my urge to act. Love tends to drive one to act on the emotion, but the emotion and the act are not the same thing.

    Hate is an emotion not an act. There are a lot of things I hate. The fact that I hate them does not harm these things. It is only if and when I act to show my hate that they are harmed by my hate. A lot of things I hate are never harmed by me, because I control my urge to act. Hate tends to drive one to act on the emotion, but the emotion and the act are not the same thing.

    The Holocaust was an act. Rape, castration, hangings, bombings, assassinations, beatings, crosses and nooses…all acts. Acts driven by hate, but not the same as hate.

    I hate Bush for what he’s done to me and the country as a whole. I act on that hate—not violently, but by taking other action. I vote, I protest, I call my representatives, I sign petitions. Do my actions harm Bush? I certainly hope so. Is there anything morally wrong with my hatred of Bush or the actions I take in response? Not in my mind. In my mind, it would be morally wrong not to act when another is harming someone I love.

    Therefore, I agree that hatred by itself causes little or no harm to the one that is hated. The actions (if effective) cause harm, but it’s too simplistic to say that acting on hate or causing harm to the hated is wrong. How you act is the key. If you act blindly on your hate, normally evil will transpire. If you act responsibly on your hate, you can do great good.

    The problem with most Bush haters is not that they hate Bush. That’s simple causality. The problem with most Bush haters is that they don’t act on their hate, or they act in an inappropriate or ineffective way. Most of them don’t act at all.

    Posted by: Leper at November 21, 2007 6:52 PM
    Comment #239081

    Alot of people hate our President because they have been told to hate our President.

    Alot of things people have been told to them about our president doesn’t affect them but in the absence of contrary evidence they believe what they are told.

    Many people hate our President because he was elected and nothing he does will change that.

    There is abundant evidence that the current policies of this administration will carry on despite what party is elected because it is not the result of the policy that matters. What party is credited for the successful resolution of that policy is what matters.

    If you were to consider the history of the Democratic Party it would show a history of procrastination until the 2nd party steps in to solve the problem. And thruout the solution phase of the problem the Democratic Party would relentlessly thrash the 2nd party. And when the problem was solved the Democratic Party would claim the moral high ground and soundly defeat the 2nd party in the next round of elections and they would live happily ever after until the next problem showed up.
    There has been many problems to occur in the 20th century. Many initiated when Democratics were in power. Many solved when the 2nd party came into power.

    We’re just happy the problem is solved and really don’t care how it was solved. What matters is that the Democratic Party is credited for leading us thru the bad times while our corrupt 2nd party was in power solving the problem.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 23, 2007 5:39 PM
    Comment #239095

    Weary Willie,

    Alot of people hate our President because they have been told to hate our President.
    There may be some, but there are also many people who love our President because they have been told to love our President. I was not told to hate our President, I grew to hate him by witnessing first-hand his lies and deceptions, and the destruction he’s done to our country. I also validated my hatred through research, which is easy to do in spite of how hard our media works to suppress the evidence.
    Alot of things people have been told to them about our president doesn’t affect them but in the absence of contrary evidence they believe what they are told.
    Ah, you’re right. Fox News alone has been responsible for spreading fantastic lies about our president. Unfortunately for the average American, most of these lies have been in the President’s favor.
    Many people hate our President because he was elected and nothing he does will change that.
    Name one. I don’t know a single person who hates our President simply because he was “elected”. In fact, I believe even those who already had reason to hate him were willing to give him a second chance after 9/11. He certainly squandered that opportunity, and went even further by forcing the whole world to hate him and the United States.
    There is abundant evidence that the current policies of this administration will carry on despite what party is elected because it is not the result of the policy that matters.
    What policies? What evidence? I don’t want to automatically doubt what you’re saying, but it’s not actually clear what you’re talking about. Sources, people, sources…perhaps an example or two?
    There has been many problems to occur in the 20th century. Many initiated when Democratics were in power.
    Who are the Democratics? I’ve never heard of that party.
    We’re just happy the problem is solved and really don’t care how it was solved. What matters is that the Democratic Party is credited for leading us thru the bad times while our corrupt 2nd party was in power solving the problem.
    I can agree that the corrupt GOP was in power solving the problem—the problem of how to best line their own pockets. In any case, I thought we were talking about the President?
    Posted by: Leper at November 24, 2007 12:19 AM
    Comment #239128
    I grew to hate him by witnessing first-hand his lies and deceptions, and the destruction he’s done to our country.

    This is “first-hand”? You personally witnessed George Bush lie? You personally are witness the the specific curcumstances that make up the deceptions, the willful deceptions of the american people by this president?

    Is your real name Dick Chaney? Or is this mistaken first-hand knowledge generated by people who sit in front of their tv and listened to the news, dilligently hanging on to every angle that reinforces what was shown yesterday?


