Are Liberals stupid or are they subversive?

[glockmail]

Liberals claim intellectual superiority yet fail to grasp the significance of the simple language of the Constitutional preamble, that all power is vested in the People who in turn grant certain authority to the Federal government. Even when this simple concept is reinforced by not just one but two plain language Amendments, IX and X, their intellect fails.

Either that or they willfully work to usurp the will of the People.

Which liberal are you?

[emmett]

Liberals claim intellectual superiority yet fail to grasp the significance of the simple language of the Constitutional preamble, that all power is vested in the People who in turn grant certain authority to the Federal government. Even when this simple concept is reinforced by not just one but two plain language Amendments, IX and X, their intellect fails.

Either that or they willfully work to usurp the will of the People.

Which liberal are you?


Some Liberals tend to be Subversive....AND stupid! It is interesting that YOU would not allow them a choice to include BOTH as an answer. :laugh2:

[Monkeybone]

to use the current, cover all answer of the admin that we have right now...*ahem*, "I won"

[glockmail]

Some Liberals tend to be Subversive....AND stupid! It is interesting that YOU would not allow them a choice to include BOTH as an answer. :laugh2:
They are free to answer "all of the above", but if they answer "none of the above" I will insist on a detailed explanation. :laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

I think it is axiomatic that "stupid" be considered essential to the understanding of "liberal".......it would not be possible to maintain some of the contradictory beliefs inherent in liberalism unless you manage somehow to disassociate the mind from it's function.....

[gabosaurus]

This is a very funny thread. Do continue. :laugh2:

[emmett]

This is a very funny thread. Do continue. :laugh2:


THAT was not one of the choices Gabster! :laugh2:

[glockmail]

I'm predicting that no liberal will touch this one.

[emmett]

At least Gabby chimed in some humor even if she did not address the issue itself. This clearly shows the new and improved Gabby indeed.

[crin63]

Thats a great question and its one that begs an answer. Personally, I think they're just insane. But hey, thats just me!!

[emmett]

Thats a great question and its one that begs an answer. Personally, I think they're just insane. But hey, thats just me!!


Crin... there is no reason for you to just jump on here and go expressing your obviously biused opinion that offers nothing in the way of how you formulated it. You right wing Conservative nuts are all the same!:laugh2: I see your post as nothing more than "piling on".:beer:

[crin63]

Crin... there is no reason for you to just jump on here and go expressing your obviously biused opinion that offers nothing in the way of how you formulated it. You right wing Conservative nuts are all the same!:laugh2: I see your post as nothing more than "piling on".:beer:

Apologies Emmet I didn't mean to show my obvious bias against the insanity of the left. I realize they cant or wont help themselves and should be treated as mentally challenged and with all the benefits associated to that handicap. I will try to refrain from such bias in the future and try to be a more compassionate conservative. Thank you for calling me out on this minor indiscretion.

[glockmail]

Damn I fucked up royally here, not realizing that insanity was a third option, and one that Michael Savage has already arrived at. :blowup:

[emmett]

Apologies Emmet I didn't mean to show my obvious bias against the insanity of the left. I realize they cant or wont help themselves and should be treated as mentally challenged and with all the benefits associated to that handicap. I will try to refrain from such bias in the future and try to be a more compassionate conservative. Thank you for calling me out on this minor indiscretion.


:lol:


We kid about it but in essence it is true. They really don't know any better and for this we can only feel sorry for them. The entire thread is a joke. RSR really loves liberals!

I kid but to be honest I am socially liberal myself. It is not that I agree with the agenda per say so much, just that I don't agree with laws that "govern" people into submisson. I believe in choices. I believe in responsibility for one's own actions. I believe in the support of family, not government to answer the call of need. I am a compassionate person who would never want to see someone go without but I do not believe forcing someone at the point of a gun to give something they don't feel they can afford addresses this issue in the proper fashion.

Liberals see government as a tool to do exactly that. This does not however teach someone to be an individual who is capable of relying on themselves to exist in society. It hurts them. What happens when government is no longer there. Who will feed them, decide their agenda, eduacte their children and provide their basic subsistance?

To take the joke out of the intention of the thread, I don't believe Liberals are stupid. Just ignorant. Ignorance is not a an intentional action. It is just what it is...ignorance. Many good intentions are full of ignorance!

[glockmail]

...

To take the joke out of the intention of the thread, I don't believe Liberals are stupid. Just ignorant. Ignorance is not a an intentional action. It is just what it is...ignorance. Many good intentions are full of ignorance! Ignorance doesn't address it. The preamble to the Constitution, Amendments IX and X are plainly written, and take less than a minute to read.

