Third Party & Independents Archives

The Constitution; Living, Daid, or Irrevelant

The GOP has done a good job of holding tight to corpocracy while acting as the reform agent for the citizenry. It started to come apart with Cantor getting cut in Virginia and later with the other guy, the emotional one.

Now the GOP is all about how to head Trump off at the pass and making him politically dead.

They have the option of two paths. One, is to superfund the establishment candidates, probably Kasich and Rubio and hope to spin their way to victory over Trump. Failing that, they would fund establishment candidates all the way to end and hope that Trump doesn't win or if so, by a slim margin. That would allow them to call for a brokered convention where they could 'negotiate' with Trump for their super delegate votes.

My thinking is that with Trump being the 'great negotiator' he would not negotiate and throw himself on the mercy of the voting public.

Wbere might this go? I dunno?

Fer shure it would bring into focus this thing about delegates and superdelegates. As I can tell this is something that was dreamed up around 1984.

Whether you believe the Constitution is daid or alive, can you tell me how such a thing came into being? Is it legal under law, under the Constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution about political parties or superdelegates. It seems the corpocracy has set up an unlevel playing field whereby they can influence an election based on who they want to win.

This is similar to the power they have assumed in not giving the people access to Article V Convention, which is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Does it matter that every elected official swears to uphold this living or daid thing?

Otherwise - - -

Posted by Roy Ellis at February 21, 2016 7:38 PM
Comments
Comment #402820

You know, Roy Ellis, when you have a federal government that is taking 30% of the GDP, when you have the federal government controlling the prices of many commodities, when you have the federal government dictating a retirement plan and social welfare, when the federal government thinks it’s job is to provide comforts for select groups of people, and considering the U.S. Constitution consists of only specific functions granted to the federal government, and specifically states that if it isn’t listed, it falls to the states or the people, then I would say the constitution, at this point, is irrelevant. It is now only a prop used to justify whatever can be construed from it by anyone able to convince, badger, buy, or force their will onto the people.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 22, 2016 1:27 PM
Comment #402822

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian.”——- Henry Ford

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 22, 2016 1:49 PM
Comment #402824

The only living part of the constitution is the amendment process. This idea that it can be reinterpreted to fit the times is BS made up by those who want to subvert it to further their agendas.

Posted by: dbs at February 22, 2016 2:44 PM
Comment #402825

But it’s cool to ban all Muslims from America, to close their Mosques here, and to spy on those still living within our borders.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 22, 2016 3:40 PM
Comment #402826

Rocky, way over the top, IMO. Trump has never said one word about closing mosque and/or spying on people within our borders. He did say we should temporarily stop accepting Muslims traveling on visas to this country until the security agencies can develop a policy to deal with a sector of people likely to have terrorists embedded with them.

That makes eminent good sense to me as it’s clear from previous attacks that security folks don’t have a good handle on terrorist infiltration.

Also, I can recall that when the FBI had good reason to suspect the Mafia of some dastardly deed they would send somebody in wearing a recorder. If the FBI had good reason to suspect a pastor or some Baptist Church members of some dastardly deed then, I would expect them to send in someone wearing a mike. Religious freedom and criminal behavior are two different dogs as I am aware.

I appreciate Trumps position. Had Clinton/Bush taken a more proactive position on security the Trade Centers might still be standing/operating. They might have prevented the worst attack on US territory since Pearl Harbor. Some 2k lives lost.

What about a corpocracy that would let 200k murders take place along the southern border? Worth more to the corpocracy to bring down US worker wages thru immigration than to save a few tens of thousands of lives.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 22, 2016 4:30 PM
Comment #402827

Many on WB despise Ted Cruz. This writer sums up reasons to vote for Cruz.

“You want an outsider? You want experience? You want the borders closed? You want Obamacare repealed? You want religious liberty protected? You want political correctness defied? You want military strength? You want someone who will stand against the Left instead of making deals with it? You want someone who won’t say one thing to you in English and another in Spanish? You want someone who supports policies that limit government instead of big-government subsidies? You want someone who can defeat the nightmare that is Hillary Clinton? You want someone who will nominate a Supreme Court justice who will preserve your rights and liberties? You want someone who tells it like it is and who stands for American values and American exceptionalism? You want someone the establishment despises more than anyone else?”

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/rubio-needs-to-move-aside-for-cruz-not-vice-versa/

Vote for Ted Cruz

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 22, 2016 4:30 PM
Comment #402829

Roy,

“Rocky, way over the top, IMO. Trump has never said one word about closing mosque and/or spying on people within our borders.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-closing-mosques-2015-11

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-and-carson-repeat-calls-to-spy-on-u-s-muslims/

Perhaps you can explain it to me then.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 22, 2016 4:49 PM
Comment #402830

And this;

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/13/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-state-of-the-union/

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 22, 2016 4:50 PM
Comment #402832

So, Weary & DBS, we are cognizant of various trespasses against the Constitution. Doesn’t get any attention as it’s one small drip at a time, frog in hot water, etc.

One way our ship of state could be righted is through Article V Convention. Folks could vote to reform CFR, pass a federal budget and similar. But, so few seem to give a whit.

And, we have these delegate and superdelegate votes. Nothing in the Constitution about political parties and special voters who can influence/control which candidate gets the nod. But, so few seem to give a whit.

Reasoning, I believe, is that they see no hope, no path to correct the situation. Corpocracy has us by the short hairs.

And, no one expects Trump to achieve much more than being a bully pullpit for the Constitution, should he choose to do so.

But, there is reason to hope for reform. The folks have to fight fire with fire. They can do that thru a new 3rd party designed from the gitgo to reject special interest money and push to implement REAL campaign finance reform. This would be done thru founding the party in 3 or r rules that set the party’s objectives. To change a rule would require a 66% majority vote within the national party, meaning that the rules would be near impossible to change.