    I believe even those who already had reason to hate him were willing to give him a second chance after 9/11.

    “Who already had reason to hate him…”. Why do I think this supports my assertion that People hate Bush because he got elected.

    ”..were willing to give a second chance..”

    He was in office for 6 months and he is being offered a “second chance”! How could a six month term in office demand the need for a “second chance”? Or do people hate him because he got elected?

    What evidence? I don’t want to automatically doubt what you’re saying, but it’s not actually clear what you’re talking about. Sources, people, sources…perhaps an example or two?

    Hillary Clinton has stated a U.S. Presence will remain in Iraq after the election. It is unfortunate that the Democratic Party ran it’s 2006 campaigns on a “Get out now! We’ve lost!” stratagy. It all was purely political retoric in light of the progress the Democratic controlled HOR and Senate have made on the Iraq War issue. During the 2006 campaign wire tapping and torture and secret prisons were used as issues to get Democratics elected yet suddenly all became quiet while gay rights and school prayer and GOD became the issues again. It was quiet on the Iraqi front and nothing was done or even addressed in Congress in 2007, but now when the 2008 election is getting under way, torture and wire tapping are back in the news as well as “errors” made when enlistment bonuses are expected to be repaided.

    Hillary Clinton knows it will take 10 years or so to win a war. Her husband presided over a war in the Balkins that took that long. He was accused of a lack of experience. His Secretary of Defence resigned because he presided over an incursion that was undermanned and underequipted. Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defence resigned because of those concerns. Does that sound familiar? Probably not to some because Bill Clinton was a Democratic Party President and George Bush was not. The circumstances are the same. The difference is what party is getting credit. When the Iraq war becomes a Democratic party controlled war is when the Iraq war will not be contraversial. When the Democratic Party has regained control is when the media will forget about the Iraq war, just as it did in the Balkins.


    Who are the Democratics? I’ve never heard of that party.

    I wish I’d never heard of them either! You may know them by a different name. Perhaps the name Federalists may be more familiar.

    In any case, I thought we were talking about the President?

    President Lightning Rod? Yea, we were. It’s funny when a Republican president is in office he’s considered a war monger or a liar, or in GWBush’s case a moron. By the way, calling someone a moron is what people say when they disagree with the moron. “He must be a moron not to see our point!” “George Bush is a moron!” Quoted from Reliable Sources tv show.

    If someone knows a person has willing orcestrated a deception or if someone knows another has premeditated a lie and has purposefully presided over unnecessary destruction he doesn’t call him a moron. It is incumbant upon that someone to come forward and present evidence that cooberates his accusations to the proper authorities. Calling someone names hardly constitutes evidence. In fact, perpetuation of unfounded rumor and inuendo is against God’s law. It has to do with something about bearing false witness.

    Keep in mind it is not just the Republican President that is experiencing low poll numbers, it is also a democratic congress that shares in equal or worse poll numbers. The congress is suffering the repercussions of lying to us during the campaign that brought them to power.

    I don’t see the media focusing on the failings of the Democratic Party leadership.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 2:10 PM
    Comment #239134

    Where is the voice of the States in the matter being reflected in the national media. Why are issues only discussed by the beltway boys and federal government officials?

    The only time I see my State of Indiana in the national media is when it’s refered to as “a Republican Stronghold”.
    I feel like Kramer everytime I hear that! I’m in Starke County Indiana. It’s 110% Democratic party controlled. Road repair begins with D here in Starke County. The D lever controls many information orientated businesses.

    Where is the space for each state’s opinion reflected in the 1/2 hour broadcast of the news everyone sees each day?
    Why do only federal officials have the final say and states are focused on only when non-compliance is refered to?
    This is contrary to the 10th amendment. This is subversion of the 10th amendment. The media is a corporation not a person. Yet the media can subvert the 10th amendment freely because we believe a corporation is a person and enjoys the freedoms and rights of a citizen guaranteed to x-slaves in the 14th amendment.

    Alot of people who considered themselves citizens of the United States gave their lives to free themselves and their families from corporate rule.

    Today the United States are controlled by the same forces that controlled them in the 17th and 18th century. Corporate rule under a national government.

    To deny that is to live in denial.

    I don’t assume the official that has been elected to represent my state is actually doing his job correctly. Unless the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been repealed, most of the perceived responsibilities of the Federal government are unconstitutional.