[crin63]

:lol:


We kid about it but in essence it is true. They really don't know any better and for this we can only feel sorry for them. The entire thread is a joke. RSR really loves liberals!

I kid but to be honest I am socially liberal myself. It is not that I agree with the agenda per say so much, just that I don't agree with laws that "govern" people into submisson. I believe in choices. I believe in responsibility for one's own actions. I believe in the support of family, not government to answer the call of need. I am a compassionate person who would never want to see someone go without but I do not believe forcing someone at the point of a gun to give something they don't feel they can afford addresses this issue in the proper fashion.

Liberals see government as a tool to do exactly that. This does not however teach someone to be an individual who is capable of relying on themselves to exist in society. It hurts them. What happens when government is no longer there. Who will feed them, decide their agenda, eduacte their children and provide their basic subsistance?

To take the joke out of the intention of the thread, I don't believe Liberals are stupid. Just ignorant. Ignorance is not a an intentional action. It is just what it is...ignorance. Many good intentions are full of ignorance!

That makes you an originalist who believes the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, not socially liberal.

Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever!!!

[Joe Steel]

Liberals claim intellectual superiority yet fail to grasp the significance of the simple language of the Constitutional preamble, that all power is vested in the People who in turn grant certain authority to the Federal government.

How do liberals fail to grasp the significance of the language?

[emmett]

How do liberals fail to grasp the significance of the language?


Oh thank God you are here Joe to clear up some of this for us. These guys were getting so antsy they were about to gang up on me brother due to a lack of someone to beat up on.


I think Liberals are just ignorant, they think you guys are stupid. What say you?

[Joe Steel]

I think Liberals are just ignorant, they think you guys are stupid. What say you?

Why do you think liberals are ignorant?

[PostmodernProphet]

I think Liberals are just ignorant, they think you guys are stupid. What say you?

assuming that the difference lies in being unaware of reality (ignorant) versus lacking the capacity to process thought (stupid), I think the only valid conclusion is that liberals are both.....

[PostmodernProphet]

there may be a third alternative, however.....that intelligent liberals do in fact exist, but don't post here.....

[gabosaurus]

Liberals claim intellectual superiority yet fail to grasp the significance of the simple language of the Constitutional preamble, that all power is vested in the People who in turn grant certain authority to the Federal government. Even when this simple concept is reinforced by not just one but two plain language Amendments, IX and X, their intellect fails.

Your first mistake is by stating that "liberals" are the total problem. Who exactly are these "liberals" that you speak of? Is it tattooed on the back of our necks someplace?
Also, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. What is your solution? That every person has to officially register as "liberal" or "conservative"? Or pledge their soul to a certain political party?

How about coming off your high horse and admitting that everyone is part of the problem, and thus needs to contribute to the solution.
You can't just run around saying "I listen to Rush Limbaugh every day, thus I am not a part of the problem!" Or perhaps "I didn't vote for Obama, therefore, I am not going to help solve any problems!"

Perhaps that is why we "liberals" allegedly claim "intellectual superiority" -- we are willing to admit that we are part of the problem.

[glockmail]

How do liberals fail to grasp the significance of the language? Because the language says that the Federal government only has the authority to do specific, limited things, and Liberals are constantly passing laws that require the Federal government to do a lot more than that.

[glockmail]

Your first mistake is by stating that "liberals" are the total problem. Who exactly are these "liberals" that you speak of? .
What problem are you referring to? Liberals are those who think the Federal government has the authority to more than stated in the Constitution.

[emmett]

Why do you think liberals are ignorant?


Ignorant meaning they don't know any better than to promote an agenda that influences dependance on government to exist.\\\

Ignorant meaning that unknowingly they are destroying the things that made the country's economic system great and produce success.

Ignorant meaning that the very things we (meaning Liberals of the 70's such as I was) fought for like government staying out of the lives of citizens, less encroachment in our liberty and the like are the things that they search to do to opposite with today.

Ignorant meaning I don't think liberals understand that they don't have a "right" to others fruit. The power of government is not incumbant on anyone to use in that fashion.

This is what I mean by "ignorant".

I must mention what I read in Gab's post however before I answered yours Joe. The label thing is becoming a bore. I am actually Socially Liberal in theory. I don;t believe in government intervention into the private lives of citizens. Crin and I debate the issue of Abortion all the time. We disagree in it's application to a political philosophy however we both agree it should not take place. I simply don;t allow it to dictate my choice of political pursuasion. Liberals seem to live by a more defined list of "entitlement" items. I don;t believe someone is ever entitled to the fruit of another....ever! It just isn't right. Having said that, I would never wish that someone go without the basic needs of subsistance. Therefore I think it should be up to the :giver" to decide what they give. If that isn;t enough then the person who is being given to needs to step it up a bit. That encourages responsibility. That will make us better as a whole. Not penalizing someone for beiong successful and forcing them to surrender a portion of what they have worked for.