Could be made stronger yet by requiring a 75% or 90% majority vote. Could be made stronger yet by having a final rule that states that if rule #__ is ever changed then the party will immediately be deregistered and cease to exist as a political party. There are ways to shunt interest money to ground.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve …

Posted by: roy ellis at February 22, 2016 5:20 PM
Comment #402833

An Article 5 convention would be useful if it was used to repeal the 11th, 16th and 17th amendments. As far as others, like balanced budget and term limits, they are already in place. All we need to implement them is an educated electorate.


Posted by: Weary Willie at February 22, 2016 5:38 PM
Comment #402834

Roy,

“And, no one expects Trump to achieve much more than being a bully pullpit for the Constitution, should he choose to do so.”

I don’t mean to be a pain in the ass, but…
Nothing Trump has suggested as a policy has even been remotely Constitutional.

And his mere suggestion that we, America, might bring back the use of the guillotine is barbaric.
Perhaps Trump should be water boarded just once to see what he thinks.
Just listening to this guy speak makes me want to go out, and if nothing else, vote against him.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 22, 2016 5:40 PM
Comment #402836


Where does Trump say he wants to bring back the guillotine?

Is this more of the Democratics manufacturing faux issues to create talking points because they can’t win on their own merit?

Also, the constitution says the federal government will guard against invasion.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 22, 2016 6:43 PM
Comment #402841

WW, we both know that the corpocracy is not going to give in on AVC. I see no path, other than a new 3rd party, to achieve AVC and CFR.

Rocky, I’m reading that Virginia wants to bring back the electric chair as liberals have managed to prevent the statehouse from procuring drugs necessary to carry out death by injection.

I am ok with that as I believe that death by electrocution has some deterrent aspects.

As I’ve oft posted I believe we should provide free transport, food and lodging to those who want to go and fight for ISIS. Provide them with boots and foul wx gear, etc. Then, seed an area of 20 sq miles of desert with fake $100 bills and when the ISIS guys rush in then smoke them proper. In other words, you might presume I’m not the guy you’d want to deliver justice to head loppers.

Royal, were Trump not in the Race, I believe I would vote for Bernie. IMO, at this point in time we need a ‘big man’. Somebody who can ‘negotiate’ with NK, Russia, China, ME dictators, etc. I believe Trump is the best candidate to do that. I’m really narvous about 11 more months of the Obama admin.

What if Turkey decides to duke it out with Russia or NK decides to go at SK? Eleven months is a long time to set on a powder keg, IMO.

IMO, Russia is going to do everything possible to show the world that NATO only exist on paper. They are looking good so far.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at February 22, 2016 8:46 PM
Comment #402842

Michael Hayden has a new book out, ‘Playing To The Edge’, and says he doesn’t believe Trump could implement water boarding as agency folks would refuse to return to that after being thrown under the bus by the Obama admin.

Trump and Hannity will discuss for an hour starting at 10pm est on fox.

Posted by: roy ellis at February 22, 2016 9:58 PM
Comment #402843

Trump is defining himself as a COMMON SENSE Conservative. Imagine that!

I don’t believe he would be any worse or any better than others who have gone before. But, he has a big personality, can voice big ideas and would be a great bully pullpit spokesman for the COMMON SENSE individuals of the citizenry.

Posted by: roy ellis at February 22, 2016 11:09 PM
Comment #402844

Waterboarding is a clear cut example of a war crime. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention, a humanitarian international set of protocols to which the US is a signatory.

No one was “thrown under the bus” by Obama for waterboarding because waterboarding is torture. It is morally and legally wrong, and anyone advocating it deserves to face the consequences of their terrible actions. US leadership in the world relies upon our being an example for others to follow.

Trump is a liar, racist, misogynist, and xenophobe. This is well documented. Quotes showing this are legion. He is also a well known Birther. His hateful, unjamerican nativism and his appeal to authoritarianism are as close as anything we have ever seen to the rise of the Nazis and the Fascists, but now it is happening in this country.

Posted by: phx8 at February 22, 2016 11:27 PM
Comment #402845

And the idea that Trump is a ‘common sense conservative’ is ludicrous. He has repeatedly claimed Global Warming is a hoax started. That is not common sense by any possible measure.

He claims:

“I am going to be the greatest jobs president that God ever created. Remember that. Don’t believe those phony numbers, when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number’s probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.”
2/9/16

The idea that he could successfully implement an economic program based upon conspiracies theories about widely accepted economic statistics is, once again, ludicrous.

Declaring the US will deport 11 million people is equally ludicrous. The cost alone would be prohibitive. Furthermore, the idea that the US would deport people for the crime of wanting to be Americans makes no sense. Nothing could do more to reinforce the nativist, Nazi/Fascist feeling of this than mass deportation. And by the way, Mexico does not “send” people here. They come for work. They come for opportunity.

There is no intersection between “common sense,” and hatred and the promotion of bigotry and intolerance, regardless of whether that is directed at Muslims, Mexicans, other foreigners, gays, blacks, or women.


Posted by: phx8 at February 23, 2016 12:18 AM
Comment #402846

“Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.”

Trump makes the appeal of the authoritarian, that he alone is so strong and so smart that he will solve all problems simply by using his superior leadership and negotiating skills. He will make great deals. The details of policies are merely matters for managers.

Posted by: phx8 at February 23, 2016 12:55 AM
Comment #402847

Roy

There may be an article in the works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOkM1RW17yk

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2016 5:36 AM
Comment #402848

Should be article V.

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2016 5:37 AM
Comment #402849

Torture? Right..

Does anyone remember the guy that volunteered to be waterboarded to make a point?

He laid down. They poured water on him. He got back up. He shook himself off and he said he was afraid. Then he walked away.

Torture? Yea, Right!