    People would be much better off if they weren’t inundated with superflous information from a one party perspective. In this age of research on the web the reluctance of the Democratic Party leadership to realize they cannot bullshit their way thru the perceptions they themselves create shows an inability to lead.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 3:53 PM
    Comment #239143
    This is “first-hand”? You personally witnessed George Bush lie? You personally are witness the the specific curcumstances that make up the deceptions, the willful deceptions of the american people by this president?
    Yes, first-hand. There are numerous video sources showing Bush addressing the American people, and flat-out contradicting and denying his previous words (also available on video). How much more first-hand do you need? Sure, I’m not party to everything going on inside the administration, and neither are you. Therefore, if you are in love with this president it’s based as much on the media perception as my hatred. Now, I know there are certain un-American types that feel that our president should be worshipped regardless of thier actions…but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not one of those.
    He was in office for 6 months and he is being offered a “second chance”! How could a six month term in office demand the need for a “second chance”? Or do people hate him because he got elected?
    No, people hated him because he sucked as President, and his incompetence and partisanship was obvious within months. I can say people only hated him in a mild way pre-9/11, not the way we hate him now that he’s actually destroyed much of our way of life. It certainly wasn’t simply because he was elected. I’m still waiting for that name…
    Hillary Clinton has stated a U.S. Presence will remain in Iraq after the election.
    We can discuss that if and when Clinton become the nominee. I will never vote for her, even if I approved of any of her policies, because I’ve witnessed (yes, first-hand) the disaster that can ensue when we elect “dynasties”. One of the first things I hated about Bush was that he got elected primarily because he was a son-of-a-Bush.
    During the 2006 campaign wire tapping and torture and secret prisons were used as issues to get Democratics elected yet suddenly all became quiet while gay rights and school prayer and GOD became the issues again.
    Gay rights, school prayer, and GOD are issues again? I don’t know where you’re getting your news. They are still issues, of course, but they’re pretty far down on the totem pole of what’s important to the American public. Immigration is a big issue… Oh, but of course that’s a GOP-generated scare-mongering issue, just like gay marriage was.
    It was quiet on the Iraqi front and nothing was done or even addressed in Congress in 2007, but now when the 2008 election is getting under way, torture and wire tapping are back in the news as well as “errors” made when enlistment bonuses are expected to be repaided.
    I also don’t recall torture and wire tapping ever becoming non-issues. Perhapes I can save time and agree that congress is doing a poor job, and the Democrats have been cowards (or have conflicts of interest) for not realizing the American public will stand behind them if they do what we want and restore our constitution and end this war. However, I’m certainly not blind to the Republican obstructionism that’s going on, and how you can turn that around and argue that the GOP is a better choice is beyond me. That is your argument, isn’t it? It’s either that or you’re arguing that we should all just give up and never vote again.
    I don’t see the media focusing on the failings of the Democratic Party leadership.
    All I can say is perhaps you should turn on a TV sometime. Better yet, listen to Air America or some other progressive form of media. You’ll hear a great deal about the failings of the Democratic Party.


    Posted by: Leper at November 24, 2007 5:38 PM
    Comment #239144

    No, people hated him because he sucked as President,

    after 6 months?


    and his incompetence and partisanship was obvious within months.

    Maybe yours was!

    I can say people only hated him in a mild way pre-9/11

    You better turn off your tv and start listening to your children.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 24, 2007 5:46 PM
    Comment #239205
    after 6 months?
    Yes, after only 6 months. Quite the uniter, eh?
    Maybe yours was!
    Critique the message, not the messenger.
    You better turn off your tv and start listening to your children.
    Ah, is that the source of your misinformation? Faux news is more accurate in their reporting than what you’ve been listening to!
    Posted by: Leper at November 25, 2007 4:20 PM
    Comment #239220
    Therefore, if you are in love with this president it’s based as much on the media perception as my hatred.
    Bush hatred, however, is distinguished by the pride intellectuals have taken in their hatred, openly endorsing it as a virtue and enthusiastically proclaiming that their hatred is not only a rational response to the president and his administration but a mark of good moral hygiene.
    It’s obvious this emotion has blinded us from the larger problem. That problem is a lack of State’s rights and an excess of corporate rights. A corporation owns our money! For crying out loud! A corporation is considered equal to you and me in the eyes of the judiciary. The corporation enjoys the accumulated moneys of vast numbers of people’s property and labor, but speaks only for the corporation. The corporation purchases control of our government in our election process. Hatred only clouds the issue and detracts from the larger picture.
    As to insanity: I say we must stop doing the same thing and expecting different results. That same thing is voting for Democrats or Republicans. We must remember that virtually all the evil and corrupt things Bush has done could not have been accomplished without the tacit or explicit support of Democrats in Congress. The two-party partnership also deserves our hatred. It has removed political competition and the ability of third party candidates from winning national office. To let Bush hatred result in knee-jerk support for Democrats is a mistake.
    The conflict between more conservative and more liberal or progressive interpretations of the Constitution is as old as the document itself, and a venerable source of the nation’s strength. It is wonderful for citizens to bring passion to it. Recognizing the common heritage that provides the ground for so many of the disagreements between right and left today will encourage both sides, if not to cherish their opponents, at least to discipline their passions and make them an ally of their reason.
    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2007 6:33 PM
    Comment #239229
    That problem is a lack of State’s rights and an excess of corporate rights.
    True, and yet another reason to hate Bush. I take no pride in my hatred for Bush, but neither am I ashamed by it. You certainly aren’t going to convince me that my hatred isn’t justified, and there is nothing knee-jerk about how I’ve acted in response to that hate. The knee-jerk response here is your continued loyalty and praise for a President that is already going down in history as the worst we’ve ever had.
    Posted by: Leper at November 25, 2007 8:44 PM
    Comment #239234