I have a deep rooted compassionate streak in me as do most people who are normal. Liberals like to make folks believe that if someone with something is not willing to live as soimeone who has not sacrificed as much to get ahead, then they are uncompassionate and don't care about their fellow man. Liberals like to spin the agenda of Imigration and things like that. I say lets take care of what we have forst and let folks go through the process. It only hurts those that are American citizens to condone Illegal Imigration. There is not an endless pot of productivity to cover all these things. let's simply be sensible.

All I am saying is that Conservatives seem a bit more realisitical about the obvious. Liberals...especially radiocal ones...seem ignorant.
\\

That is my answer.....no hate, no vermin ....just a sensible opinionated version of my answer to your question.

[April15]

Liberals claim intellectual superiority yet fail to grasp the significance of the simple language of the Constitutional preamble, that all power is vested in the People who in turn grant certain authority to the Federal government. Even when this simple concept is reinforced by not just one but two plain language Amendments, IX and X, their intellect fails.

Either that or they willfully work to usurp the will of the People.

Which liberal are you?Amendment IX.

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

Amendment X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Then slavery should be legal and indentured servitude would make companies way more profitable than wages. Oh wait! The constitution has been amended. As the earth rotates a thing called time passes. With time, people and advances in everything from contraception to sanitary sewers occur. That is why the constitution is a "living" document. Passe` beliefs give way to todays reality.
If you want to live in a land ruled as the original constitution you need to go back 200 or so years.

[Joe Steel]

Because the language says that the Federal government only has the authority to do specific, limited things, and Liberals are constantly passing laws that require the Federal government to do a lot more than that.

Says who?

The language of the Constitution is not self-limiting. That is, no part of it explicitly limits the power of the government. The putative limitations were placed upon it by judicial activists, special interests and hack commentators expressing fanciful interpretations.

Serious, sober students of the document, liberals, know that.

[glockmail]

Amendment IX.

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

Amendment X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Then slavery should be legal and indentured servitude would make companies way more profitable than wages. Oh wait! The constitution has been amended. As the earth rotates a thing called time passes. With time, people and advances in everything from contraception to sanitary sewers occur. That is why the constitution is a "living" document. Passe` beliefs give way to todays reality.
If you want to live in a land ruled as the original constitution you need to go back 200 or so years.

Slavery was abolished by amendment. Which Amendment authorizes the Department of Education, or Affirmative Action?

[glockmail]

Says who?

The language of the Constitution is not self-limiting. That is, no part of it explicitly limits the power of the government. The putative limitations were placed upon it by judicial activists, special interests and hack commentators expressing fanciful interpretations.

Serious, sober students of the document, liberals, know that. The Amendments cited are clear. How else would you interpret them?

[emmett]

OK RSR and Glock. Why don't one of you high and mighties explain to me which part of the Constitution says it is illegal for Liberals to be stupid.


All righty then....

[Joe Steel]

The Amendments cited are clear. How else would you interpret them?

The Amendments were written to calm the fears of the founding generation and state legislators. They aren't relevant after that time and they don't preclude legislation to do whatever the People's representatives wish. After all, the Tenth Amendment notes the unenumerated powers belonging to the People. Do you contend the power to buy a car company is not among them?

[glockmail]

The Amendments were written to calm the fears of the founding generation and state legislators. They aren't relevant after that time and they don't preclude legislation to do whatever the People's representatives wish. After all, the Tenth Amendment notes the unenumerated powers belonging to the People. Do you contend the power to buy a car company is not among them?
You are terribly confused on two major points:
1. Amendments don't expire unless there is another one that specifically overrules it.
2. "The People" (note the capitalization in the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence that preceded it) refers to private citizens. They have unalienable Rights, one of which is to purchase stock in an auto company. The People gave the "United States of America" no such authority.

[April15]

You are terribly confused on two major points:
1. Amendments don't expire unless there is another one that specifically overrules it.
2. "The People" (note the capitalization in the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence that preceded it) refers to private citizens. They have unalienable Rights, one of which is to purchase stock in an auto company. The People gave the "United States of America" no such authority.The sec is where the ability to purchase stock or shares came from.

[glockmail]

The sec is where the ability to purchase stock or shares came from.
Your point?

[Silver]

So ... are liberals stupid, ignorant or crazy ????

Post 26 and 27 confirm the answer is ignorant with a touch of stupid which if not treated results in craziness...

[creativeage]

I think it is axiomatic that "stupid" be considered essential to the understanding of "liberal".......it would not be possible to maintain some of the contradictory beliefs inherent in liberalism unless you manage somehow to disassociate the mind from it's function.....