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 23, 2016 6:52 AM
Comment #402854

Phx8, as a liberal you are the last person who should be accusing others of being authoritarian.

And, despite your constant attacks on your fellow Americans, love of country and putting it and your fellow Americans first is NOT a bad thing.

He11, if even a quarter of what you say were true, we’d need to show our papers just to leave our homes.

Posted by: kctim at February 23, 2016 9:32 AM
Comment #402856

I’ll go with what Laurence O’Donnell said regarding what liberals did to upset Republican so much:

“What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party? I’ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.”

Written by: Lawrence O’Donnell Jr.

Liberal and proud of it!!

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 11:38 AM
Comment #402857

WW,
Waterboarding most certainly is torture:

“Waterboarding is a form of water torture in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death. Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.”
Wikipedia

kctim,
“Phx8, as a liberal you are the last person who should be accusing others of being authoritarian.”

I have absolutely no idea why you would say that. There is no connection between being a liberal and favoring authoritarianism.

Love of country is all well and good. The problem arises when the love of an abstraction becomes uncritical. When a country becomes “exceptional,” trouble follows, because now the rules no longer apply, and even the worst kinds of violations become acceptable, especially when fear arises.

History is full of authoritarian countries which thought they were exceptional. They all thought they were justified to commit horrible atrocities and human rights violations, to practice racism and bigotry and hatred of foreigners who were obviously not exceptional.

We are seeing that today, in this country. We see people following Trump (and Cruz and Rubio) and dismissing waterboarding as if it were no big deal. We see them calling Trump a “common sense conservative” even as he routinely insults his political competitors, promotes conspiracy theories about the economy and Global Warming, and proclaims he and only he will “make America great again.”

Ever wonder what that means? “Make America great again.” Think about it. First, it implies America is not great right now, but that it used to be. By virtually any standard we are much better off now than we were when Obama took office. And even Trump very publicly destroyed Jeb and George W Bush in the last debate, standing in the middle of what should have been a Bush stronghold, South Caroline, and calling the invasion of Iraq “a big fat mistake,” while accusing Bush of lying about WMD’s, and of failing to keep America safe on 9/11.

So if that was not a great America, when was it great? And why?

Trump makes the appeal of the demagogue. He appeals to prejudices and emotions, and stokes fear and anger, with almost no common sense baked into the fruitcake.

Posted by: phx8 at February 23, 2016 12:17 PM
Comment #402858

Speaks, it is silly to assume that a liberal hack like O’Donnell has any clue as to why the right is “upset” with liberalism.

The right to vote and ending segregation are done deals and have nothing to do with why people reject liberalism today. Social Security and Medicare are accepted by the majority and those against them are so because of the mandate, not because they ‘hate’ the elderly, the poor or someones race. People don’t reject the clean air or water, the debate is about over regulation, not for no regulation at all.

In order for it to work at all, liberalism requires strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, and at the expense of personal freedom. Because those on the right value personal freedom more than the desires of society, they butt heads with liberals.
To believe all the BS and hyperbole from people like O’Donnell does nothing but further divide us.

Posted by: kctim at February 23, 2016 12:20 PM
Comment #402859

kct, it is silly for a “conservative hack” like you to have any clue as to what a liberal is or what they stand for.

You are the only one attempting to divide us. Your constant derision of “liberalism”, besides being without factual credibility, just comes off as some kind of nonsensical diatribe that doesn’t contribute to a rational discussion.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 12:32 PM
Comment #402860

Ok Speaks. Against my better judgement, I tried for reasonable discussion.

Enjoy your little ones and have a good day.

Posted by: kctim at February 23, 2016 12:41 PM
Comment #402861

kctim
I think you may have struck a nerve. Lol

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2016 12:45 PM
Comment #402862

kct, you also. Next time try not to start out with “you know what the problems with liberals are” but with something like “here is what should be done about the problem we are attempting to discuss”. You see if you begin a discussion with an attack on an individual you end up where you are now.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 12:47 PM
Comment #402863

You know what they say about good intentions.

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2016 12:47 PM
Comment #402864

dbs, struck a nerve? No not at all. Just tired of reading crazy diatribes against a political ideology without any factual statements.

Now how about defending conservatism instead of launching attacks on any opposing ideology?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 12:49 PM
Comment #402865

And you know what they say about there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 12:51 PM
Comment #402866

The statement by Daniel Webster perfectly sums up modern day liberals/progressives.


“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Daniel Webster

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2016 1:02 PM
Comment #402867

DBS, yeah I know but even though it almost always bites me in the rear, for some reason I still try.
They don’t want to hear that the problem is liberalism, they would rather pretend it’s the false stereotypes they create.

Posted by: kctim at February 23, 2016 1:03 PM
Comment #402868

Speaks

My vision is 20/20, and liberal/ progressives will never be my master.

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2016 1:07 PM
Comment #402871

You guys already have a master. It’s the right wing nonsense that attempts to pigeon hole fellow Americans as no good liberals or whatever other ideology you want to use to embellish your dislike of anyone opposing your opinions. Your slavish comments only cement your servitude to this nonsense punditry.

In returning to the discussion prompted by this author, the Constitution is a living document. It breathed the life of a new government into a diverse group of colonies. It continues to breath life into our government with thoughtful discussions by conservatives, liberals, libertarians, independents and yes even “strict” constitutional scholars regarding the implications of today’s needs and how that affects the tenets of the constitution. It is only through thoughtful discussion of this matter that we can remain a country of disparate ideologies that come together as one. E pluribus unum, indeed. Alive and well.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 2:19 PM
Comment #402872

Common sense conservative, it does fit Trump when you consider his two main competitors Cruz and Rubio, oh and Carson. Bit what does it say about conservatives in general when Donald Trump is considered the one with common sense?

His hateful, unjamerican nativism and his appeal to authoritarianism are as close as anything we have ever seen to the rise of the Nazis and the Fascists, but now it is happening in this country.