    Leper, He hasn’t gone anywhere yet!
    History will judge this government without emotion when history books are written.

    I can hardly believe George Bush was held in such loathing and contempt when he was governor of Texas. How could someone so hated and so disrespected even be considered for a Presidential bid let alone win and serve 2 terms as president of the United states?

    How on earth could the erosion of states rights and the domination of our government by corporate interests have been achieved by a bumbling moron in seven short years?

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2007 9:37 PM
    Comment #239237

    http://www.article-5.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=46

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 25, 2007 11:06 PM
    Comment #239241
    Leper, He hasn’t gone anywhere yet!
    Yet history is already being written, and the outlook for GW’s legacy is not looking good.
    How could someone so hated and so disrespected even be considered for a Presidential bid let alone win and serve 2 terms as president of the United states?
    I didn’t hate Bush before he become President, and I doubt many others did either. It’s what he’s done since taking office that led to the hatred. He barely made it to a second term, and even that was only due to the fear-mongering of the administration (helped by the complicit media), the war he started (don’t change horses mid-stream), and the documented ignorance of the general population (not their fault, per se, but understandable considering the failing of Faux news and other major media to do their job).
    How on earth could the erosion of states rights and the domination of our government by corporate interests have been achieved by a bumbling moron in seven short years?
    I never called him a moron, but let’s run with that. The erosion of states rights, etc. did not start with Bush, but he accelerated the process exponentially—and that issue is somewhat low on the totem pole of reasons to hate him (you brought that up, not me). Whether Bush is a moron (i.e., a puppet to the corporations or others in the administration) or the evil ringleader, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s ultimately responsible for the outcome. Even if deep down he truly thinks he’s a saint and God’s messenger, I still hate him for what he’s done to this country.
    Posted by: Leper at November 25, 2007 11:46 PM
    Comment #239313

    Leper,
    Do you hate Bill Clinton for his role in our current delemma?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958


    “We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.

    Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
    One Clinton Cabinet official said, looking back, the military should have been more involved, “We did a lot, but we did not see the gathering storm that was out there.”


    Do you hate Jimmy Carter for what he did to our country? The double digit inflation and the “Misery Index”? Do you hate Jimmy Carter for the lives lost in Iran?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001796.html

    A quarter of a century has passed since 44 states said “No, thanks” to Jimmy Carter’s offer to serve a second term, yet he still evidently thinks his loss is explained not by foreign policy debacles, such as invading Iran with eight helicopters, and a misery index — inflation plus unemployment — of 22, almost triple today’s index.
    Carter probably will continue to promulgate the fiction that I gave Reagan the utterly unimportant briefing book, thereby catalyzing the 1980 landslide. But to be fair: As a candidate, Carter promised only that as president he would never tell a lie, thereby leaving himself a loophole for his post-presidential career as a fabulist.

    Do you hate Harry Truman?…

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico20.html

    When Harry Truman left office in January 1953, he was intensely unpopular, even widely despised. Many of his most cherished schemes, from national health insurance (socialized medicine) to universal military training (UMT) had been soundly rejected by Congress and the public. Worst of all, the war in Korea, which he persisted in calling a “police action,” was dragging on with no end in sight.



    Truman’s predecessor had vastly expanded federal power, especially the power of the president, in what amounted to a revolution in American government. Under Truman, that revolution was consolidated and advanced beyond what even Franklin Roosevelt had ever dared hope for.

    Truman’s presidency saw the genesis of a world-spanning American political and military empire. This was not simply the unintended consequence of some alleged Soviet threat, however. Even before the end of World War II, high officials in Washington were drawing up plans to project American military might across the globe.

    …Or Franklin Roosevelt for his actions while President? Leper, Do you hate F.D.R.?