Wouldn't it be safe, then, to diagnose as a form of "Dementia"?
de⋅men⋅tia   [di-men-shuh, -shee-uh] –noun -severe impairment or loss of intellectual capacity and personality integration, due to the loss of or damage to neurons in the brain.

Or, does liberalism simply mean "liberated" or "removed" from any laws, ethics, social responsibilities that do not apply to one's current agenda at the moment -oops, that would be considered a hypocrite, right?

[creativeage]

The Amendments were written to calm the fears of the founding generation and state legislators. They aren't relevant after that time and they don't preclude legislation to do whatever the People's representatives wish. After all, the Tenth Amendment notes the unenumerated powers belonging to the People. Do you contend the power to buy a car company is not among them?
Great point regarding how the times have evolved, completely true. Things do need to change, however...the Tenth Amendment DOES note the unenumerated powers belonging to the People - how is it then, that such change as government officials have right to IGNORE the will of the people correct? I do not see anywhere where the People ever agreed to this transaction.

Check the facts - the American people spoke all along and were ignored:
Americans Have Voted ‘No' on GM Bailout From Day One (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/americans_have_voted_no_on_gm_bailout_from_day_one )

and currently Only 26% were in favor of bailout, 17% for boycott. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/26_applaud_gm_bailout_but_17_favor_boycott)

[PostmodernProphet]

Wouldn't it be safe, then, to diagnose as a form of "Dementia"?
de⋅men⋅tia   [di-men-shuh, -shee-uh] –noun -severe impairment or loss of intellectual capacity and personality integration, due to the loss of or damage to neurons in the brain.



no, I think not....that would attribute it to a physical cause....I believe in liberals it is simply a matter of choice......they WANT to be ignorant....

[April15]

no, I think not....that would attribute it to a physical cause....I believe in liberals it is simply a matter of choice......they WANT to be ignorant....The person of liberal tendencies sees conservative thought as "head in sand". A desire to hide from the truths that go on in everyday life, here and in the world.

[PostmodernProphet]

The person of liberal tendencies sees conservative thought as "head in sand".

perhaps I went to far then in denying liberals had physical handicaps of perception.....you think we have our heads in the sand when all we really are doing is checking it for the possibility of domestic oil production.....

[April15]

perhaps I went to far then in denying liberals had physical handicaps of perception.....you think we have our heads in the sand when all we really are doing is checking it for the possibility of domestic oil production.....In general the results equal the method for conservatives. The negative impacts of life and health are secondary to profit.
Now I use petroleum in my trucks. We have had an area under license and ready to go for nearly 40 years. It is the Balkens reserves. Why big oil wants nothing to do with it is beyond me other than it is remote and would take some care to get the petroleum to a refinery whereas offshore is a no cost production profit maker.
Then there are the tar sands where the oil is right on the surface.

[creativeage]

The person of liberal tendencies sees conservative thought as "head in sand". A desire to hide from the truths that go on in everyday life, here and in the world.

I could understand that philosophy if it was the 1960's. Both liberals and conservatives evolve with the times, the generations, and conditioned by their environments. Liberal is liberating, and back when I was in art/business college it seemed great - now middle-aged and with family, I lean conservative (that does not make me an extremist, btw) because I simply believe America needs to conserve! Conserve our resources and our budget. I don't see how asking for fair, realistic solutions and demand that the government respects the will of the people as putting my "head in the sand."

Recently - the government has NOT respected the will of the people: GM, gay marriage vote, etc. Just like the will of the people elected President Obama, the same should apply when the will of the People speaks loud and clear about other issues...who has their "head in the sand?"

[PostmodernProphet]

It is the Balkens reserves.
nothing under Google for this....do you have a link?

[creativeage]

In general the results equal the method for conservatives. The negative impacts of life and health are secondary to profit.

Results equal the method for liberals, too. Apparently life also is secondary with support of 3rd trimester abortion, and mental health is secondary with it being virtually absent on the pending health bill.

[Joe Steel]

Great point regarding how the times have evolved, completely true. Things do need to change, however...the Tenth Amendment DOES note the unenumerated powers belonging to the People - how is it then, that such change as government officials have right to IGNORE the will of the people correct? I do not see anywhere where the People ever agreed to this transaction.

In our representative democracy, elected officials are presumed to represent the will of the People. When they act, it is as if the People have acted.

[Joe Steel]

You are terribly confused on two major points:
1. Amendments don't expire unless there is another one that specifically overrules it.

I have confused nothing. I was paraphrasing William Rehnquist.


2. "The People" (note the capitalization in the Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence that preceded it) refers to private citizens.

Nope.

The phrase "the People" refers to citizens collectively, as sovereign.