Whoa phx8 are you suggesting the conservatives of America today are reminiscent of the people of Germany in the late 20’s? Gotta be careful when I voiced my opinion regarding this issue I was meany with some seriously harsh criticism by our conservative friends and a few of the more liberal commentators here on WB. IMHO the parallels are eerily similar to Europe,especially Italy and Germany but including England and France of the 20’s and early 30’s.

Kinda scary isn’t it. All it takes is one man that has the charisma to pull it off, the flair to get those who would believe “common sense” is the answer to the problems of today. Hell just tell them “personal freedom” “liberty” and they will follow him into authoritarianism faster than we can vote.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 23, 2016 2:25 PM
Comment #402873

Speaks


The amendment process is the ONLY living part of the constitution.

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2016 2:30 PM
Comment #402875

Of course you were met with harsh criticism J2, it’s absolute nonsense to suggest those on the right are the ones favoring and enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

And the conservatives of America today have nothing on how liberals were, and still are, with Obama.

Posted by: kctim at February 23, 2016 2:47 PM
Comment #402876

dbs, If you think it is dead, that is your prerogative. There others among us who do not make that same observation and will argue to use a judgment process not only not provided by the authors of the constitution but not conceivable to them either.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 2:47 PM
Comment #402877

Liberal and proud of it!!
Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 11:38 AM

An amusing rewrite of history by Lawrence O’Donnell Jr.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 3:55 PM
Comment #402878

phx8 writes; “By virtually any standard we are much better off now than we were when Obama took office.”

He needs to raise his standards.

Obama gave us more debt, more poverty, more regulations, less individual freedom, higher medical costs, more class envy, more racism, more cop haters, more religion haters…and so much more.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 3:59 PM
Comment #402879

j2t2,
“Whoa phx8 are you suggesting the conservatives of America today are reminiscent of the people of Germany in the late 20’s?”

Yes. And I do not make that comparison lightly. For a long time I was a student of German culture and language, and as we all know, eventually the same culture that produced so much great literature and music also produced the nightmares of last century. The Germans thought they were every bit as exceptional as Americans today. They were very patriotic. They thought they were superior.

Today we are seeing conservatism stagger into some dangerous territory. Today the Republican Senate made it clear they would no longer bother with to observe the Constitution. They flatly refused to “advise and consent” by holding hearings for any Obama SCOTUS nominee. What this means is conservatives no longer consider themselves bound by the results of elections- in this case, the election of 2012, when we all knew the SCOTUS balance could be up for grabs. They seem utterly blind to the fact that Democrats may choose to do the same thing in return. Why bother doing anything that might help conservatives, when Democrats can simply wait for another election? It has the potential to completely undermine the SCOTUS.

We’re seeing the rise of an authoritarian figure in Trump, a theocrat in Cruz, and a Neocon in Rubio who promotes aggression abroad at every turn. Cruz and Rubio are moving further and further to the right, even as Trump becomes even more and more extreme in his rhetoric. This is very bad for the country. Suddenly it is perfectly reasonable among conservatives to deport 11 million people. Trump openly expresses his misogyny, says awful things about Mexicans, tweets a horrendous racial tweet, disparages a POW, and there are no consequences. He promotes birtherism and other conspiracies, and they are now accepted by conservatives as normal.

This is not going to end well for any of us.

Posted by: phx8 at February 23, 2016 4:16 PM
Comment #402880

It would be refreshing if phx8 learned to distinguish between RHINO’s and Conservatives.

I can easily find differences between mainstream Democrats and Far Left Dingbats.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 4:30 PM
Comment #402881

RF, can you explain why you believe Mr. O’Donnell has “re-written” history?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 4:37 PM
Comment #402882

phx8, Although Mitch seems pretty adamant about it now, I believe that there will be some consideration of the nominee once President Obama announces that. Seems as though the Republican leadership is counting on their electorates complete dislike of a sitting President’s constitutional obligation to nominate a successor for a SC Justice. There is no consideration regarding their constitutional obligation, that is not the confirmation of the nominee, but the process of holding hearings and then voting on the confirmation in a yes or no vote. Their miscalculation of President Obama and his popularity once again clouds their decision making and could lead to detrimental observations by the American electorate. There are even some Republican Senators calling for the constitutional obligation of advice and consent being used as intended.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 4:40 PM
Comment #402883

“the election of 2012, when we all knew the SCOTUS balance could be up for grabs”

But it wasn’t ‘up for grabs’ in the election of 2014? Come on Phx8.

“This is not going to end well for any of us.”

Please, it’s not wrong to love your country and it’s not wrong to expect your government to put the safety of your fellow countrymen before others.
Trump won’t be any more of an authoritarian figure than Obama has been.
Even IF Cruz wanted a theocracy, he couldn’t get it.
Rubio isn’t going to start WWIII.

Geez man, at least all these kind of ‘warnings’ about Obama were based on actual possibilities. Redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, more gun control, more government spending, more government mandates etc…

Posted by: kctim at February 23, 2016 4:47 PM
Comment #402884

Speak, I appreciate you’re wanting to know actual history rather than liberal fairy-tales. You can do your own homework on this. Study just the Civil Rights movement to being to understand.

“By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement.

“The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting the Deep South to the Republican Party; in that year most Senatorial Republicans supported the Act (most of the opposition came from Southern Democrats)”

Wikipedia

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 4:53 PM
Comment #402885

RF, ah yes the old dixiecrat theory. Dixiecrats were not liberals, I didn’t think I really needed to tell you that. The true liberal Democrats were in favor of the Act. Now want to try another one? You seem to have a very narrow view of history that only includes what you want it to. Conservative fairy tales?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 5:00 PM
Comment #402886

LOL…It is always fun to read Speak’s spinning of history. Which “true liberal Democrats” were in favor of Civil Rights? How can we recognize a “true liberal Democrat” from that era?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 5:04 PM
Comment #402887

“How can we recognize a “true liberal Democrat” from that era?”