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm

    On 7 December 1941 the greatest disaster in United States history occurred. Truly this was and is, “’A date which will live in infamy.’”(Costello 1), but not for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, rather for the deception and the mis-guidance used by the Government and Franklin D. Roosevelt. In a purely artificial chess game Roosevelt sacrificed over 2400 American Seamen’s lives, thanks to his power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. By over-looking the obvious facts of an attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was able to control both the political and economic systems of the United States.
    The real target, Adolf Hitler, duly walked into the trap on December 10, 1941, thus committing the greatest blunder of his career and ensuring Germany’s defeat. The rest, as they say, is history. The ensuing fury gave birth first to a superpower, then to an empire. It swept away doubters and isolationists, it legitimized a total war for unconditional surrender. It created nuclear weapons, the Cold War, the military-industrial complex, the “intelligence community,” and today’s benevolent global hegemony. The people who run the American Empire today will as strenuously deny the existence of a Pearl Harbor conspiracy as their predecessors denied it half a century ago. But in their hearts they’ll admit that, even if there had not been one, it should have been invented.

    How about what Abraham Lincoln did during his administration? Do you hate Abraham Lincoln, Leper?

    http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=425

    Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.


    I will submit these people were hated in their day by the citizenry. With the passion and ferver you show now they were hated. And each and every one probably said their President will go down in history as the worst president ever. No tara cards needed. It was a fact.


    Guess what? These people became famous in our country’s history! After all the fomenting was done, after the history books were written, these people were no longer hated and the energy expended on that hatred was put in it’s place.

    In a place where it can be used without the hatred.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 26, 2007 8:08 PM
    Comment #239323
    I will submit these people were hated in their day by the citizenry.
    Yes, every President is hated by some of the citizenry, for some of the things they’ve done. I hate certain things each one has done. Yet for each of the Presidents you mentioned, I can readily think of a number of very good things they did for the country. Not so with Bush.
    With the passion and ferver you show now they were hated.
    How would you know this? Can you illustrate this?
    And each and every one probably said their President will go down in history as the worst president ever. No tara cards needed. It was a fact.
    How does a “probably” become a fact? What evidence do you have that everyone said this about them? Even if it was said, all it means is that Bush has succeeded in beating the previous champions(including Nixon, I submit) for the title of worst President ever. Oh, and I think you mean Tarot cards…maybe you should consult them after all.
    Guess what? These people became famous in our country’s history!
    Guess what? These people became famous the second they won the Presidency. Being famous does not mean you’re a great President. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung…all famous!
    After all the fomenting was done, after the history books were written, these people were no longer hated and the energy expended on that hatred was put in it’s place.
    Oh, so you’re saying you’re just filled with love for Clinton and Carter? Your whole post is a study in over-generalization. Your argument is essence seems to be, that if enough time is allowed to pass, all historical figures will be loved. That assertion is easily disproved. I will concede that a time will come when Bush is no longer hated (let’s give it 60 years). Instead, he’ll just become an intellectual case study of what not to do.

    As for recent history…Clinton’s approval ratings never fell below 43%, and were above 60% for most of his two terms. Trying to claim that Clinton was overwhelmingly hated (other than by the 23% that currently love Bush) illustrates the fallacy of your entire argument. In addition to the citizenry of this country, the majority of the world liked Clinton. For the record, I generally approved of Clinton, but I certainly didn’t love or worship him.


    Posted by: Leper at November 26, 2007 9:36 PM
    Comment #239325
    As for recent history…Clinton’s approval ratings never fell below 43%, and were above 60% for most of his two terms.

    Yet Clinton’s list of terrorist attacks on this country is 3 and GWBush’s is 1.

    but I certainly didn’t love or worship him.

    Perhaps his w…

    OOPS!

    Never Mind.


    Therefore, if you are in love with this president it’s based as much on the media perception as my hatred.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 26, 2007 9:48 PM
    Comment #239330
    Yet for each of the Presidents you mentioned, I can readily think of a number of very good things they did for the country. Not so with Bush.


    My father has found a significant savings in his medical prescriptions.

    Just because the fkus news is still trying to elect Democratics into government doesn’t mean nothing is working out for the best.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 26, 2007 10:20 PM
    Comment #239411
    Yet Clinton’s list of terrorist attacks on this country is 3 and GWBush’s is 1.
    Well, if you want to get that simplistic about things, then… 1. The total number of deaths due to 9/11 far outweighs the combined deaths of any terrorist attacks during Clinton’s time in office, and 2. Since all of the attacks you’re referring to in Clinton’s list took place out of the country, then to be fair you have to count every Al Quaida attack that took place on our troops in Iraq. You lose.
    Perhaps his w…
    I have a feeling this was meant to be a joke, but I’m certain the only one who understood it (much less laughed at it) was yourself. Conservative humor at its best!
    My father has found a significant savings in his medical prescriptions.
    Damn! I take it back…that was funny! Nice use of sarcasm, especially striking considering how blatently far from reality your words really are:

    Bush Medicare Plan Robs Seniors
    Bush Medicare Plan Hurts Seniors
    Why Bush’s Medicare Drug Plan Is Just Plain Wrong
    Seniors Going Broke With Bush’s Medicare Drug Plan
    Bush Medicare Discount Card Plan Wrong Prescription for America’s Seniors
    Bush Drug Plan an Expensive, Complicated Turkey
    Bush’s Medicare quagmire — and the striking parallels to Iraq.
    Medicare prescription-drug plan stumps seniors
    Cost estimates rise to $540 billion for Medicare plan

    And on, and on, and on…

    Posted by: Leper at November 27, 2007 5:15 PM
    Comment #239425
    Yet Clinton’s list of terrorist attacks on this country is 3 and GWBush’s is 1.
    Well, if you want to get that simplistic about things, then… 1. The total number of deaths due to 9/11 far outweighs the combined deaths of any terrorist attacks during Clinton’s time in office, and 2. Since all of the attacks you’re referring to in Clinton’s list took place out of the country, then to be fair you have to count every Al Quaida attack that took place on our troops in Iraq. You lose.
    Perhaps his w…
    I have a feeling this was meant to be a joke, but I’m certain the only one who understood it (much less laughed at it) was yourself. Conservative humor at its best!
    My father has found a significant savings in his medical prescriptions.
    Damn! I take it back…that was funny! Nice use of sarcasm, especially striking considering how blatently far from reality your words really are:

    Seniors Going Broke With Bush’s Medicare Drug Plan
    Bush’s Medicare quagmire — and the striking parallels to Iraq.
    Cost estimates rise to $540 billion for Medicare plan

    And on, and on, and on…

    Posted by: Leper at November 27, 2007 6:02 PM
    Comment #239437
    Seniors Going Broke With Bush’s Medicare Drug Plan

    Try AFLAC. Takes care of donut holes, deductables and lost wages!


    Bush’s Medicare quagmire — and the striking parallels to Iraq.


    Readers, Please do not click on this link. It’s so full of cookies your computer will get fat and die.


    Cost estimates rise to $540 billion for Medicare plan


    January 30, 2004

    What data can you produce now? And the data you get now, would it be speculation such as the 2004 Boston Globe Article? Would it be speculation because the effects of this policy haven’t matured?

    Think about it, Leper! We’re feeling the disasterous effects of policies put into effect almost 100 years ago, yet you condemn policies from conception because of your hatred of your hatred.


    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 27, 2007 7:53 PM
    Comment #239457
    Try AFLAC. Takes care of donut holes, deductables and lost wages!
    Seniors aren’t stupid. If AFLAC could solve their problems they’d already have a policy with them (if they could afford it in the first place). Many probably do and still can’t afford it. It’s not much incentive to get lost wages replaced when you’re already retired.
    Readers, Please do not click on this link. It’s so full of cookies your computer will get fat and die.
    Readers,clicking on the link results in ONE cookie, about 10 bytes.
    Weary Willie, please upgrade your IBM PC to something more modern.
    What data can you produce now? And the data you get now, would it be speculation such as the 2004 Boston Globe Article? Would it be speculation because the effects of this policy haven’t matured?
    More data than you could ever want (which I suspect is zero) is available with a single Google search. Is August 29, 2007 recent enough for you?
    Medicare’s chief actuary had estimated the true cost of the program at $534 billion.
    We’re feeling the disasterous effects of policies put into effect almost 100 years ago, yet you condemn policies from conception because of your hatred of your hatred.
    Actually you’ve got it backwards. I see the policies Bush is advancing, do my own research and realize how disasterous they will be for our country, and my emotional response is hatred for a man that could inflict such woes on the vast majority of our citizens. Finally, my hate motivates me to do what is in my power to prevent Bush from doing more harm to the country. See how that works? I don’t condemn Bush’s policies out of hatred, I hate Bush because his policies condemn America.
    Posted by: Leper at November 27, 2007 10:05 PM
    Comment #239462

    Leper!!!
    Do you know what “ESTIMATED” means?

    are more likely to pay

    had estimated the true cost

    ESTIMATED could also be spelled BRAINWASHING, PROPAGANDA, HYPERBOLE.


    Think about it, Leper! We’re feeling the disasterous effects of policies put into effect almost 100 years ago, yet you condemn policies from conception because of your hatred of your hatred.


    Are u a woman?


    Seniors aren’t stupid.

    You are a senior?