They have unalienable Rights, one of which is to purchase stock in an auto company. The People gave the "United States of America" no such authority.


You're wrong.

The People empowered Congress to provide for the general Welfare. See Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution. If Congress believes ownership of an automobile manufacturer will serve the general Welfare, they can buy one.

[MtnBiker]

In our representative democracy, elected officials are presumed to represent the will of the People. When they act, it is as if the People have acted.

Wrong;


26% Applaud GM Bailout But 17% Favor Boycott
Twenty-six percent (26%) of American adults believe it was a good idea for the federal government to take ownership of General Motors as the auto giant was on the verge of collapse. Nearly as many--17%--say that Americans should protest the bailout by boycotting GM and refusing to buy its cars. Most Americans are somewhere in between.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 53% of Americans believe the bailout was a bad idea. Of this group, 30% favor a boycott, 54% oppose the idea and 16% are not sure.

Men are more supportive of a boycott than women. Middle income Americans are also more supportive of a boycott than those at either end of the income scale.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/26_applaud_gm_bailout_but_17_favor_boycott

[creativeage]

You're wrong.

The People empowered Congress to provide for the general Welfare. See Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution. If Congress believes ownership of an automobile manufacturer will serve the general Welfare, they can buy one.

What happened to ethical decision-making. Quote from Jurassic Park: "they were so busy saying yes we could, but SHOULD WE?" Doesn't anyone ask that question before acting anymore? Why didn't our "representatives" respect those who elected them to office?

[creativeage]

In our representative democracy, elected officials are presumed to represent the will of the People. When they act, it is as if the People have acted.

Oh Joe! I really admire your zeal! You definitely do your homework. Now, let's get to my point of: yes they can, but SHOULD they? (was their decision really in best interests of the People they serve?)

[gabosaurus]

Almost 50 posts rehashing a pointless, garbage topic? WTF?
That is the thing about many of you. Instead of looking for solutions, you enjoying pointing out the problems and assessing blame.
I feel sorry for your kids. They have to grow up in a home filled with hate and negativity. That is also a major cause of divorce. Your SO gets weary of your negative, authoritarian mindset and starts to ignore you. Pretty soon, you have nothing.

Life can't go your way all the time. It is unfortunate that so many people, when they come to a difficult crossroad, choose to take the bitter road instead of the better road. You follow the bitter road for so long that it takes over your life.
By reading the posts here, I can see many of you are already there. Sucks to be you. :D

[red states rule]

Almost 50 posts rehashing a pointless, garbage topic? WTF?
That is the thing about many of you. Instead of looking for solutions, you enjoying pointing out the problems and assessing blame.
I feel sorry for your kids. They have to grow up in a home filled with hate and negativity. That is also a major cause of divorce. Your SO gets weary of your negative, authoritarian mindset and starts to ignore you. Pretty soon, you have nothing.

Life can't go your way all the time. It is unfortunate that so many people, when they come to a difficult crossroad, choose to take the bitter road instead of the better road. You follow the bitter road for so long that it takes over your life.
By reading the posts here, I can see many of you are already there. Sucks to be you. :D

Gabby perfect description of yourself - you were spot on about how assessing blame and spreading hate. I have posted how I do indeed pity your daughter if you pass on to her your "values"

Now why not comment on the topic of the thread?

[crin63]

Gabby perfect description of yourself - you were spot on about how assessing blame and spreading hate. I have posted how I do indeed pity your daughter if you pass on to her your "values"

Now why not comment on the topic of the thread?

She cant see the problem because she is the problem. Like when she says she hopes our kids will be shot or killed by our own guns to teach us a lesson. Then she has the audacity to tell us that were spewing hatred.

The hypocrisy of Liberals never ceases to amaze me.

[red states rule]

She cant see the problem because she is the problem. Like when she says she hopes our kids will be shot or killed by our own guns to teach us a lesson. Then she has the audacity to tell us that were spewing hatred.

The hypocrisy of Liberals never ceases to amaze me.

My liberal friend and co worker would get along fine with Gabby. He is now telling me after bitching about Bush's and Republicans spending that the defict spending by Dems and Obama is "needed" because we are in a "crisis"

I told him if defict spending worked, the credit card companies shoudl give ebery cardholder a $250,000 line of credit with no repayment terms

It would be much better stimulus if Obama simply sent a check for $500,000 to every person who filed a tax return and paid taxes

My friend dismisses this by saying Dems are running things and if I don't like it - I can fuck off. He is very cocky in his reminder that Dems are in total control - but he always shifts the blame for Obama's failing economic policies on Pres Bush and the Republican minority

In fact no matter what I talk about when it comes to Obama, he tries to change the subject back to Pres Bush, and VP Cheney. Seems he is nto as giddy over Obama as he was on Election night