Treat everyone equally? Sensible spending? Pro 2nd Amendment? Personal responsibility? Individual liberty?
Today they are called moderate Republicans.

Posted by: kctim at February 23, 2016 5:07 PM
Comment #402888

RF, you wrote it yourself. “By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election.” Would Truman be a good enough liberal Democrat for you? I will tell you what you told me. “You can do your own homework”. Now is this a one trick pony that you are presenting or do you have more to say about someone re-writing history? There were plenty of issues that Mr. O’Donnell wrote about.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 5:09 PM
Comment #402889

OH, MY, Goodness Speak. Truman was rejected by what Mr. O’Donnell described as Liberal Dems because Truman didn’t support the liberal position promoting segregation. Wake up, sober up, and read comprehensively.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 5:16 PM
Comment #402890

RF, what liberal democrats promoted segregation? I don’t mean dixiecrats, I know you like to point to them and say see they did it too so it’s OK for me to feel that way.

Here is what President Truman did:
President Truman signs Executive Order 9981, which states, “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”

Ain’t Executive Orders great!

He was opposed by southern dixiecrats for this, these dixiecrats were not, I repeat were not, liberals. Nothing you write can change that. In fact the dixiecrats all moved over to the Republican party and that is what we face today. The same homophobic, misogynistic, racist behavior in a new suit.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 5:28 PM
Comment #402891

speaks

“dbs, If you think it is dead, that is your prerogative.”

No it’s a fact.


“There others among us who do not make that same observation and will argue to use a judgment process not only not provided by the authors of the constitution but not conceivable to them either.”


Sorry, but I will trust the men who wrote the document, and their intent, as opposed to those who choose to turn it into malleable document that can be reinterpreted at a whim to suit their political flavor of the day.

If what you say was true there would have been no need for the amendment process.

Posted by: dbs at February 23, 2016 5:44 PM
Comment #402892

RF, so how many other non-instances of Mr. O’Donnell re-writing history do you want to present. There were many more issues he talked about besides the Civil Rights Act. Anything else I can debunk for you?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 5:45 PM
Comment #402893

Sorry Speaks. I can’t keep up with your rewrite of history. You’re not good at playing with words Speak…stick with playing with the grandkids.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 5:48 PM
Comment #402894

dbs, the need for an amendment process was predicated on the ability of Congress to act accordingly. We have a dysfunctional Congress unable to do anything because, because, because well Obama!

You go ahead and trust the men that wrote the document, as I do too. It’s just now it’s a little difficult to ask them what they think about a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute and how that affects the 2nd Amendment. And so many, many more obvious changes that have occurred over the last 230+ years.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 5:49 PM
Comment #402895

RF, got it. So you were just blowing smoke when you said Mr. O’Donnell re-wrote history. Thought so, just wanted to prove it to you. Thanks.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 23, 2016 5:51 PM
Comment #402896

“Truman was rejected by what Mr. O’Donnell described as Liberal Dems because Truman didn’t support the liberal position promoting segregation.”

I have no idea what that sentence means. What is clear from history is that Truman was courageous in his promotion of Civil Rights. As Speaks points out, he issued executive orders integrating the armed services as well as the federal civil service. He also established the first Civil Rights Commission and almost lost the 1952 election when he insisted on a Civil Rights platform at the Democratic convention resulting in a walk out by Southern Democrats and a third party (Dixiecrat) challenge led by Strom Thurmond.


Posted by: Rich at February 23, 2016 6:25 PM
Comment #402897

Correction, it was the 1948 election that Truman won after sparking the Dixiecrat challenge.

Posted by: Rich at February 23, 2016 6:28 PM
Comment #402898

Party voting record on passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

By party (yea, nay)

The original House version:[20]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

In every vote, the percentage of nay votes by Dems outnumbered the nay votes by Republicans. Is this the same “liberal” party of Roosevelt and Truman?

Speak…please identify the liberal votes Mr. O’Donnell is writing about and how he makes his distinction.

Liberals are anxious to divorce themselves from history and we all understand why. Yet, they lump all Conservatives into the Republican ideology.


Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 6:49 PM
Comment #402899

Let’s take a look at party vote by region. It seems pretty clear that the issue was a regional one.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Posted by: Rich at February 23, 2016 6:53 PM
Comment #402900

Listen to Senator Biden in 1992.

“President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not – and not – name a nominee until after the November election is completed…”

http://constitution.com/video-listen-to-obamas-joke-about-scalias-death/

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 6:58 PM
Comment #402901

Rich, when is the Democrat Party not the Democrat Party?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 7:09 PM
Comment #402902

Royal,

The Democratic Party split over the issue of segregation. From your own link: “The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting the Deep South to the Republican Party…”

Posted by: Rich at February 23, 2016 7:36 PM
Comment #402903

Wasn’t this the same party of Roosevelt and Truman Rich?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 7:40 PM
Comment #402904

Lawrence O’Donell parsed for the amusement of my great friend Speaks.

Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. (Not the Democrats) Republicans heavily involved.

Liberals created Social Security which is nothing but a Ponzi Scheme (Democrats not liberals)

Liberals ended segregation. (Not the Democrats) Republicans heavily involved.

Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act (Not the Democrats) Republicans heavily involved.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 23, 2016 7:57 PM
Comment #402906

kctim,
There are two dangerous scenarios I can see. First, Trump wins nomination and then the White House, and then finds himself powerless and unable to act. We have already seen how Trump reacts to losing. Imagine him winning the White House, only to find neither party has any intention of doing anything he asks. The GOP is mostly owned by the Koch Brothers and hedge fund managers and other billionaires, not him. He will not take that sitting down, and neither will his supporters.