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 27, 2007 11:02 PM
    Comment #239472
    ESTIMATED could also be spelled BRAINWASHING, PROPAGANDA, HYPERBOLE.
    Yes, I suppose you could spell it like that. That’s how Bush spells it: Less than two months after it was signed, the Bush administration officially changed its estimate to confirm closely with Foster’s own prediction, admitting the new law “would cost at least $530 billion over 10 years…
    Are u a woman?
    No, I’m not. What does that have to do with the discussion, or even with the text you quoted…and why are you quoting your own words back at me, anyway?
    You are a senior?
    No, I’m not. Since we’re discussing Medicare, I assumed it would be obvious to you how seniors are relevant to the topic. Was I wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt on that, or are you just running out of rebuttals other that suggesting that I’m a senior woman? Posted by: Leper at November 28, 2007 12:39 AM
    Comment #239540

    Just Simple fact finding probes. Trying to see a face instead of a disease or people crossing the street to avoid contact. Just asking questions.


    This medicare estimates issue is simply another manufactured scandal wannabee. Throw it on the pile of plame, torture, firing, secret prisons, gitmo, wiretapping, bank records, ect. All issues that went absolutely NOWHERE and undermined our war efforts as well.

    But neither the threat nor the withholding of information violated any criminal law, the report said.
    ”No laws were broken,” Mr. Pierce said.

    Throw some more mudd and see if it will stick why don’t we? Maybe hatred is blinding people and propelling them towards this futile attempt to discredit the man by nit picking things that would go unnoticed and considered SOP in a Democratic Party administration. A Democratic Party administration being the ultimate goal, of course.

    And I was quoting my words again because I thought you didn’t see them the first time. My bad!

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2007 6:38 PM
    Comment #239546
    This medicare estimates issue is simply another manufactured scandal wannabee.
    Although hardly manufactured, the scandal was when and how the costs were disclosed, which is in the past anyway (unlike most of the issues you mentioned, which are ongoing scandals). However, since both the Bush administration and the opponents of the Medicare bill now agree on the astronomical cost of a program (which hurts rather than helps seniors), it is hard to argue that the cost estimate was propaganda—which was your original claim.
    Posted by: Leper at November 28, 2007 7:52 PM
    Comment #239553

    I read in the links provided that most of the costs of this reform were shifted to the private sector insurance industry.
    Is that a problem? Are private sector solutions an obstacle hindering an “acceptable” solution for the health care “crisis”?

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2007 9:19 PM
    Comment #239556
    I read in the links provided that most of the costs of this reform were shifted to the private sector insurance industry.
    If you could tell me which link you got that from, I’d appreciate it.
    Is that a problem? Are private sector solutions an obstacle hindering an “acceptable” solution for the health care “crisis”?
    Since the private sector insurance industry will then turn around and charge its policy holders for the added cost, then yes—that sounds like a problem not a solution. At a minimum, it sounds like a dishonest way of trying to hide the true cost of the program.
    Posted by: Leper at November 28, 2007 10:07 PM
    Comment #239561

    I got that information from links provided in this thread by you.

    I’ve read everything you’ve presented and I draw the conclusion you haven’t.

    Are you against a private sector solution to the health care “crisis”? Or do you want a federal government program to manage health care in this country?

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 28, 2007 10:28 PM
    Comment #239581
    I got that information from links provided in this thread by you.
    I know that, I was asking for your help in narrowing down which of my links it came from, because that’s the only way I’m going to spend the time going back through them all. I’m somewhat interested in reading the excerpt you referenced in context, but not interested enough to re-read every artice searching for it. If you feel it’s important to your point, then please re-link to it (after all, you quote your own words back to me, so why not re-link the source if you’re using it to make a point?)
    Are you against a private sector solution to the health care “crisis”? Or do you want a federal government program to manage health care in this country?
    Yes, I absolutely want a federal government program to manage it. We already have a private sector “solution”, and it’s clearly not working out.
    Posted by: Leper at November 29, 2007 1:36 AM
    Comment #239647

    Government is manipulating the Health care industry using the commerce clause. Our health care problems are caused by government intervention.

    I don’t think doctors should heal and be paid with a chicken or a duck.

    I think doctors should be able to heal without paying someone else for protection.

    I think doctors could heal better if they weren’t forced to look at the bottom line when they make decisions.

    Doctors don’t receive protection when they pay malpractice insurance, they facilitate a lawyer class that survives on a deep pit of money. Solving the problem would allow the pool of money to evaporate.

    CAN’T have the money go away, could we?

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2007 9:06 PM
    Comment #239648

    Leper, I think this discussion is productive because:

    I have tried to curb my use of sarcasm.
    I have tried to project my opinion on the general public as per the rules of participation defined by WatchBlog, my voice.

    I hope I’ve demonstrated a bit of restraint, but I’m still lacking.

    My adversary is hatred.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2007 9:40 PM
    Comment #239651
    Government is manipulating the Health care industry using the commerce clause. Our health care problems are caused by government intervention.
    How so? Which intervention are you referring to?
    I don’t think doctors should heal and be paid with a chicken or a duck.

    I think doctors should be able to heal without paying someone else for protection.

    I think doctors could heal better if they weren’t forced to look at the bottom line when they make decisions.

    These, of course, are all arguments for socialized health care.
    CAN’T have the money go away, could we?
    Yes, this will be the driving force opposing any form of socialized health care. Especially the health insurance companies, who would (or should) become obsolete. The lobbying and financial power supporting the status quo is a formidable obstacle, but it can be overcome if enough people are informed.
    Posted by: Leper at November 29, 2007 10:31 PM
    Comment #239653

    Not if you inform them by way of a government program!

    Please think about where you live.

    You live in a state that cast off a huge government.

    Am I wrong?
    Every state did.

    You live in a state that considers itself an equal to the federal government.

    Any person who thinks one solution is good for all just doesn’t think often.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 29, 2007 11:07 PM
    Comment #239664
    Not if you inform them by way of a government program
    Why not? Back up your claims, don’t just give your opinion.
    Posted by: Leper at November 30, 2007 2:48 AM
    Comment #239739

    Why do you think a federal government can manage 300,000,000 health care plans?

    Isn’t that our core problem? Government? Federal Government?

    By asking me to back up my retoric with retoric only you will believe is not very productive.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2007 10:49 PM
    Comment #239745
    Why not? Back up your claims

    Exercise machines. No government mandate at all. Great benefits.


    http://www.article-5.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=96#p427

    Here’s a crime in the making:

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act’ S.1173.


    S. 1173
    To protect, consistent with Roe v . Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
    Nancy Polosi and Billary believe the right to an abortion is guaranteed by the commerce clause!
    This isn’t a law it’s a freekin’ documentary.

    SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:

    …..

    (13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

    (14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

    (15) Federal protection of a woman’s right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because—

    (A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

    (B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

    (C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

    If this passes it could truly be said that our government is trafficing in the death of the innocent.


    Posted by: Weary Willie at November 30, 2007 11:14 PM
    Comment #239789
    Exercise machines. No government mandate at all. Great benefits.
    Many exercise machines provide great benefits. Some are dangerous. Some are simply ineffective. None of them demonstrate why a government program for health care is a bad decision.
    If this passes it could truly be said that our government is trafficing in the death of the innocent.
    I’m going to skirt the actual topic of abortion (I don’t have the energy), but concerning the way the proposed legislation is constructed: Are you for or against our current laws that created the war on drugs? Every one of those laws is as (or more) unconstitutional than the proposed legislation. Are you for lifting those laws, and restoring the constitution?
    Posted by: Leper at December 1, 2007 4:27 PM
    Comment #239806

    I find it interesting that we’ve waged a war for over 30 years on drugs and haven’t made a dent that isn’t ironed out again, yet we expected to win a war in Iraq in 3 months.

    Agencies associated with the war on drugs are actually bragging about the amount of personal property that has been siezed. If those agencies were actually interested in winning the war on drugs they would be embarrassed by the amount of personal property that has been siezed. They should be embarrased by the amount of activity that goes unnoticed.

    The war on drugs should be an economic problem and it should be a psycological problem. It isn’t a police or military problem.

    Are you for lifting those laws, and restoring the constitution?

    I take this as an admittion that we have laws that are unconstitutional! We can agree on that.

    To answer that question I would say I’m for repealing any law that is unconstitutional, and so should you.

    By the way! Most of those laws were written and passed under a state of emergency. Those and many stated emergencies have perpetuated to this day. We live under many stated emergencies which gives the President power that would be unconstitutional in a time of no emergency.

    We should ask every state to submit and pass legislation asking the U.S. Congress to convene a convention via. Article 5 of the Constitution to evaluate the stated emergencies that we live under this day.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2007 11:05 PM
    Comment #239807

    Let me re-phrase that:

    We should demand legislation from our state governments instructing the U.S. Congress to convene an Article V convention to evaluate all the stated emergencies in effect today.

    SO SAYETH WE ALL!

    I’d like to hear a response from Indiana’s State Representative Nancy Dembowski on this subject.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at December 1, 2007 11:32 PM
    Comment #239813
    I take this as an admittion that we have laws that are unconstitutional! We can agree on that.
    Yes, we do agree on that.
    To answer that question I would say I’m for repealing any law that is unconstitutional, and so should you.
    I’m also for repealing any law that is unconstitutional.
    By the way! Most of those laws were written and passed under a state of emergency. Those and many stated emergencies have perpetuated to this day.
    Sounds very much like the Patriot Act and this never-ending “War On Terror”.
    Posted by: Leper at December 2, 2007 2:01 AM
    Comment #239851

    It goes back to the Korean war.

    Posted by: Weary Willie at December 2, 2007 4:10 PM
    Post a comment