[crin63]

My liberal friend and co worker would get along fine with Gabby. He is now telling me after bitching about Bush's and Republicans spending that the defict spending by Dems and Obama is "needed" because we are in a "crisis"

I told him if defict spending worked, the credit card companies shoudl give ebery cardholder a $250,000 line of credit with no repayment terms

It would be much better stimulus if Obama simply sent a check for $500,000 to every person who filed a tax return and paid taxes

My friend dismisses this by saying Dems are running things and if I don't like it - I can fuck off. He is very cocky in his reminder that Dems are in total control - but he always shifts the blame for Obama's failing economic policies on Pres Bush and the Republican minority

In fact no matter what I talk about when it comes to Obama, he tries to change the subject back to Pres Bush, and VP Cheney. Seems he is nto as giddy over Obama as he was on Election night

So he is a typical Liberal. Its always someone elses fault, someone else should foot the bill and never accept responsibility for their own actions.

[red states rule]

So he is a typical Liberal. Its always someone elses fault, someone else should foot the bill and never accept responsibility for their own actions.

To a point he is. I have had many health isses over the last year and a half (and still do) and Mike has been there. He has taken me in when I had to have operations, waited, and then took me home

While I was out on disability he called everyday to see how I was doing

That said, his loyality to the Dem party is equal only to Virgil. He has yet to speak out against the very nthings Obama is doing - the same things he hated when Pres Bush and Republicans were doing them

His life is full of double standards and hypocrisy does rule the day with him. While he opposes waterboarding terrorists even when it would save innocent lives, he has said he would love to waterboard Pres Bush, VP Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity

While he sees nothing wrong with Bill Clinton commtting perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering - he wants Pres Bush in jail for lying and stating a unjust illegal war

So yes, to a point, he is a typical liberal, but his hate does not extend to me - a Reagan conservative

[creativeage]

Almost 50 posts rehashing a pointless, garbage topic? WTF?
That is the thing about many of you. Instead of looking for solutions, you enjoying pointing out the problems and assessing blame.
I feel sorry for your kids. They have to grow up in a home filled with hate and negativity. That is also a major cause of divorce. Your SO gets weary of your negative, authoritarian mindset and starts to ignore you. Pretty soon, you have nothing.

Life can't go your way all the time. It is unfortunate that so many people, when they come to a difficult crossroad, choose to take the bitter road instead of the better road. You follow the bitter road for so long that it takes over your life.
By reading the posts here, I can see many of you are already there. Sucks to be you. :D

Dear Gab - Your post is very concerning. You seem to be empathetic, especially because you are a parent and work with teens. Please, take heart in your empathic nature. (I was a high school art teacher for 4 years and continue to be a mentor to local teens, so I understand the injustices you see). The point of this forum is to engage in intellectual debate, sure we all have to get things off our chest here, but wishing ill-will on others is certainly not something I am a fan of.

I hope you will continue on in constructive debate - I would like to hear your views and discuss your research, as I am very open to other's ideas. Peace.

[red states rule]

Dear Gab - Your post is very concerning. You seem to be empathetic, especially because you are a parent and work with teens. Please, take heart in your empathic nature. (I was a high school art teacher for 4 years and continue to be a mentor to local teens, so I understand the injustices you see). The point of this forum is to engage in intellectual debate, sure we all have to get things off our chest here, but wishing ill-will on others is certainly not something I am a fan of.

I hope you will continue on in constructive debate - I would like to hear your views and discuss your research, as I am very open to other's ideas. Peace.

creativeage you will learn quickly, Gabby has all the warmth and charm of a scorpion. She is young and immature. She sees everything through liberal colored glasses.

I do hope one day she will grow out of her adolescence . Should that happen, there is a good chance she will become a Reagan conservative

[creativeage]

My friend dismisses this by saying Dems are running things and if I don't like it - I can fuck off. He is very cocky in his reminder that Dems are in total control - but he always shifts the blame for Obama's failing economic policies on Pres Bush and the Republican minority


I believe it was this exact mentality which pulled me more to the conservative side a couple of years ago. (voted Gore before Bush, then when Kerry came along...eesh, Bush was the definitely the better option then). The blame game is getting tiresome: it's like the immaturity of folks who continue to blame their parents' job of raising them for everything that goes wrong in their lives! Can't we just get on with recovery and stop using the proverbial "patsy" whenever it is convenient?

(I had a designer who once worked for me and I fired because he played that same blame/pass-the-buck game which cost me a large client!) Regarding the current administration, the game could cost us our freedom to prosper!