The second scenario is possibly worse. Trump wins the most delegates, but not a majority. After the first round, they conduct a vote, and the GOP backs Rubio. People seem to forget that, just because the Koch Brothers and other big money donors do not own Trump doesn’t mean they can’t sway everything down ballot, down to the state and even local level. And they like Rubio. He is a Neocon and he is for sale.

In this scenario, Trump runs as an independent. Again, don’t forget what kind of personality we are dealing with here. Trump would run a scorched earth campaign. If no presidential candidate earns a majority of the electoral votes, the election reverts to the House; that is, the GOP controlled House. Hello, Marco Rubio.

Rubio would be every bit as disastrous as Trump. He talks a extremely aggressive foreign policy, and advocates confrontation with… well, pretty much everyone. He would tear up the non-nuclear proliferation agreement with Iran on the first day (he says), which means he would also be tearing up our relationships with allies and negotiating partners- the UK, France, Germany, China, and Russia. That’s just for openers. He wants to roll back relations with Cuba, confront Russia over the Ukraine by shipping arms, and do something or other about ISIS mumble mumble.

He is insecure and inexperienced. He would be advised to do the same as George W Bush- ignore the popular vote and go hard, hard right. That means tax cuts, deregulation, and more military spending and more wars, which in turn means more deficits and more national debt, and the deregulation will mean yet another economic crash coming out of the financial sector.

Posted by: phx8 at February 23, 2016 8:32 PM
Comment #402908

speaks

“It’s just now it’s a little difficult to ask them what they think about a weapon that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute and how that affects the 2nd Amendment.”

Not if you understand the 2nd amendment.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2016 5:34 AM
Comment #402910

dbs, and that would be your opinion. I don’t attempt to refute that contention, it is yours. I and many more like me would be more interested in their view points today not the ones from over 200 years ago. That was then this is now. You are free to quote the words they used to describe their intentions then, that has no bearing on now, no matter how much you would attempt to convince us otherwise. Much has changed and much will change in the future. Your reliance on their words while quaint, doesn’t provide me and others like me the direction we need. I look to our current statesmen for that direction. President Obama expresses most of my contentions on this however I would go a lot further than he does. It would not bother me if every gun in private possession was confiscated today. You see I don’t own a gun and have no intention of owning a gun. You are free to support the causes you want to, I will support the ones I need to.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 9:29 AM
Comment #402911

RF, now you are getting words confused. You are using Democrat and Republican instead of Liberal and Conservative as Mr. O’Donnell did in his statement. Liberal Democrats and Liberal Republicans helped to usher in and cement the causes you attribute to only Republicans. While I admire your ability to attempt to parse the contentions to suit your political ideology, it is woefully inadequate. Theodore Roosevelt was a Liberal Republican there were many more like him. His rise to the Presidency was opposed by Republicans in New York and in fact his political career was relegated to an inconspicuous nomination as Vice President where his policies would not come to fruition. Then McKinley was assassinated and TR assumed the office of Presidency. He then used the “bully pulpit” to bring some of his Liberal ideas and policies to fruition. Thank goodness for Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democrats, without them we would not have the great progress that has helped this country to attain the greatness that it has.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 9:40 AM
Comment #402913

Phx8

You’re predictions are so dire only because they are based on your politics rather than the reality of the situation. All of this 1%, racist, sexist, Nazi and corporate overlords BS is really affecting your all’s judgement.

IF Trump somehow becomes President he will not be ‘powerless and unable to act.’ He is not some ideologue, more than likely he would be flexible and be willing to take what he can get from Congress.
He isn’t going to alienate Congress by rushing signature legislation or doing all he can to bypass them.
It is more likely that a Trump presidency would be a lot like Bill Clinton, and nothing like Obama.

If Trump runs as an independent it will split the GOP vote and they will lose the election. Doesn’t matter if you guys run Queen Hillary or your Mini-Marx, that person would be the next President.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an aggressive foreign policy if it is to the benefit of our country and its people. We have had them in the past and we are all still here.
Tearing up a weak, ineffective one sided agreement with Iran is not going to destroy our relationship with any of our allies. Sure, it would cause friction with those profiting from the agreement, but it wouldn’t destroy anything.
The situation in the Ukraine needs to be addressed and groups like ISIS must eventually be dealt with.

I definitely agree with you that Rubio is inexperienced and is not ready to be President, but as the election and re-election of Obama has proven, experience and competent are NOT what people want in a candidate.

Yes, he would support tax cuts, but no matter how often you say it, tax cuts are not a ‘hard hard right’ position for one to hold. Regulations and military spending are a normal back and forth for every administration and Rubio is not going to deregulate the country or increase spending a hundred fold. Rubio isn’t going to start WWIII.

This is all just hyperbole and simple fear-mongering you are using to the social changes you want.

Posted by: kctim at February 24, 2016 10:16 AM
Comment #402914

Speaks

The words they penned 200 years ago are what we use to interpret the constitution. Times and technology may have changed, but human nature, and evil haven’t and never will. They knew what they were doing. The amendment process was put in place to allow for change, but it was made very difficult so a small majority could never easily take away the rights of their political opponents. How would you take back your rights from a govt that has disarmed you, and has no intention flowing the law, or the constitution ?

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2016 10:46 AM
Comment #402915

dbs, I don’t worry about a government taking my rights away. I can appreciate that you do however would ask you to not surmise that I am concerned with that. I am more concerned with government accomplishing what I want now and not focus on what was needed 230+ years ago.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 11:01 AM
Comment #402917
How would you take back your rights from a govt that has disarmed you, and has no intention flowing the law, or the constitution ?

You mean like those conservatives in the Senate are doing right now over the SCOTUS appointment, dbs? The answer is to throw them out of office as they cannot represent the will of the people by not doing what they were elected to do. You can vote them out if Congress doesn’t throw them out.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 24, 2016 11:09 AM
Comment #402919
Please, it’s not wrong to love your country and it’s not wrong to expect your government to put the safety of your fellow countrymen before others. Trump won’t be any more of an authoritarian figure than Obama has been. Even IF Cruz wanted a theocracy, he couldn’t get it. Rubio isn’t going to start WWIII.

Geez man, at least all these kind of ‘warnings’ about Obama were based on actual possibilities. Redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, more gun control, more government spending, more government mandates etc…
Posted by: kctim at February 23, 2016 4:47 PM

I love you man, you make our case better than we ever could kctim. This framing, lets call it “kctim’s appeasement framing” is exactly how the Nazi’s and Fascist came to power in the ‘30’s. He won’t do that, he is anti communist, he won’t get it, It’s the minorities that will take our freedom away. Meanwhile the repubs suppress the vote….. well here is a list for your perusal.

http://reverbpress.com/politics/wonkery/might-fascist/

Posted by: j2t2 at February 24, 2016 11:31 AM
Comment #402921

J2

They are representing the will of the people. The people who elected them to stop Obama agenda.

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2016 12:21 PM
Comment #402922

Speaks

I know you’re not concerned with that. Should the democrats lose the WH, and not gain back the Senate, you will be singing a different tune.

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2016 12:25 PM
Comment #402923

dbs, Hey how about looking into that crystal ball of yours and getting me some winning lottery numbers. You seem to think you know a lot about me. Given we have had limited interaction on a political blog I wouldn’t put much into your ability to think what tune I would be singing at any given time. Now don’t tell me you know what liberals like me want because you don’t.

How about explaining how true conservatism and strict adherence to the constitution is going to help our country advance for us and our posterity. Or is it just as j2t2 would say another name for fascism?

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 12:35 PM
Comment #402924

You have truly jumped the shark, J2. He11, you may have even cleared Speaks with that nonsense.

You do realize that whole list is formed off of nothing more than stereotypes and hyperbole, right? And that even though it is trying to attack the right, it actually points out how ‘democratic socialism’ is ‘fascist’?

Give up your pretend world, J2, come back and join us here in the real world.

Posted by: kctim at February 24, 2016 12:36 PM
Comment #402925

Speaks

Remember, a Republican president with a Republican Senate will be able to fill emty judicial seats with only a simple majority. Which means democrats will not be able to block them. You can thank Harry Reid for that.

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2016 12:36 PM
Comment #402926

kct, you seem to be stuck on trying to vindicate your preposterous positions by attempting to draw some conclusion that I should regret Harry Reid’s decisions, now that is truly delusional.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that there will be a Republican President and a Republican Senate just yet. There is this thing called an election that will be happening later this year. We have all seen all to often in the past 8 years how this crowing and chest thumping doesn’t turn out well for you and your ideologues. Tell us again how you guys won the Senate and House in 2014 and have done so much to help our country. Never mind that you can’t. All they have become is obstructionists but if that is what trips your trigger have at it. I will seek more effective governance from the candidates I support.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 12:45 PM
Comment #402927

last comment directed to kct and dbs.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 12:47 PM
Comment #402928

Speaks


“My crystal ball” lol ? Bet you’re killin em on open mic night. Actually I don’t need a crystal ball. All I need to do is look to the past, and remember all the crying and hand wringing by the left from 2000 to 2009. While I can’t predict the outcome of the coming election, the past is a pretty good indicator of the future. So like I said IF you lose one, and don’t regain the other, the crying by the left is sure to be epic.

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2016 1:05 PM
Comment #402929

Speaks, I made no mention of Reid. I believe Hillary will be President, and I believe it’s quite possible for liberals to pick up enough seats to have slight advantage in the Senate.

Republicans actually did win in 2014 and they have helped the country by doing exactly what their voters wanted them to do: effective governance through checks and balances on the democrats agenda.

Posted by: kctim at February 24, 2016 1:21 PM
Comment #402930
They are representing the will of the people. The people who elected them to stop Obama agenda.

The people elected Obama, dbs, which seems to be what many on the right have overlooked. Confirmation hearings are part of the job description these guys have sworn to uphold. By just refusing to do this they are violating their oath IMHO.

It is disappointing that those who consistently bring up the constitution as the end all and be all of governing can so easily disavow it when it benefits them. It speaks to a lack of principles and integrity on their part. If you choose to accept the constitution is being followed by these guys because the constitution doesn’t say they have to do anything but advise and consent I would suggest you be ready to accept this position when Obama bypasses the Senate based a strict interpretation of the constitution.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 24, 2016 1:22 PM
Comment #402931

“when Obama bypasses the Senate based a strict interpretation of the constitution.”


LOL!!!
I seriously doubt that anybody is worried about that ever happening.

Posted by: kctim at February 24, 2016 1:36 PM
Comment #402932

J2

He can make a recess appointment. Nothing more.

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2016 1:37 PM
Comment #402933

Love how are friends on the left that regularly use the constitution as a door mat, are now up in arms about it when it appears their mesiah isn’t going to get his way. Lol

Posted by: dbs at February 24, 2016 1:57 PM
Comment #402934

“Love how are friends on the left that regularly use the constitution as a door mat, are now up in arms about it when it appears their mesiah isn’t going to get his way”

Even funnier DBS, is once they actually understand what the Constitution says and see just how silly their talking-points have been, they are going to fall back on the race card. In fact, I believe Sanders is already starting with that nonsense.