[Joe Steel]

What happened to ethical decision-making. Quote from Jurassic Park: "they were so busy saying yes we could, but SHOULD WE?" Doesn't anyone ask that question before acting anymore? Why didn't our "representatives" respect those who elected them to office?

When an official is elected, the People's will has been done. They have spoken. Their decision validates everything the official does as long as it is not unlawful. If they disagree with him, the can vote for someone else next time.

[Joe Steel]

Wrong;

Nope.

[Joe Steel]

Oh Joe! I really admire your zeal! You definitely do your homework. Now, let's get to my point of: yes they can, but SHOULD they? (was their decision really in best interests of the People they serve?)

Yes.

In a representative democracy, an candidate offers his views and opinions to the voters. If the elect him to office, they have approved of them. The candidate must vote in a manner consistent with the views and opinions he presented to the voters or he has betrayed them.

[MtnBiker]

Nope.

yup, very wrong

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/americans_have_voted_no_on_gm_bailout_from_day_one

[Joe Steel]

yup, very wrong



Never wrong.

[April15]

I could understand that philosophy if it was the 1960's. Both liberals and conservatives evolve with the times, the generations, and conditioned by their environments. Liberal is liberating, and back when I was in art/business college it seemed great - now middle-aged and with family, I lean conservative (that does not make me an extremist, btw) because I simply believe America needs to conserve! Conserve our resources and our budget. I don't see how asking for fair, realistic solutions and demand that the government respects the will of the people as putting my "head in the sand."

Recently - the government has NOT respected the will of the people: GM, gay marriage vote, etc. Just like the will of the people elected President Obama, the same should apply when the will of the People speaks loud and clear about other issues...who has their "head in the sand?"

So you are one who can think outside the mob. That is good to know/ hear.

[MtnBiker]

Never wrong.

still wrong, there is evidence for little support for the auto bailout

[Joe Steel]

still wrong, there is evidence for little support for the auto bailout

So?

What has that do with Congress' opinion of it? If Congress believes it seves the general welfare, a few polls are irrelevant.

[red states rule]

So?

What has that do with Congress' opinion of it? If Congress believes it seves the general welfare, a few polls are irrelevant.

TRhen when you clowns lose the big poll - the election, you call the voters stupid, how the did not understand the complex issues, how they are meanspirted and greedy for not wantng to pay taxes; and how people like Rush lImbaugh drowns out the lefts message

Joe, people are opposed to to the gopvernemnt buying private companies, as they are closing Gitmo and bringing terrorists into this country and their neighborhood

Like most of your kind, the only thing that matters to you is more power for your party and more governemnt control of our lives.

To libs what is really irrelevant is the US Constitution and all the rosey promises they made to the people that voted for them

[creativeage]

creativeage you will learn quickly, Gabby has all the warmth and charm of a scorpion. She is young and immature. She sees everything through liberal colored glasses.

I do hope one day she will grow out of her adolescence . Should that happen, there is a good chance she will become a Reagan conservative

I remain the eternal optimist:) Thanks, Red!

[creativeage]

When an official is elected, the People's will has been done. They have spoken. Their decision validates everything the official does as long as it is not unlawful. If they disagree with him, the can vote for someone else next time.

Completely understood, Joe. With all due respect however, and, in the pursuit of enlightening the left to what the right hype is all about see below. Respect for the will of the People needs to be exercised...or:

per our Declaration of Independence: "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object envinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

usurpation
an act of usurping; wrongful or illegal encroachment, infringement, or seizure.

usurp - 1. to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right. 2. to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully
3. to commit forcible or illegal seizure of an office, power, etc.; encroach.

encroach - to advance beyond proper, established, or usual limits; make gradual inroads.

evince - 1. to show clearly; make evident or manifest; prove. 2. to reveal the possession of (a quality, trait, etc.).

despotism - 1. the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority. 2. absolute power or control; tyranny. 3. an absolute or autocratic government. 4. a country ruled by a despot.

Sorry I had to "go there," it's just the reality of what all the fuss is about! Keep banging, though - you know your stuff, too!

[actsnoblemartin]

so a simple will of the people makes it right?

what about slavery and the holocaust

most didnt give a dam about the jews, and most were for slavery

[April15]

TRhen when you clowns lose the big poll - the election, you call the voters stupid, how the did not understand the complex issues, how they are meanspirted and greedy for not wantng to pay taxes; and how people like Rush lImbaugh drowns out the lefts message

Joe, people are opposed to to the gopvernemnt buying private companies, as they are closing Gitmo and bringing terrorists into this country and their neighborhood

Like most of your kind, the only thing that matters to you is more power for your party and more governemnt control of our lives.