Posted by: kctim at February 24, 2016 2:09 PM
Comment #402935

dbs,”All I need to do is look to the past” thankfully your past is not my past. From 2000 to 2009 I enjoyed the bounty of our country and never once spent an iota of time worrying that one man could cause our country to devolve into something I did not want. I was not disappointed. I will not be disappointed with the outcome of this year’s election. You see unlike the conservatives on this blog I hold a much higher opinion of this country and it’s ability to maintain it’s leadership in the world today and tomorrow. To bad you are unable to join me in that opinion, your loss.

kct, again with the mesiah crap? President Obama will nominate a candidate for the SC Justice. I expect the nomination to make it exceedingly difficult for the Republicans to maintain there position of “it’s not our job” when it comes to using advice and consent in regards to this nominee. This will come to pass because it is simple for him to manipulate the mind of the simple. They always fall for his Brer Rabbit ploy when he pleads with them not to throw him into the Briar Patch. But then they do and he walks away noting that he grew up in that Briar Patch and they were fools to believe otherwise. Let’s just wait and see who he nominates and how things play out from there. Playing the race card again? Please kct don’t throw us into that Briar Patch. You guys never learn.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 2:27 PM
Comment #402936

For those unfamiliar with southern folklore.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 2:29 PM
Comment #402937

kct, sorry to misquote you about mesiah. It was after all dbs. I know it’s not nice to say, but you see all of you conservatives look alike to me sometimes.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 2:55 PM
Comment #402939

Sanders is throwing you guys into that ‘Briar Patch.’

http://nypost.com/2016/02/24/bernie-sanders-racism-behind-efforts-to-thwart-obama-on-supreme-court-pick/

Posted by: kctim at February 24, 2016 3:09 PM
Comment #402940

kct, you misunderstand being thrown anywhere. Bernie Sanders is free to point to what he considers obvious racism. You are free to either ignore that or ridicule it but he does have a point. President Obama is the first President of this country with a mixed race ethnicity. Please try to read the tale of Brer Rabbit and gain some idea of why you all are so easily distracted by your own fiendish ideas. Or maybe not, that wouldn’t make it as much fun to observe you all going about your business. Carry on.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 3:16 PM
Comment #402942

Sanders is just making a cynical ploy for the Black vote in SC. It won’t work and it isn’t worth any more of our attention. Having lost to Clinton in Nevada, Sanders now has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination (contrary to my predictions from earlier).

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 24, 2016 3:36 PM
Comment #402943

WP, while Sanders may not have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination, I expect he is not done yet. He has many important contributions to make moving closer to the convention. His popularity will be carried into the convention by his supporters and he might just be able to bring some of those along with him to support the eventual nominee. One other possibility would be an untimely demise of HRC if she is nominated (who else?). There are a lot of things that can happen between now and November. Bernie Sanders is and will be respected for what he brings to the discussion of his candidacy. I have always considered his opinions formidable and thought provoking.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 3:45 PM
Comment #402944

Yes, but when he uses his newfound political capital to influence the Democratic Party platform I guarantee that he will not devote much of it to racial issues. The premise of his campaign was on economic inequality and the corruption of politics by campaign contributions. Those issues are going to be his focus, not racism. Hence, I believe his accusation of racism is not worthy of our attention.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 24, 2016 4:16 PM
Comment #402946

WP, I agree but I don’t see it as a cynical ploy either. He has a long history of advocating for Civil Rights that includes the plight of black people and their challenges. I will listen to whatever Bernie Sanders has to say today and will say in the future. I sense your disappointment in the proceedings of this primary process. It would seem that there is no candidate that you can now support. That is too bad since your political acumen is valuable to the process of election. Perhaps there might be a way for you to address your grievances and overcome the futility that you seem to be experiencing. As Henry David Thoreau once said, “If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.”

I look forward to your input during this primary process and the upcoming general election.

Posted by: Speak4all at February 24, 2016 4:34 PM
Comment #402948

Speaks writes; “They always fall for his Brer Rabbit ploy when he pleads with them not to throw him into the Briar Patch.”

LOL…

“`Tu’n me loose, fo’ I kick de natal stuffin’ outen you,’ sez Brer Rabbit, sezee, but de Tar-Baby, she ain’t sayin’ nuthin’. She des hilt on, en de Brer Rabbit lose de use er his feet in de same way. Brer Fox, he lay low. Den Brer Rabbit squall out dat ef de Tar-Baby don’t tu’n ‘im loose he butt ‘er cranksided. En den he butted, en his head got stuck. Den Brer Fox, he sa’ntered fort’, lookin’ dez ez innercent ez wunner yo’ mammy’s mockin’-birds.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 24, 2016 6:02 PM
Comment #402949

Charges against Gov. Rick Perry dismissed. Much ado about nothing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 24, 2016 6:35 PM
Comment #402950

I read that about Rick Perry, Royal Flush. I knew it would happen that way. The woman should be brought up on charges since she is proving she is putting people through this for political purposes.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 24, 2016 6:40 PM
Comment #402953

RF

Ya, we all knew the charges were politically motivated anyway.

Posted by: dbs at February 25, 2016 5:15 AM
Comment #402954
Love how are friends on the left that regularly use the constitution as a door mat, are now up in arms about it when it appears their mesiah isn’t going to get his way. Lol

Laughing, yet missing the point dbs? Why not laugh at the conservatives who also use the constitution as a doormat whilst claiming to be staunch supporters and defenders of the constitution? The low integrity conservatives who use the constitution when it benefits them and forget about it when it doesn’t. After all it is these unprincipled politicians and their movement followers who are the joke.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 25, 2016 9:42 AM
Comment #402958

To be honest, they claim to be ‘supporters and defenders’ of the actual constitution, not the reinterpreted liberal version of the constitution.
Which is what brings us to debating whether it’s an ‘irrelevant living’ document to be ignored, or a ‘dead’ document that should be respected and honored.

Posted by: kctim at February 25, 2016 10:31 AM
Comment #402959

j2

“After all it is these unprincipled politicians and their movement followers who are the joke.

Guess that’s would make you guys on the left the biggest joke of all.

Posted by: dbs at February 25, 2016 10:41 AM
Post a comment