To libs what is really irrelevant is the US Constitution and all the rosey promises they made to the people that voted for them

It is unfortunate that so many are redundant. The document you so readily deride is what the left is trying to maintain despite the conservatives best efforts to rule with out any regard to it.

[Kathianne]

so a simple will of the people makes it right?

what about slavery and the holocaust

most didnt give a dam about the jews, and most were for slavery

There was never a majority 'for slavery.' As for the holocaust the average American hadn't a clue. Blame the politicians, they did.

[actsnoblemartin]

stu-versive? or subpid?

:lol:


Liberals claim intellectual superiority yet fail to grasp the significance of the simple language of the Constitutional preamble, that all power is vested in the People who in turn grant certain authority to the Federal government. Even when this simple concept is reinforced by not just one but two plain language Amendments, IX and X, their intellect fails.

Either that or they willfully work to usurp the will of the People.

Which liberal are you?

[Silver]

Gabby, Joe Steel, and April.....wow...

They are living proof that their kind liberalism and political thinking verges on mental illness....or at the very lease a serious character disorder rendering their ability to think with logic and/or compassion and a sense of fairness, flawed...

[red states rule]

It is unfortunate that so many are redundant. The document you so readily deride is what the left is trying to maintain despite the conservatives best efforts to rule with out any regard to it.

April, in your liberal utopia world, the US Constitution is like Obama's promisies - they all have expiration dates

Your own personal convictions and basic principals are subject to change without notice based upon the results of polls, focus groups, and what political party is currently in power

[glockmail]

Almost 50 posts rehashing a pointless, garbage topic? WTF?
That is the thing about many of you. Instead of looking for solutions, you enjoying pointing out the problems and assessing blame. ... Actually, the problem is that the federal government has usurped its authority and has gotten too big. Imaging if the feds had held to a limited government as the Founder's planned, and the individual States had tried these programs, some worked, some failed, and the People voting with their feet...

Why do you have such a problem with choice and freedom?

[red states rule]

Actually, the problem is that the federal government has usurped its authority and has gotten too big. Imaging if the feds had held to a limited government as the Founder's planned, and the individual States had tried these programs, some worked, some failed, and the People voting with their feet...

Why do you have such a problem with choice and freedom?

With Gabby and the her fellow liberals, it depends on which political party is in power

[crin63]

OK RSR and Glock. Why don't one of you high and mighties explain to me which part of the Constitution says it is illegal for Liberals to be stupid.


All righty then....

Mind if I take a shot at this one, Emmet?

Nothing says its illegal for Liberals to be individually stupid but not even the Founding Fathers could foresee the extent of their collective stupidity or did they. It really is hard to find that much stupidity in one place unless you look at Liberals as a collective body.

However their collective stupidity is encroaching on our rights. Therefore the controls in our Constitution like, "Congress shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "No Soldier shall", "shall not be violated" and so on are the laws against Liberal stupidity in our Constitution.


OOPS!!! Did my bias against Liberals show again???? Mea Culpa Emmet!!!

[red states rule]

Mind if I take a shot at this one, Emmet?

Nothing says its illegal for Liberals to be individually stupid but not even the Founding Fathers could foresee the extent of their collective stupidity or did they. It really is hard to find that much stupidity in one place unless you look at Liberals as a collective body.

However their collective stupidity is encroaching on our rights. Therefore the controls in our Constitution like, "Congress shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "No Soldier shall", "shall not be violated" and so on are the laws against Liberal stupidity in our Constitution.


OOPS!!! Did my bias against Liberals show again???? Mea Culpa Emmet!!!


No it is not illegal for liberals to be stupid. Nor is it illegal for liberals to be arrogrant, condescending, or intolerant

[glockmail]

I have confused nothing. I was paraphrasing William Rehnquist.



Nope.

The phrase "the People" refers to citizens collectively, as sovereign.




You're wrong.

The People empowered Congress to provide for the general Welfare. See Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution. If Congress believes ownership of an automobile manufacturer will serve the general Welfare, they can buy one.

1. Please provide evidence that Rehnquist has written that Amendments expire.
2. How does that justify the government having authority that the People did not give it?
3. Article I Section 8 Clause 1. states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; …” and Liberals have long since asserted that this gives the government unlimited power.

Madison addressed this assertion directly and forcefully in Federalist 41, calling it “absurd”:

“It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.”

[gabosaurus]

This topic gets sillier by the day. You people are getting WAY off base.

[glockmail]

The Federalist is silly? Obviously you aren't getting laid often enough.

[creativeage]

The Federalist is silly? Obviously you aren't getting laid often enough.

That is the funniest statement I have seen here.

[glockmail]

That is the funniest statement I have seen here.
By itself I can see your point. Gabby has a history of dismissing anyone who's not a far left liberal that "they ain't getting any". :laugh2: