Re: Rich dump assets ahead of "fiscal cliff"

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/27/2012 10:32 AM, Joe Cooper wrote:
> "BIG BIRD" <Sno...@Teranews.com> wrote in
> news:gC4ts.22271$o91....@newsfe07.iad:
>
>> you say that as if it is a statement of fact, it's a bullshit right
>> wing talking, I mean lying point, and you're a brainwashed
>> right wing liar
> [...]
>
>> the only simple thing here is your mind there bubba boy,
>> which has been laundered,bleached,dried, and left to hang out in the
>> wind by you fux noos and limbaugh lying masters
>> how about you LOSERS!!!! just STFU, and let the WINNERS!!!
>> handle the tough problems?
>>
>> I don't recall any of us WINNERS!!!! asking for you LOSERS!!!!
>> opinions help, or advice
>> if we need you. we'll give yall a call
> Oh look! We've found an Obama voter. They have no interest in discussing
> issues - their only response is to insult and demean anyone, anywhere,
> that disagrees with them.
>
> Imagine that.
>
This is a "true believer", a real Kool-Ade drinker that doesn't need to
discuss their Socialist policies. They are worse than any Bible thumper
you'll ever meet.

They think they're always right, because they think Obama is always right.



--
*Welcome to Socialism*
-Kum bay ya-

[Ed]

On Nov 27, 12:50 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

Bwaaa ha ha haha ha … day 21 ( and counting ) for the right-turd
Whine & Cry Fest over Obama’s resounding reelection and victory over
the forces of evil. Grover Norquist is now buying his adult diapers by
the pallet load from Walmart – all the stinky right-turd losers are
following suit – Depends stock is soaring !!!

<< chortle >>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 11/27/2012 7:34 PM, jim wrote:
>
> BIG BIRD wrote:
>> "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>> news:CYCdnTvfR-6bdynN...@bright.net...
>> :
>> :
>> : BIG BIRD wrote:
>> : >
>> : > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>> : > news:a6udnYfU8sp6WinN...@bright.net...
>> : > :
>> : > :
>> : > : BIG BIRD wrote:
>> : > : >
>> : > : > "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>> : > : > news:QaOdnTtdv4MwjCnN...@bright.net...
>> : > : > :
>> : > : > :
>> : > : > : PJ O'D wrote:
>> : > : > : >
>> : > : > : > Rich dump assets ahead of "fiscal cliff"
>> : > : > : >
>> : > : > :
>> : > : > : Do you realize that the "fiscal cliff" is when
>> : > : > : govt reduces the deficit. If Congress does nothing,
>> : > : > : it will cut the deficit from $1 trillion to $500
>> : > : > : billion. That will push the economy into a depression.
>> : > : > :
>> : > : >
>> : > : > you whining, chicken little, gutless,yellow,coward hillbilly somabitch
>> : > : >
>> : > : > and LOSER!!!! of course
>> : > : >
>> : > : > what's the matter ?
>> : > : >
>> : > : > afraid you're gonna lose your government welfare ???
>> : > :
>> : > : I don't have any govt welfare to lose nor
>> : > : was I advocating that Congress do anything.
>> : > :
>> : > : I asked if he understood the simple fact that
>> : > : under current law (Budget Control Act of 2011) the
>> : > : spending cuts and tax increases that go into effect on
>> : > : Jan 2, 2013 will push the economy into a depression.
>> : >

>> : > you say that as if it is a statement of fact, it's a bullshit right
>> : > wing talking, I mean lying point, and you're a brainwashed
>> : > right wing liar

>> :
>> : Ok lets suppose that's true.
>> :
>> : Does that mean we can expect to see the Senate and
>> : President oppose any change to existing law?
>>
>> how would anyone know what to expect ?
>>
>> why do you need to know in advance ??
> You are the one claiming that it is
> just right wing propaganda that the tax increase and
> spending cuts that go into effect Jan 2. will
> sink the economy. Unless you think the President and
> the Senate are right wing that would suggest you think
> they are OK with letting the law take effect.
>
>> how about letting them deal with the problem?,
> How would I do anything but let them deal with
> the problem?
>
>> they're democrats, they'll do the right thing
> The House of Representatives controls the purse
> strings and they are not Democrats.
>
>
>
>> are you trying to get a head start on whining ???
>>
>> are you scared shitless ??
>>
>> us liberals aren't afraid, because we're Americans, and we can deal with
>> anything
>
Except life without ObamaCare and life without welfare and food stamps,
and Obama phones and a Federally funded plate museum in South Carolina,
and BIG BIRD on PBS?

Liberals just can *NOT* deal with a life *WITHOUT* those Federally
funded freebies and necessities.


Drop a Liberal in 1776 and they wouldn't last a week, they'd die from
exposure as they run around trying to find a Government office to apply
for food stamps and welfare and ObamaCare.....

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[Bret Cahill]

Climate change deniers would die in days as they wouldn't know where
to hunt or even find water.

[Peter Franks]

On 11/28/2012 1:53 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> Climate change deniers would die in days as they wouldn't know where
> to hunt or even find water.

And the climate change totalitarians couldn't be bothered to help their
fellow man.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[deep]

Liberals wrote the Constitution, you cretin.

[Peter Franks]

No they didn't; liberals don't believe in nor understand rights, the
founders clearly did.

[Nickname unavailable]

idiot.


traditional american liberalism, as practiced by the majority of the
founders of the united states of america, who enshrined american
liberalism into the constitution of the united states of america.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

The origins of American liberalism lie in the political ideals of The
Enlightenment.[4] The Constitution of the United States of 1787 set up
the first modern republic, with sovereignty in the people (not in a
monarch) and no hereditary ruling aristocracy. However, the
Constitution limited liberty by accepting slavery. The Founding
Fathers recognized the contradiction, and most expected slavery to
wither away. Indeed it was abolished in all the Northern states by
1804, but due to the demand for raw cotton by the Industrial
Revolution, plantation slavery continued to flourish in the Deep
South.
From the time of the Revolution to the present day, America has
extended liberty to ever broader classes of people. The states
abolished restrictions on voting in the early 19th century. The
Constitution was amended in 1865 to abolish slavery, in 1870 to extend
the vote to Black men, in 1920 to extend the vote to women, and in
1971 to lower the voting age to 18. The Jim Crow system of the South
between the 1890s and 1960s relegated blacks to second class
citizenship, until it was overthrown by the Civil Rights Movement and
new federal laws in 1964 and 1965.[5]
Thomas Jefferson believed that America should remain a nation of small
farmers.[6] As America became more and more a nation of businessmen,
liberals began to fear threats to liberty from corruption and
monopolies (called "trusts" at the time).[7][8] Wealth was
concentrated in the hands of a few—especially in the new fast-growing
cities—raised questions whether political democracy could survive the
power of the rich.
The dominance of the Republican Party for most of the era 1860-1932,
the Third Party System, and the Fourth Party System, prevented any
major reversal of the concentration of wealth. During the Progressive
Era of the early 20th century, laws were passed restricting monopolies
(the antitrust movement) and regulating railroad rates.[9][10]
After 1933, modern liberals used the New Deal to provide jobs during
the Great Depression. The Social Security act of 1935 provided
retirement and disability income for Americans unable to work or
unable to find jobs.[11] In the Social Security Act of 1965, this was
extended to provide benefits for Americans unable to work due to
illness.
In the 1960s, liberals fought for the rights of blacks and women, and
for protection of the environment. They split on the issue of the
Vietnam War.
A reaction against modern American liberalism began with Barry
Goldwater, which led to the eventual election of Ronald Reagan in
1980. The intellectual foundations of this conservative resurgence
included the works of free-market economists Milton Friedman and the
Chicago School of Economics, who argued against central economic
planning (with the notable exception of the Federal Reserve),
regulation of business, and Keynesian economics. Deregulation began in
the mid-1970s and had broad support from both liberals and
conservatives. Reagan successfully lowered marginal tax rates, most
notably for those at the top of the income distribution, while his
Social Security reforms raised taxes on the middle and bottom of the
income distribution, leaving their total tax burden unchanged. [12]
Democratic president Bill Clinton (1993–2001) worked with
conservatives, against strong liberal opposition, to end some of the
main welfare programs and to implement NAFTA, linking the economies of
the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Clinton pushed to extend modern liberal
ideals especially in the areas of health care (where he failed) and
environmental protection (where he had more success).[13]
According to Louis Hartz, liberalism was the only significant
political tradition in the United States. However in the 1970s,
Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood and J. G. A. Pocock saw republicanism as
the main political tradition.[clarification needed] In the 1980s, J.
David Green returned to Hartz's thesis, but saw two different types of
liberalism in the tradition, which he called humanist and reform. More
recently, writers have seen a multitude of traditions, including
liberalism, republicanism and protestantism.[14][dubious – discuss]
[clarification needed]


as you can see, jefferson was a liberal, as well as thomas paine.
the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution
are all based on the writings of thomas paine. paine advocated for a
social democracy.
in fact a majority of the founders were liberals, they despised
conservatism, and blamed conservatives for almost losing the
revolution.


The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.


Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.


The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility:)))

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:kkpuhi$8dc$1...@dont-email.me...

LOL -- a conservative is someone who worships long-dead liberals.

Jim

[David J. Hughes]

Federalists wrote the Constitution, with the original draft being
written by a committee of five men (John Rutledge (SC), Edmund Randolph
(VA), Nathaniel Gorham (MA), Oliver Ellsworth (CT), and James Wilson
(PA)), Liberals (who termed themselves Republicans) wrote the Bill of
Rights.

[Frank]

On 4/18/2013 7:28 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 18, 6:13 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2013 3:22 PM, deep wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:22:09 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 11/27/2012 7:34 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>>> Drop a Liberal in 1776 and they wouldn't last a week, they'd die from
>>>> exposure as they run around trying to find a Government office to apply
>>>> for food stamps and welfare and ObamaCare.....
>>
>>> Liberals wrote the Constitution, you cretin.
>>
>> No they didn't; liberals don't believe in nor understand rights, the
>> founders clearly did.
>
> idiot.
>
>
> traditional american liberalism, as practiced by the majority of the
> founders of the united states of america, who enshrined american
> liberalism into the constitution of the united states of america.
>
>

Today's progressives are not yesterday's liberals. The founders
established the rules to protect the people from the government not to
be dependent on it.

[Peter Franks]

On 4/18/2013 4:28 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 18, 6:13 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2013 3:22 PM, deep wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:22:09 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 11/27/2012 7:34 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>>> Drop a Liberal in 1776 and they wouldn't last a week, they'd die from
>>>> exposure as they run around trying to find a Government office to apply
>>>> for food stamps and welfare and ObamaCare.....
>>
>>> Liberals wrote the Constitution, you cretin.
>>
>> No they didn't; liberals don't believe in nor understand rights, the
>> founders clearly did.
>
> idiot.

Define rights.

[Clave]

"Frank" <frankdo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kkq0lr$khn$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/18/2013 7:28 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

<...>

>> traditional american liberalism, as practiced by the majority of the
>> founders of the united states of america, who enshrined american
>> liberalism into the constitution of the united states of america.
>
> Today's progressives are not yesterday's liberals. The founders
> established the rules to protect the people from the government not to be
> dependent on it.

God-DAYUM, son -- did you leave *any* kool-aid for the rest of the wingnuts?

Jim

[deep]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:13:38 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

Shut up dumbass.

[deep]

You people just aren't capable of getting the fact of just how screwed
up you are, so you just keep on parroting the lies.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

We are getting a good laugh at your insistence that the founders were
Liberals.....

Old style or new, they did NOT believe in All powerful government like
you do.

They were getting away from an all powerful King.


SO the fact is they were NOTHING like you.


If we drop "you" in 1776 you would be dead in a week because you'd spend
all your time trying to find a government agency to take care of you.

[deep]

Thanks for proving you don't have the slightest clue as to the
difference.

It's always good for a laugh when you right wing drones prove your
lack of intelligence and education in the same post.

>
>Old style or new, they did NOT believe in All powerful government like
>you do.
>

That's not what progressivism is you dolt.

>They were getting away from an all powerful King.
>

The liberals were. The conservatives supported the monarchy and total
British control over everything. That is what conservatism is.
Liberalism attempts to return the power to The People.

>
>SO the fact is they were NOTHING like you.
>

Well I'll agree the powdered wig thing was a bit wierd.

>
>If we drop "you" in 1776 you would be dead in a week because you'd spend
>all your time trying to find a government agency to take care of you.
>

HAHAHAHAHAA. Yea right. Rave on nutter...

>
>
>
>

[Peter Franks]

So says the intolerant mindless liberal. Incapable of discussion,
afraid of the truth, can't make sense of anything.

Proof that the founders were not liberals:

Amendment X

End.

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:uh0ct.44877$XR.2...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

LOL -- and a socialist is anyone who can kick your ass in an argument.

Jim

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kkq4cd$72j$1...@dont-email.me...

You just go ahead and believe whatever helps you sleep, Pumpkin.

Jim

[rbowman]

Peter Franks wrote:

> Define rights.

That which flows from the barrel of a gun to paraphrase Mao.

[deep]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:53:17 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

wrote:

>On 4/18/2013 5:01 PM, deep wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:13:38 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/18/2013 3:22 PM, deep wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:22:09 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/27/2012 7:34 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Drop a Liberal in 1776 and they wouldn't last a week, they'd die from
>>>>> exposure as they run around trying to find a Government office to apply
>>>>> for food stamps and welfare and ObamaCare.....
>>>>>
>>>> Liberals wrote the Constitution, you cretin.
>>>
>>> No they didn't; liberals don't believe in nor understand rights, the
>>> founders clearly did.
>>
>> Shut up dumbass.
>
>So says the intolerant mindless liberal. Incapable of discussion,
>afraid of the truth, can't make sense of anything.

When you post shit like "liberals don't believe in or understand
rights" it becomes completely impossible to take you seriously. You
earn the right to be nothing but an object of derision.

>
>Proof that the founders were not liberals:
>

whatever it takes to get you through the day.

>Amendment X
>
>End.

[deep]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:56:26 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

Three lefts.

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:13:38 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

At the time of the Founders and until the early 20th century....the
Conservatives of today..were the Liberals..and the leftwingers of
today..were the Conservatives. They swapped names in the late 1890s

So when you read anything from before 1900 and it talkes about
"Liberals"..it was discussing todays conservatives. Folks like Adam
Smith etc etc.

In Canada and the UK, they still use the original meanings of each
word.

Liberal = American Conservatives, Conservatives=American Leftists

Lots of stuff on Google pointing it out.

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:33:29 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:

If he opened his mouth..he would be called out and then killed in a
duel.

[Peter Franks]

And there you have it. The liberal way: nothing but confused.

[Peter Franks]

On 4/18/2013 7:13 PM, deep wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:53:17 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/2013 5:01 PM, deep wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:13:38 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/2013 3:22 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:22:09 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/27/2012 7:34 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Drop a Liberal in 1776 and they wouldn't last a week, they'd die from
>>>>>> exposure as they run around trying to find a Government office to apply
>>>>>> for food stamps and welfare and ObamaCare.....
>>>>>>
>>>>> Liberals wrote the Constitution, you cretin.
>>>>
>>>> No they didn't; liberals don't believe in nor understand rights, the
>>>> founders clearly did.
>>>
>>> Shut up dumbass.
>>
>> So says the intolerant mindless liberal. Incapable of discussion,
>> afraid of the truth, can't make sense of anything.
>
> When you post shit like "liberals don't believe in or understand
> rights"

"Three lefts."

You obviously don't understand or believe in rights.

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kkqcfu$elt$1...@dont-email.me...

Typical humorless wingnut prat.

Jim

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kkqci7$elt$2...@dont-email.me...

Whereas you obviously hold the secrets of all the universe, including
telepathy.

LOFL -- what an asshole.

Jim

[deep]

Yep. No sense of humor at all. Their lives must really suck.

>Jim
>
>

[Nickname unavailable]

liar, you have distorted what the constitution really stands for.
also today's liberals, get their power from the constitution, that
yesterdays liberals put in their for us to use:)))

[Nickname unavailable]

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

so any law, treaty or regulation that is deemed constitutional, shall
be the law of the land. its really quite simple. the constitution was
crafted by liberals, who gave the constitution broad powers to
legislate, tax, regulate, negate state law, mandate, tariff, to
promote and provide for the general welfare, to ensure domestic
tranquility:)))

if you want rights, they are in the constitution and the bill of
rights. here is a great statement about rights when they have been
taken away by wealthy powerful parasites("CONSERVATIVES").

" For too many of us the political equality we once had won was
meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had
concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over
other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor —
other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free;
liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of
happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could
appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929
showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the
people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
President Franklin Roosevelt "

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 18, 7:53 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 5:01 PM, deep wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:13:38 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>

ROTFLOL!!!!! so f##king stupid.


you have to have enough gray matter to understand even the most
simplest issues, let alone something complex. unfortunately, almost
all conservatives/libertarians/fascists lack enough gray matter to
even understand little simple things like the 10 amendment to the
constitution.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/rick-perry-tenth-amendment-_b_942373.html

Doug Kendall

Founder and President, Constitutional Accountability Center

Taking the Tenth Amendment Seriously
Posted: 8/30/11 03:55 PM ET

Tea partiers have a complicated relationship with the Constitution.
They frequently profess their love for the document, yet they also
seek to fundamentally alter it, for example by eliminating birthright
citizenship and by inserting a crippling balanced budget amendment.
However, one section of the document that tea partiers appear to be
absolutely smitten with is the Tenth Amendment. Unfortunately, their
boundless adoration for the Amendment seems to have prevented them
from reading it very carefully.

The Tenth Amendment states: "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." Tea partiers
have made truly outlandish claims of late about this short and simple
Amendment. For example, both Texas Governor Rick Perry and former
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin have declared the "sovereignty" of their
respective states "under the Tenth Amendment," with Perry suggesting
that secession might be an option for Texas in response to what he
sees as overreaching by the federal government. Perry has also used
the Amendment as a basis for attacking foundational parts of this
country's social safety net -- including such landmark laws as Social
Security and Medicare, as well as environmental safeguards -- as
unconstitutional encroachments on state rights. Senator Mike Lee has
made the similar claim that even federal child labor laws are
unconstitutional.

The Tenth Amendment's text does not come close to bearing the weight
the Tea Party has thrown upon it. As an initial matter, the Tenth
Amendment did not break new constitutional ground. The main point of
the Amendment was to reiterate what Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution already made clear: the Constitution established a
federal government of delegated or enumerated powers. As the Supreme
Court has noted, the main thrust of the Tenth Amendment is "a truism
that all is retained which has not been surrendered" (United States v.
Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 [1931]). That is not to say the Amendment is
unimportant or devoid of meaning; to the contrary, every Clause of the
Constitution should be given meaning, and the Amendment is certainly a
reminder that the powers of the federal government have limits. By the
same token, no portion of the Constitution should be given meaning it
doesn't have.

Second, the Founders and ratifiers of both the 1789 text of the
Constitution and of the Tenth Amendment rejected the strict limits on
federal authority that characterized the failed Articles of
Confederation. For example, a provision of the Articles limited
Congress to those powers "expressly delegated" to it. Not only does
the Tenth Amendment drop the modifier "expressly," the Founders also
insisted upon the Constitution's "necessary and proper" Clause, making
clear that every delegated power carries with it the power "to make
laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
Powers."

Third, in an odd addition to a provision that is portrayed by tea
partiers as a clarion call for states' rights, the Tenth Amendment
also reiterates, with the phrase "nor prohibited by it to the states,"
the fact that our Constitution limits not just the powers of the
federal government but also the powers of the states themselves. Those
limits, combined with Article VI of the Constitution, which (1) makes
the Constitution and federal law the "supreme law of the land," and
(2) binds state and local officials to an "oath or affirmation" to
support the national Constitution, make short work of the tea party's
general claim about the Constitution's protection of inviolable state
sovereignty.

In spite of the clear evidence to the contrary, many tea partiers
continue to argue that the Constitution preserves state sovereignty,
appealing in some cases to a mistaken view of history. For example,
Governor Perry errs in his book, Fed Up, when he attempts to support
this argument by quoting from James Madison in Federalist No. 39,
"[e]ach state, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a
sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its
own voluntary act" (Fed Up, p 23). The quote sounds like support for
Perry's strong states rights position until one realizes that the
"voluntary act" Madison is referring to is the ratification of the
Constitution itself. As Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar has explained,
"[a]lthough states would enter the Constitution as true sovereigns,
they would not remain so after ratification. The formation of a 'more
perfect Union' would itself end each state's sovereign status" (Amar,
America's Constitution: A Biography, 33).

The reality of our constitutional history is that the Constitution was
ratified because of a deep conviction by Americans, including George
Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, that the federal
government established by the Articles of Confederation was far too
feeble. The Constitution, in turn, provided vast new powers to the
federal government, retained some powers at the state level, and made
"We the People" the ultimate sovereign in the American republic.

The Tenth Amendment, like all other Amendments, is a binding part of
the Constitution that should be fully respected. However, the tea
party's view of the Tenth Amendment is inconsistent with the text and
history of the Constitution. When the states ratified the
Constitution, they renounced their status as fully-independent
sovereigns and endowed the federal government with enumerated but
substantial powers. The Tenth Amendment does not give tea partiers, or
anyone else, a constitutional basis for rolling back critical laws
that protect Americans' health, safety, and retirement security. Tea
partiers can love the Tenth Amendment all they want, but only if they
read it first.

Research Assistant Ryan Woo co-authored this piece.
Cross-posted at Text & History.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 18, 10:10 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:13:38 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>

liar.

traditional american liberalism, as practiced by the majority of the
founders of the united states of america, who enshrined american
liberalism into the constitution of the united states of america.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States

The origins of American liberalism lie in the political ideals of The
Enlightenment.[4] The Constitution of the United States of 1787 set up
the first modern republic, with sovereignty in the people (not in a
monarch) and no hereditary ruling aristocracy. However, the
Constitution limited liberty by accepting slavery. The Founding
Fathers recognized the contradiction, and most expected slavery to
wither away. Indeed it was abolished in all the Northern states by
1804, but due to the demand for raw cotton by the Industrial
Revolution, plantation slavery continued to flourish in the Deep
South.
From the time of the Revolution to the present day, America has
extended liberty to ever broader classes of people. The states
abolished restrictions on voting in the early 19th century. The
Constitution was amended in 1865 to abolish slavery, in 1870 to extend
the vote to Black men, in 1920 to extend the vote to women, and in
1971 to lower the voting age to 18. The Jim Crow system of the South
between the 1890s and 1960s relegated blacks to second class
citizenship, until it was overthrown by the Civil Rights Movement and
new federal laws in 1964 and 1965.[5]
Thomas Jefferson believed that America should remain a nation of small
farmers.[6] As America became more and more a nation of businessmen,
liberals began to fear threats to liberty from corruption and
monopolies (called "trusts" at the time).[7][8] Wealth was
concentrated in the hands of a few—especially in the new fast-growing
cities—raised questions whether political democracy could survive the
power of the rich.
The dominance of the Republican Party for most of the era 1860-1932,
the Third Party System, and the Fourth Party System, prevented any
major reversal of the concentration of wealth. During the Progressive
Era of the early 20th century, laws were passed restricting monopolies
(the antitrust movement) and regulating railroad rates.[9][10]
After 1933, modern liberals used the New Deal to provide jobs during
the Great Depression. The Social Security act of 1935 provided
retirement and disability income for Americans unable to work or
unable to find jobs.[11] In the Social Security Act of 1965, this was
extended to provide benefits for Americans unable to work due to
illness.
In the 1960s, liberals fought for the rights of blacks and women, and
for protection of the environment. They split on the issue of the
Vietnam War.
A reaction against modern American liberalism began with Barry
Goldwater, which led to the eventual election of Ronald Reagan in
1980. The intellectual foundations of this conservative resurgence
included the works of free-market economists Milton Friedman and the
Chicago School of Economics, who argued against central economic
planning (with the notable exception of the Federal Reserve),
regulation of business, and Keynesian economics. Deregulation began in
the mid-1970s and had broad support from both liberals and
conservatives. Reagan successfully lowered marginal tax rates, most
notably for those at the top of the income distribution, while his
Social Security reforms raised taxes on the middle and bottom of the
income distribution, leaving their total tax burden unchanged. [12]
Democratic president Bill Clinton (1993–2001) worked with
conservatives, against strong liberal opposition, to end some of the
main welfare programs and to implement NAFTA, linking the economies of
the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Clinton pushed to extend modern liberal
ideals especially in the areas of health care (where he failed) and
environmental protection (where he had more success).[13]
According to Louis Hartz, liberalism was the only significant
political tradition in the United States. However in the 1970s,
Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood and J. G. A. Pocock saw republicanism as
the main political tradition.[clarification needed] In the 1980s, J.
David Green returned to Hartz's thesis, but saw two different types of
liberalism in the tradition, which he called humanist and reform. More
recently, writers have seen a multitude of traditions, including
liberalism, republicanism and protestantism.[14][dubious – discuss]
[clarification needed]


as you can see, jefferson was a liberal, as well as thomas paine.
the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution
are all based on the writings of thomas paine. paine advocated for a
social democracy.
in fact a majority of the founders were liberals, they despised
conservatism, and blamed conservatives for almost losing the
revolution.


The Constitution of the United States
Preamble Note
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America.


Section 8 - Powers of Congress
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; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 18, 10:11 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 7:21 PM, deep wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:56:26 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>

"CONSERVATIVES" cannot escape their ideological boxes and are
creatures of their biases. They want their prejudices vindicated and
their beliefs supported. A writer who tells them something that they
do not want to hear receives abuse. These readers cannot benefit from
facts and new information and change their minds. They already know
everything and only want information that supports their beliefs and
advances their agendas. 

If a writer makes the case so clear that
readers simply cannot avoid it, the reader will intentionally misread
the article or book and attack the writer for saying everything that
he does not say. The chorus will join in the effort to shut down the
unwelcome information before it reaches others
"CONSERVATIVES" are hostile to facts and truths that do not support
their biases and serve their interests, there is a disconnect from
reality, which is the situation in America today.

[Peter Franks]

On 4/18/2013 10:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2013 4:28 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 6:13 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2013 3:22 PM, deep wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:22:09 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 11/27/2012 7:34 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Drop a Liberal in 1776 and they wouldn't last a week, they'd die from
>>>>>> exposure as they run around trying to find a Government office to apply
>>>>>> for food stamps and welfare and ObamaCare.....
>>
>>>>> Liberals wrote the Constitution, you cretin.
>>
>>>> No they didn't; liberals don't believe in nor understand rights, the
>>>> founders clearly did.
>>
>>> idiot.
>>
>> Define rights.
>

> THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE ...

<ignored>

> if you want rights, they are in the constitution and the bill of
> rights. here is a great statement about rights when they have been
> taken away by wealthy powerful parasites("CONSERVATIVES").

I asked to "define rights", not 'where are they found'.

I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.

[Peter Franks]

No.

But you, Deep, and the rest of the liberals don't understand nor believe
in rights.

[deep]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 06:21:36 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
one thing is for certain: rights are not granted to us by some
supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
people. Rights are granted to us by other men. If rights are not
recognized by other men, they are nothing but meaningless words. In
our case, your rights were granted to you by a bunch of liberals who
recognized them and wrote them down. Now of course you will claim te
superiority of yourself and your rights over all else. That's what
you want to think. But again, your concepts of rights are meaningless
if not recognized and granted to you by others. In your case liberals
(progressives). Prior to your rights being defined by liberals, the
only ones you had were ones granted to you by the king. Conservatives
were the ones who wanted to keep it that way. Liberals took power
away from the king and granted it to The People.

I know, an impossible concept for you to grasp.

[deep]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 06:22:36 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

Why do you lie like that? You only believe in your own rights.
Conservatives always prove that they have a whole seperate idea of
rights for others. Their own personal rights transcend all others.
You're perfectly willing to deny others rights. Take book censorship,
the "war on drugs" and attack on reproductive rights for examples. All
of those are attacks on the rights of others that conservatives are
perfectly willing to take away just because they want to.

[Peter Franks]

On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:
>> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
>> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.
>
> You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
> one thing is for certain: rights are not granted to us by some
> supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
> people. Rights are granted to us by other men. If rights are not
> recognized by other men, they are nothing but meaningless words. In
> our case, your rights were granted to you by a bunch of liberals who
> recognized them and wrote them down.

Where did they write down the "right to life"?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

They have already suggested that the supremacy clause means the Feds can
do anything they want.....




which would negate the rest of the constitution so always leave out and
ignore the little phrase at the end of the sentence in clauses, they are
often what we call *A QUALIFIER* where it sets limit or a condition for
the rest of the sentences to meet in order for it to be valid.

in the case of the supremacy clause, the Liberals always leave out;

[...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
notwithstanding.....]


*anything in the constitution or laws of any state*
*to the contrary notwithstanding*



The Liberals also do this with the "Necessary and Proper" to give the
Feds unlimited powers, they seem to subconsciously do it as if it were a
Freudian slip, they really do want an all powerful Federal government
with totalitarian power. Liberals have the understanding of government
that a six year old child would have.....

[....To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying

into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any

Department or Officer thereof.....]

The Liberals always leave out the part that limits.
*the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested*
*by this Constitution in the Government*


In other words, the Necessary and proper clause ads ZERO new powersand
affirms that the POWERS ARE LIMITED TO WHAT IS "IN" THE EXISTING
CONSTITUTION.

IT can't be used to create new powers and it also tells you that the
courts can't proclaim new powers because they aren't in the constitution
if the courts are creating powers from thin air.

The powers have to be written into the constitution by the original
writers or by Amendments, NOT by judges who have no power to modify the
constitution.

[deep]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:12:06 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish

[BeamMeUpScotty]

[....nor shall any State deprive any person of *life* , liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws....]

What the constitution does NOT do is allow the Supreme court to define
who is a "PERSON"....


When the Supreme Court did it in the past they used that definition of
*PERSON* to create slaves of the black race.


Noe they use the definition of Person to make an excuse and muddy the
waters to allow Killing of human life in a uterus.


Every time Democrats/Liberals decide to redefine "Person", they exclude
some other race or level of human life and deprive it of the protections
of the constitution.

It's their subtle and time tested style of discrimination.

--



*Rumination*
#61 - You can't write computer code that is irrational and expect it to
work. This Liberal-Socialist Matrix is flawed and failing.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:
>>> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
>>> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.
>>
>> You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
>> one thing is for certain: rights are not granted to us by some
>> supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
>> people. Rights are granted to us by other men.

Where did other men get the power to grant these rights?



Are these other men some kind of demigod that live here on earth?



Are they somehow superior to me? Or are we equal?



Our RIGHTS come from "the creator" NOT GOD or your father or your
brother....


The creator is NOT one thing or a group of people, the creator is simply
the facts that you are here and how ever that happened it makes you a
person with RIGHTS because you have been created.

You can name it anything you wish, call it evolution or divine
providence for all I care but you're here, and you can't tell us how or
why.... thus you have been created and with that comes certain
unalienable rights.

They can be respected or infringed or violated but never taken away or
given by other men.

[Frank]

On 4/18/2013 8:33 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 8:06 PM, deep wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:49:53 -0400, Frank
>> <frankdo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>

>>> On 4/18/2013 7:28 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

>>>> On Apr 18, 6:13 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/2013 3:22 PM, deep wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:22:09 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/27/2012 7:34 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Drop a Liberal in 1776 and they wouldn't last a week, they'd die from
>>>>>>> exposure as they run around trying to find a Government office to apply
>>>>>>> for food stamps and welfare and ObamaCare.....
>>>>>
>>>>>> Liberals wrote the Constitution, you cretin.
>>>>>
>>>>> No they didn't; liberals don't believe in nor understand rights, the
>>>>> founders clearly did.
>>>>

>>>> idiot.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> traditional american liberalism, as practiced by the majority of the
>>>> founders of the united states of america, who enshrined american
>>>> liberalism into the constitution of the united states of america.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>> Today's progressives are not yesterday's liberals. The founders
>>> established the rules to protect the people from the government not to
>>> be dependent on it.
>>

>> You people just aren't capable of getting the fact of just how screwed
>> up you are, so you just keep on parroting the lies.
>>
>
>
> We are getting a good laugh at your insistence that the founders were
> Liberals.....
>
> Old style or new, they did NOT believe in All powerful government like
> you do.
>
> They were getting away from an all powerful King.
>
>
> SO the fact is they were NOTHING like you.
>
>
> If we drop "you" in 1776 you would be dead in a week because you'd spend
> all your time trying to find a government agency to take care of you.
>
>
>
>

I thought it was a hoot during Clinton's escapades when they went back
to attack Thomas Jefferson as fathering illegitimate children. Is that
proof that Jefferson was a Liberal?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Must be, no Republican ever did that did they?

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kkrg9b$q3t$2...@dont-email.me...

You're a fucking l00n.

Jim

[Peter Franks]

Hmm, help me out, I'm still not seeing the "right to life" written here.

Not to mention that the preamble holds no legal weight nor standing, but
who's paying attention to facts here...

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:Z9ect.54204$pt1....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...

>
>> On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:
>>>> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
>>>> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.
>>>
>>> You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
>>> one thing is for certain: rights are not granted to us by some
>>> supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
>>> people. Rights are granted to us by other men.
>
>
> Where did other men get the power to grant these rights?

LOL -- where do *you* think rights come from?

<...off to get popcorn, BRB...>

JIm

[Peter Franks]

On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:

> Rights are granted to us by other men.

OK. So you disagree with Jefferson about rights then. Right?

[Peter Franks]

Nature.

[Peter Franks]

Standard liberal response.

[Frank]

I gave up trying.

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kkrujp$3ct$7...@dont-email.me...

LOL -- that must be why people everywhere throughout human history have
agreed on what they are.

Jim

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kkruke$3ct$8...@dont-email.me...

<...>

>>> But you, Deep, and the rest of the liberals don't understand nor believe
>>> in rights.
>>
>> You're a fucking l00n.
>
> Standard liberal response.

Yeah, I can understand how you'd get that a lot.

Jim

[deep]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:20:34 -0700, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>

You asked where they were written down. I told you.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Obama's ilk will tell you it's from the barrel of a gun.


But that's what the government uses to steal our rights NOT give any rights.

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:KFgct.529488$%p1.5...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 4/19/2013 1:21 PM, Clave wrote:

<...>

>> LOL -- where do *you* think rights come from?
>>
>> <...off to get popcorn, BRB...>
>>
>>

> Obama's ilk will tell you it's from the barrel of a gun.
>
> But that's what the government uses to steal our rights NOT give any
> rights.

I knew you'd have nothing but a song and dance.

Answer the question, l00n.

Jim

[Peter Franks]

Yet it isn't written there.

So once again we see the liberal modus operandi: everything they say is
wrong.

[Peter Franks]

No, just the enlightened ones.

Liberals, liars, totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, etc.
are all founded on lies, propaganda, obfuscation, confusion, so they'd
never agree on anything.

[Peter Franks]

Right, I do get that response a lot: We are being overrun with mindless
confused liberals.

Sad, but true.

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kks6jn$6bl$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/19/2013 10:47 AM, Clave wrote:
>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:kkrujp$3ct$7...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 4/19/2013 10:21 AM, Clave wrote:
>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:Z9ect.54204$pt1....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:
>>>>>>>> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
>>>>>>>> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
>>>>>>> one thing is for certain: rights are not granted to us by some
>>>>>>> supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
>>>>>>> people. Rights are granted to us by other men.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did other men get the power to grant these rights?
>>>>
>>>> LOL -- where do *you* think rights come from?
>>>
>>> Nature.
>>
>> LOL -- that must be why people everywhere throughout human history have
>> agreed on what they are.
>
> No, just the enlightened ones.

Like our Founding Fathers declaring blacks 3/5 of a person?

Jim

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kks6qh$6bl$4...@dont-email.me...

You sound just like I guy I know -- do you spend a lot of time standing on
an orange crate in Pioneer Square?

Jim

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 19, 8:21 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 10:10 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 6:56 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

> >> On 4/18/2013 4:28 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 6:13 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 4/18/2013 3:22 PM, deep wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:22:09 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> >>>>> <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 11/27/2012 7:34 PM, jim wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Drop a Liberal in 1776 and they wouldn't last a week, they'd die from
> >>>>>> exposure as they run around trying to find a Government office to apply
> >>>>>> for food stamps and welfare and ObamaCare.....
>
> >>>>> Liberals wrote the Constitution, you cretin.
>
> >>>> No they didn't; liberals don't believe in nor understand rights, the
> >>>> founders clearly did.
>
> >>>    idiot.
>

> >> Define rights.
>
> > THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE  ...
>
> <ignored>
>
> >   if you want rights, they are in the constitution and the bill of
> > rights. here is a great statement about rights when they have been
> > taken away by wealthy powerful parasites("CONSERVATIVES").
>
> I asked to "define rights", not 'where are they found'.

>
> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.

sure we do, its why lincoln was right, and we do not want a ayn rand
utopia. here is your belief, and lincoln was dead set against it.


"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
other people." -- Abraham Lincoln

FDR was spot on also.

" For too many of us the political equality we once had won was
meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had
concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over
other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor —
other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free;
liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of
happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could
appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929
showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the
people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
President Franklin Roosevelt "

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 19, 12:20 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 8:43 AM, deep wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:12:06 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>

you cannot see what you do not understand. its explained right here
by me,



the more you expose the "CONSERVATIVES" for what they are, the more
the public realizes that there are two kinds of "CONSERVATIVE "
voters,

al bundy, homer simpson, archie bunker types, and high functioning
clever cunning and manipulative sociopaths that can fool them.



the al bundy/homer simpson/archie bunker types, are a towering
achievement to the success of the nanny state. those types live long
stupid lives. without the nanny state, they would live short brutal
lives like in somalia.
but today the polices that the stupid feverishly support and cling
to, are starting to bear fruit. only the stupid would feverishly cling
to polices that will shorten their lives, and make life more
miserable, they are now dying off early, on average, their lives are
being shortened by about four years.
its a zero sum game though for the wealthy parasites that they
feverishly worship, because now "THE CONSERVATIVES" are running low on
stupid voters. as rick sanitarium said, the smart will never side with
us.


the republican party is simply running out of al bundy, homer
simpson, archie bunker types. people so stupid, they cannot even do
basic math, let alone come in from the rain.
the constitution of the united states was a anti-conservative
statement by the majority of the founders of the united states of
america.



There are a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on keeping lots of
"CONSERVATIVES" terrified and ill-informed. The groups that exist to
raise funds, raise more funds when they endorse the crazier candidate.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Because they wanted to limit the slave owners voting power and the
redistribution of taxes, so that slave owners didn't get government
subsidies for owning slaves.


Yet Liberals are compelled to force all Americans to pay for Abortions
and contraception, like they want to pay for 5/5 of a slave owners
subsidized slave.


Liberals want everyone to pay for their slavery and murder.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 19, 2:43 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 10:47 AM, Clave wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote in message

> >news:kkrujp$3ct$7...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 4/19/2013 10:21 AM, Clave wrote:

> >>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> >>> messagenews:Z9ect.54204$pt1....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...

>
> >>>>> On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:
> >>>>>>> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
> >>>>>>> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.
>
> >>>>>> You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
> >>>>>> one thing is for certain:  rights are not granted to us by some
> >>>>>> supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
> >>>>>> people.  Rights are granted to us by other men.
>
> >>>> Where did other men get the power to grant these rights?
>
> >>> LOL -- where do *you* think rights come from?
>
> >> Nature.
>
> > LOL -- that must be why people everywhere throughout human history have
> > agreed on what they are.
>
> No, just the enlightened ones.
>
> Liberals, liars, totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, etc.
> are all founded on lies, propaganda, obfuscation, confusion, so they'd
> never agree on anything.

sure they do, they all agree with ayn rand:))))

[David J. Hughes]

That was the result of a compromise.
The slave owners wanted to count them as whole persons, the non slave
owners didn't want to count them at all.
They both agreed not to count any members of indigenous tribes.

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:lcict.73433$_R.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

> Because they wanted to limit the slave owners voting power and the
> redistribution of taxes, so that slave owners didn't get government
> subsidies for owning slaves.

Where do rights come from, l00n?

Jim

[CanopyCo]

On Apr 19, 11:21 am, BeamMeUpScotty

<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> > On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:
> >>> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
> >>> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.
>
> >> You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
> >> one thing is for certain: rights are not granted to us by some
> >> supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
> >> people. Rights are granted to us by other men.
>
> Where did other men get the power to grant these rights?
>

The same place he got the power to take them away.

> Are these other men some kind of demigod that live here on earth?
>

Nope, just able to kick your ass.

> Are they somehow superior to me? Or are we equal?
>

Yes they are superior to you.
They can kick you ass.

> Our RIGHTS come from "the creator" NOT GOD or your father or your
> brother....
>

That’s the same thing my chicken said just before I cut off his head.

> The creator is NOT one thing or a group of people, the creator is simply
> the facts that you are here and how ever that happened it makes you a
> person with RIGHTS because you have been created.
>
> You can name it anything you wish, call it evolution or divine
> providence for all I care but you're here, and you can't tell us how or
> why.... thus you have been created and with that comes certain
> unalienable rights.
>

If they are unalienable then how is it that they are taken away from
people on a daily bases?

> They can be respected or infringed or violated but never taken away or
> given by other men.

If they can be infringed or violated then they are not inalienable
because inalienable means that they cannot be infringed or violated.

No?
So, the constitution said that it was ok to infringe and violate our
rights because you can infringe and violate a right and it will still
be inalienable?
The gun guys are going to not like you.
;-)

[Peter Franks]

You watch too much TV.

[Peter Franks]

That was a concession in order to form the union. They could have been
qualified as 0 of a person, if that suits you (probably does).

I realize that all of this is WAY above your comprehension level.

[Peter Franks]

On 4/19/2013 2:45 PM, CanopyCo wrote:
> If they are unalienable then how is it that they are taken away from
> people on a daily bases?

Inalienable does not mean that they can't be forfeit.

Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. Please explain
in detail what you are asking.

>> They can be respected or infringed or violated but never taken away or
>> given by other men.
>
> If they can be infringed or violated then they are not inalienable
> because inalienable means that they cannot be infringed or violated.

Lol. Inalienable means that they can't be transferred from one person
to another.

Rights are violated all the time. The just purpose of government is to
a) prevent, where possible, the violation of rights (i.e. secure or
protect rights); b) punish those that do violate the rights of others.

This is fundamental stuff, bro.

[Clave]

"David J. Hughes" <davidjh...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:KEict.397299$Hq1.3...@newsfe23.iad...

> That was the result of a compromise.
> The slave owners wanted to count them as whole persons, the non slave
> owners didn't want to count them at all.
> They both agreed not to count any members of indigenous tribes.

Irrelevant at the moment.

The point is that people DON'T agree on rights, and simply declaring that
the people who agree with your interpretation are all correct and
"enlighted" is tautological horseshit.

Jim

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kkseua$2j7$3...@dont-email.me...

Irrelevant. Rights are not, and never have been absolute or nature-made.

Jim

[Peter Franks]

On 4/19/2013 1:47 PM, Clave wrote:
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:kks6qh$6bl$4...@dont-email.me...
>> On 4/19/2013 10:48 AM, Clave wrote:
>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kkruke$3ct$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>>> But you, Deep, and the rest of the liberals don't understand nor
>>>>>> believe
>>>>>> in rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a fucking l00n.
>>>>
>>>> Standard liberal response.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I can understand how you'd get that a lot.
>>
>> Right, I do get that response a lot: We are being overrun with mindless
>> confused liberals.
>
> You sound just like I guy I know -- do you spend a lot of time standing on
> an orange crate in Pioneer Square?

Nope.

But you sound just like any other old liberal. No substance and a
complete waste of time.

[Clave]

"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message

news:kksf88$5i6$2...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/19/2013 1:47 PM, Clave wrote:
>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:kks6qh$6bl$4...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 4/19/2013 10:48 AM, Clave wrote:
>>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kkruke$3ct$8...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>>>> But you, Deep, and the rest of the liberals don't understand nor
>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>> in rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a fucking l00n.
>>>>>
>>>>> Standard liberal response.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I can understand how you'd get that a lot.
>>>
>>> Right, I do get that response a lot: We are being overrun with mindless
>>> confused liberals.
>>
>> You sound just like I guy I know -- do you spend a lot of time standing
>> on
>> an orange crate in Pioneer Square?
>

> Nope....
>
> But you...blah, blah, blah...

That's really all they've taught you to say -- sad.

Jim

[deep]

But they're made with magic or something. First there was nothing,
then we got all these "rights" floating around everywhere. Whatever
they are.

Almost kind of funny getting the tards talking about rights. They
can't come close to actually defining them. They just are something
really special that they got from Gawd.

>Jim
>
>

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Asked and answered....


take Alzheimer's meds.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

They are NOT taken, they are respected or infringed, or violated.....
for which some societies create punishments.

>> They can be respected or infringed or violated but never taken away or
>> given by other men.
>
> If they can be infringed or violated then they are not inalienable
> because inalienable means that they cannot be infringed or violated.

NO... it means they are NOT given or taken away, you always have them.
and even when my rights are violated, they are still my rights and have
NOT been taken away, they are only being violated.

>
> No?
> So, the constitution said that it was ok to infringe and violate our
> rights because you can infringe and violate a right and it will still
> be inalienable?

Which rights does the Constitution suggest can be infringed or violated?

> The gun guys are going to not like you.
> ;-)
>

I'm NOT here to be liked, I'm here to tell the truth.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Can we pass a law that makes it illegal for you to eat?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Actually RIGHTS come with self awareness and high cognitive functions,
which may explain your difficulty here.

[Clave]

"deep" wrote in message news:egg3n8tr4k8f6utob...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:10:35 -0700, "Clave"
> <ChrisC...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

<...>

>>Irrelevant. Rights are not, and never have been absolute or nature-made.
>>
> But they're made with magic or something. First there was nothing,
> then we got all these "rights" floating around everywhere. Whatever
> they are.
>
> Almost kind of funny getting the tards talking about rights. They
> can't come close to actually defining them. They just are something
> really special that they got from Gawd.

Yep, although I usually wind up invoking a rights fairy.

Jim

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:MHjct.109666$JR.8...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

> Actually RIGHTS come with self awareness...

Free clue, l00n -- rights are not simply whatever you want them to be.

Jim

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:Wvjct.107557$lR.2...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

> On 4/19/2013 5:35 PM, Clave wrote:

<...>

>> Where do rights come from, l00n?
>>

> Asked and danced around...

Fixed your post, coward.

Jim

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:vFjct.109665$JR.4...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

> Can we pass a law that makes it illegal for you to eat?

Irrelevant. This is just you avoiding the issue again.

Jim

[BeamMeUpScotty]

You can dance up a storm.....

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:ePjct.73449$_R.4...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

<...>

>>> Can we pass a law that makes it illegal for you to eat?
>>
>> Irrelevant. This is just you avoiding the issue again.
>>

> You can dance up a storm.....

Where do rights come from, ScottyL00n? Pretending that you've answered only
fools you.

Answer the question for once.

Jim

[Gunner Asch]

Then Jim is utterly ignorant of the Preamble and the Constitution isnt
he?

Odd...he is not an American then? I would have sworn he was. Oh..that
makes sense. He is a Leftwinger..and thereby mentally ill. They just
LIVE in the United States..they really arent citizens.

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

This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English
language", containing "the most potent and consequential words in
American history. The passage came to represent a moral standard to
which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted
by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the
foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the
Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United
States Constitution should be interpreted. It has inspired work for
the rights of marginalized people throughout the world.

Sadly...Organisms like Jim consider the Bill of Rights to be nothing
more than toilet paper, not something that 200+ years of Americans
have fought and died and bled for.

Certainly not. Its only a piece of toilet paper to you..correct
Jimmy?

Thats one of the reasons Leftwingers are considered both mad..and
enemies..both foreign and domestic.

So Jimmy...how does it feel to be an enemy of the People?


Gunner

[Jeff Strickland]

"Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message
news:75f22ac6-6467-49c6...@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Really, conservatives are terrified and ill informed?

I've got news for you, I am not terrified, and I can talk circles around
the KoolAid bucket that you dip your cup into.

Stupid voters are the exclusive property of the Democrat party. They are so
stupid that they cannot push a stylis through a pre-punched voter card.
Well, that is a sign of voters that are infirm more than they are stupid,
but they tried to vote Democrat, and THAT is stupid.

The Constitution assumes the citizens will do more to help themselves than
they will rely on government to provide for their needs. Liberals take the
position that government has the sole duty to raise the downtrodden from the
rut of life they fine theirselves in. Instead of passing out fish, the
founding fathers thought it better to pass out fishing line and hooks.

Catch your own f---ing fish instead of grabbing parts of my filet mignon.

[CanopyCo]

On Apr 19, 5:09 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 2:45 PM, CanopyCo wrote:
>
> > If they are unalienable then how is it that they are taken away from
> > people on a daily bases?
>
> Inalienable does not mean that they can't be forfeit.
>
> Sounds like you don't know what you are talking about. Please explain
> in detail what you are asking.
>

I believe that the concept of rights is nothing more than a social
ruling as to how people should be treated.
They are not inalienable.

Inalienable defined is Unable to be taken away from or given away by
the possessor.

The only inalienable right given by god is the right to die.
No other right is inalienable, because all other rights can be taken
away from you.
In fact, with modern medicine even the right to die can now be taken
away from you for quite some time.

> >> They can be respected or infringed or violated but never taken away or
> >> given by other men.
>
> > If they can be infringed or violated then they are not inalienable
> > because inalienable means that they cannot be infringed or violated.
>
> Lol. Inalienable means that they can't be transferred from one person
> to another.
>

It also means that it can’t be taken away from you.
There is nothing that cannot be taken away from you threw force.

> Rights are violated all the time. The just purpose of government is to
> a) prevent, where possible, the violation of rights (i.e. secure or
> protect rights); b) punish those that do violate the rights of others.
>
> This is fundamental stuff, bro.

Thus they are given by that government and can be taken away just as
easily by simply not protecting them anymore.

The only rights you have are the ones that you force others to give
you.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 19, 12:20 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 8:43 AM, deep wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:12:06 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:
> >>>> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
> >>>> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.
>
> >>> You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
> >>> one thing is for certain:  rights are not granted to us by some
> >>> supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
> >>> people.  Rights are granted to us by other men.  If rights are not
> >>> recognized by other men, they are nothing but meaningless words.  In
> >>> our case, your rights were granted to you by a bunch of liberals who
> >>> recognized them and wrote them down.
>
> >> Where did they write down the "right to life"?
>
> > We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
> > union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> > common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
> > of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
> > this Constitution for the United States of America.
>
> Hmm, help me out, I'm still not seeing the "right to life" written here.
>
> Not to mention that the preamble holds no legal weight nor standing, but
> who's paying attention to facts here...

liar,

definition of a preamble: A preliminary statement, especially the
introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare….


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preamble

1. A preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal
document that serves to explain its purpose.
2. An introductory occurrence or fact; a preliminary.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
Confederation).

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and

establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

the majority of the founders were liberals, who crafted the
constitution of the united states with broad powers to legislate, tax,
regulate, tariff, negate state law, promote and provide for the
general welfare, mandate, to ensure domestic tranquility, and to To
make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.




THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the
United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the
constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a
federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 19, 2:41 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 12:06 PM, deep wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:20:34 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> On 4/19/2013 8:43 AM, deep wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:12:06 -0700, Peter Franks <n...@none.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:
> >>>>>> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
> >>>>>> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.
>
> >>>>> You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
> >>>>> one thing is for certain:  rights are not granted to us by some
> >>>>> supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
> >>>>> people.  Rights are granted to us by other men.  If rights are not
> >>>>> recognized by other men, they are nothing but meaningless words.  In
> >>>>> our case, your rights were granted to you by a bunch of liberals who
> >>>>> recognized them and wrote them down.
>
> >>>> Where did they write down the "right to life"?
>
> >>> We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
> >>> union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> >>> common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
> >>> of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
> >>> this Constitution for the United States of America.
>
> >> Hmm, help me out, I'm still not seeing the "right to life" written here.
>
> >> Not to mention that the preamble holds no legal weight nor standing, but
> >> who's paying attention to facts here...
>

> > You asked where they were written down.  I told you.
>
> Yet it isn't written there.
>
> So once again we see the liberal modus operandi: everything they say is
> wrong.

i am sure that is what all institutionalized inmates say about those
on the outside. they are sane, those on the outside are not.

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 19, 2:43 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 10:47 AM, Clave wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote in message

> >news:kkrujp$3ct$7...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 4/19/2013 10:21 AM, Clave wrote:

> >>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> >>> messagenews:Z9ect.54204$pt1....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...

>
> >>>>> On 4/19/2013 6:32 AM, deep wrote:
> >>>>>>> I see that you also can't define rights. Which further supports my
> >>>>>>> assertion that liberals don't believe in nor understand rights.
>
> >>>>>> You will only try to play games with words you don't understand, but
> >>>>>> one thing is for certain:  rights are not granted to us by some
> >>>>>> supreme being living in the clouds with a bunch of neutered dead
> >>>>>> people.  Rights are granted to us by other men.
>

> >>>> Where did other men get the power to grant these rights?
>
> >>> LOL -- where do *you* think rights come from?
>
> >> Nature.
>
> > LOL -- that must be why people everywhere throughout human history have
> > agreed on what they are.
>
> No, just the enlightened ones.
>

> Liberals, liars, totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, etc.
> are all founded on lies, propaganda, obfuscation, confusion, so they'd
> never agree on anything.

its impossible for liberals to be fascists, fascists are
"CONSERVATIVE".

[CanopyCo]

On Apr 19, 5:33 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

Ok, Billy has the right to set fire to the entire neighborhood.
I know this because Billy can and did set fire to the entire
neighborhood.
Demonstrate how Billy did not have the right to set fire to the entire
neighborhood.

Saying that something exists but can’t be shown or demonstrated
typically doesn’t exist.

Show how I have a right that you list but don’t have a right that I
list.

> >> They can be respected or infringed or violated but never taken away or
> >> given by other men.
>

You have the right to an attorney, unless you are a terrorist.
Then we took that right away from you.
Ask any lawyer and see what happens to terrorists.

> > If they can be infringed or violated then they are not inalienable
> > because inalienable means that they cannot be infringed or violated.
>
> NO... it means they are NOT given or taken away, you always have them.
> and even when my rights are violated, they are still my rights and have
> NOT been taken away, they are only being violated.
>
>

Violating them in fact takes them away from you, as if you ever had
them in the first place.
Show why I have the rights that you list but don’t have the rights
that I list.

>
> > No?
> > So, the constitution said that it was ok to infringe and violate our
> > rights because you can infringe and violate a right and it will still
> > be inalienable?
>
> Which rights does the Constitution suggest can be infringed or violated?
>

You said that a right can be violated and still be inalienable.
The Constitution states only that the rights are inalienable, and that
did not change when they were violated or infringed (according to
you).
Thus the constitution does nothing to prevent you from having your
rights violated because it did not say that they cannot be violated.
It said that they were inalienable and that did not change due to
violation.

> > The gun guys are going to not like you.
> > ;-)
>
> I'm NOT here to be liked, I'm here to tell the truth.

Me to.
I am glad to see that we have that in common.
Eventually we will determine what the truth is and then we will both
be right.

[Nickname unavailable]

no, it mirrors modern america,

[Nickname unavailable]

On Apr 19, 7:15 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Nickname unavailable" <video61%tcq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote in message

yes, remember, all thru the housing crisis i warned it was a bubble,
a bubble formed by the private sector, and you poo pooed it, even
after it popped.

>  I've got news for you, I am not terrified, and I can talk circles around
> the KoolAid bucket that you dip your cup into.
>

you sure feel down badly on the housing bubble, if i remember right,
you are a gold guy also:)))

> Stupid voters are the exclusive property of the Democrat party. They are so
> stupid that they cannot push a stylis through a pre-punched voter card.
> Well, that is a sign of voters that are infirm more than they are stupid,
> but they tried to vote Democrat, and THAT is stupid.
>

yea, we know why that happened.

> The Constitution assumes the citizens will do more to help themselves than
> they will rely on government to provide for their needs. Liberals take the
> position that government has the sole duty to raise the downtrodden from the
> rut of life they fine theirselves in. Instead of passing out fish, the
> founding fathers thought it better to pass out fishing line and hooks.
>

you can back that up in the constitution correct?

> Catch your own f---ing fish instead of grabbing parts of my filet mignon.

funny, that is not how the founders saw it.

the Constitution created a robust central authority:stating in the
preamble the explicit responsibility of the government to promote the
general Welfare:The document also granted the federal government broad
domestic powers including authority to regulate interstate commerce,
the so-called Commerce Clause




http://truth-out.org/news/item/8080-did-the-founders-hate-government?

Did the Founders Hate Government?
Saturday, 24 March 2012 13:14 By Robert Parry, Consortium News | News
Analysis


Orwell’s insight - that who controls the present controls the past,
and who controls the past controls the future - could apply to the
American political debate in which the Right has built a false
narrative that enlists the Framers of the Constitution as enemies of a
strong central government, writes Robert Parry.
In the coming months – with a new fight over the federal budget, the
Supreme Court’s review of health-care reform and the November
elections – the battle in the United States will pit not just
political parties and economic ideologies against one another – but
competing national narratives of how and why the United States was
founded.
Indeed, it is that conflict over the American narrative that may well
determine the outcome of the presidential election and the future
direction of the United States. Yet, this dispute over the Founders’
vision is rarely debated in the mainstream news media.
The argument does, however, inspire right-wing groups which obsess
over “strict construction” of the Constitution and the “originalist”
intent of the Founders. Such references also have become standard fare
on the Republican campaign trail with the four remaining major
candidates claiming to be in this fight to defend American “liberty.”
On Saturday, for instance, ex-Sen. Rick Santorum declared that
President Barack Obama’s health-care reform is “a threat to the very
essence of who America is.” As the New York Times noted, “numbers like
1776 and 1860 increasingly pepper his speeches as he stresses the
historical urgency of his candidacy.”
The Right’s historical narrative holds that the Founders designed the
United States to have a weak central government barred from
confronting most domestic problems (though with broad powers for
defense). Under this “free-market” system, wealthy business interests
had the “liberty” to set their own rules and the average citizen had
the “freedom” to make his way the best he could.
There is, of course, a counter-narrative, but Democrats and
progressives rarely make it, preferring to cede the history to the
Right and to argue that the Founders couldn’t possibly have
anticipated the complex problems of the modern age.
Still, the counter-narrative to the GOP mythology is grounded in solid
history. Indeed, the evidence is that most constitutional framers were
pragmatic men interested in building a strong nation. They also were
fed up with the weak central government under the Articles of
Confederation. They surely weren’t anti-government ideologues.
In the Constitution, they created a robust central authority, stating
in the preamble the explicit responsibility of the government “to
promote the general Welfare.” The document also granted the federal
government broad domestic powers, including authority to regulate
interstate commerce, the so-called Commerce Clause.
Framing the Commerce Clause
Plus, the Commerce Clause was not some afterthought at the
Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was presented as one of the new
federal powers in James Madison’s Virginia plan on the first day of
substantive debate. It also was considered one of the least
controversial features of the new governing framework.
Indeed, constitutional architect Madison had been maneuvering to give
this power to the federal government for years, seeking such a change
in the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States
from 1777 to 1787.
Madison “sponsored a resolution instructing Virginia congressmen to
vote to give the federal government the authority to regulate commerce
for twenty-five years,” noted Chris DeRose in Founding Rivals, a
resolution that won the support of Gen. George Washington, one of the
fiercest critics of the weak central government in the Articles of
Confederation.
Because the Articles’ structure of 13 “independent” and “sovereign”
states had left Washington’s soldiers starving and desperate – when
the states reneged on promised funding – Washington advocated a much
stronger central government.
Regarding Madison’s commerce idea, Washington wrote that “the
proposition in my opinion is so self evident that I confess I am at a
loss to discover wherein lies the weight of the objection to the
measure. We are either a united people, or we are not. If the former,
let us, in all matters of a general concern act as a nation, which
have national objects to promote, and a national character to support.
If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it to be.”
When the Virginia legislature slashed Madison’s proposal for federal
control of commerce from 25 years to 13 years, he voted against it as
insufficient. His thoughts then turned to a more drastic scheme for
consolidating power in the hands of the federal government, a
constitutional convention, albeit under the guise of simply proposing
some changes to the Articles.
A Dramatic Change
In spring 1787 – with a convention called in Philadelphia to amend the
Articles of Confederation – Madison unveiled his radical alternative,
not simply some modifications to the Articles but an entirely new
system that wiped away the Articles’ language about the “independence”
and “sovereignty” of the states.
On May 29, 1787, the first day of substantive debate at the
Constitutional Convention, a fellow Virginian, Edmund Randolph,
presented Madison’s framework. Madison’s Commerce Clause was there
from the start, except that instead of a 25-year grant of federal
authority, the central government’s control of interstate commerce
would be made permanent.
Madison’s convention notes on Randolph’s presentation recount him
saying that “there were many advantages, which the U. S. might
acquire, which were not attainable under the confederation – such as a
productive impost [or tax] – counteraction of the commercial
regulations of other nations – pushing of commerce ad libitum – &c
&c.”
In other words, the Founders – at their most “originalist” moment –
understood the value of the federal government taking action to negate
the commercial advantages of other countries and to take steps for
“pushing of [American] commerce.” The “ad libitum – &c &c” notation
suggests that Randolph provided other examples off the top of his
head.
Historian Bill Chapman has summarized Randolph’s point as saying “we
needed a government that could co-ordinate commerce in order to
compete effectively with other nations.”
So, from the very start of the debate on a new Constitution, Madison
and other key framers recognized that a legitimate role of the U.S.
Congress was to ensure that the nation could match up against other
countries economically and could address problems impeding the
nation’s economic success and the public welfare.
The constitutional framers understood what they were doing. As
historian Richard Labunski wrote in James Madison and the Struggle for
the Bill of Rights, “no one knew better than the delegates that the
proposed Constitution would drastically alter the structure of
government. Much of the power of the states would be taken from them.”
The point also was not missed by the advocates of states’ rights.
After the Constitutional Convention, these Anti-Federalists, led by
Madison’s chief rival Patrick Henry, mounted a fierce campaign to
defeat Madison’s scheme because they recognized that it concentrated
power in the central government.
For instance, dissidents from Pennsylvania’s convention delegation
wrote: “We dissent … because the powers vested in Congress by this
constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative,
executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from
their ruins one consolidated government.” [See David Wootton, The
Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.]
As resistance to Madison’s plan spread – and as states elected
delegates to ratifying conventions – Madison feared that his
constitutional masterwork would go down to defeat or be subjected to a
second convention that might remove important federal powers like the
Commerce Clause.
Finessing the Opposition
So, Madison – along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay – began a
series of essays, called the Federalist Papers, designed to counter
the fierce (though generally accurate) attacks by the Anti-Federalists
against the broad assertion of federal power in the Constitution.
Madison’s strategy was essentially to insist that the drastic changes
contained in the Constitution were not all that drastic, an approach
he took both as a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention and in
the Federalist Papers.
Today’s Right has sought to transform Madison from his role as the
chief advocate for a strong central government into the opposite – a
modern-day Tea Partier before his time – by citing Federalist Paper
No. 45, entitled “The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to
the State Governments Considered,” in which Madison used the pseudonym
Publius.
Trying to finesse the opposition to his plan for enhanced federal
powers, Madison wrote: “If the new Constitution be examined with
accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists
much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the
invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.”
But even that was an admission from Madison that the Constitution
added teeth to what had been toothless authorities theoretically
granted to the central government under the Articles. Making powers
meaningful, rather than ineffectual, is not an insignificant change.
Madison also noted: “The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new
power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from
which no apprehensions are entertained.”
Yet, to claim Madison as an opponent of an activist federal
government, the Right must ignore both his advocacy for beefing up
what had been weak authorities and adding the crucial new one over
commerce. The Right also must ignore Federalist Paper No. 14 in which
Madison envisioned major construction projects under the powers
granted by the Commerce Clause.
“[T]he union will be daily facilitated by new improvements,” Madison
wrote. “Roads will everywhere be shortened, and kept in better order;
accommodations for travelers will be multiplied and meliorated; an
interior navigation on our eastern side will be opened throughout, or
nearly throughout the whole extent of the Thirteen States.
“The communication between the western and Atlantic districts, and
between different parts of each, will be rendered more and more easy
by those numerous canals with which the beneficence of nature has
intersected our country, and which art finds it so little difficult to
connect and complete.”
The building of canals, as an argument in support of the Commerce
Clause and the Constitution, further reflects the pragmatic – and
commercial – attitudes of key founders. In 1785, two years before the
Constitutional Convention, George Washington founded the Potowmack
Company, which began the work of digging canals to extend navigable
waterways westward where he and other Founders had invested in Ohio
and other undeveloped lands.
Thus, the idea of involving the central government in major economic
projects – a government-business partnership to create jobs and
profits – was there from the beginning. Madison, Washington and other
early American leaders saw the Constitution as creating a dynamic
system so the young country could grow and overcome the daunting
challenges of its vast territory.
The Founders did debate the proper limits of federal and state powers,
but again Madison and Washington came down on the side of making
federal statutes and treaties the supreme law of the land. (Madison
had even favored giving Congress veto power over each state law, but
settled for granting the federal courts the authority to overturn
state laws that violated federal statutes.)
After Ratification
The narrow ratification of the Constitution in 1788 did not end the
confrontations over states’ rights, especially when the South began to
fear that its agriculture-based economy and its lucrative industry of
slavery might be threatened as the industrialized North expanded and
the anti-slavery movement grew.
In the early 1830s, President Andrew Jackson faced down South Carolina
over its claimed right to “nullify” federal law. And three decades
later, President Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to settle the
issue of states having the right to secede from the Union.
Still, as late as the 1950s and 1960s, Southern white supremacists
were still citing the principle of states’ right in defending
segregation. Though the segregationists lost those fights in federal
courts and in the battle for public opinion, they never surrendered.
They simply regrouped.
In the mid-1970s, as the Vietnam War ended, the American Left began
shutting down or selling off much its media, which had proved
effective in reaching out to the public to build opposition to the
war. At the same time, the Right began investing heavily in its own
media infrastructure.
Wealthy right-wing foundations and industrialists, like the Koch
Brothers, also poured money into think tanks, which hired clever
individuals who began reframing the national narrative. Part of that
effort was to support “scholarship” that transformed Madison and other
key framers from advocates of a strong central government into
proponents for states’ rights.
A few of Madison’s quotes – from 1788 as he tried to downplay how
radical his new constitutional system actually was – were plucked out
of context, while other parts of his biography as an advocate for a
strong central government were simply erased.
By Ronald Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, Americans were being told
that “government is the problem” and that the nation had deviated from
the Founders’ original vision of an Ayn Rand-style “free-market”
society in which everyone was on their own and the government only
worried about fighting wars.
Increasingly, the Right pitched itself as the defender of the nation’s
founding ideals. Any time the central government sought to address
vexing national problems – from the need to regulate Wall Street to
extending health coverage to the tens of millions of uninsured
Americans – these proposals were labeled “unconstitutional.”
Some right-wing jurists, most notably Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia, advocated “originalism,” insisting that constitutional powers
should apply only to what the Founders had in mind at the time. The
Right ignored the clear record that the Founders intended their
governing structure to meet both their immediate needs and the distant
interests of their “posterity.”
Indeed, if there was any true “originalism,” it was that the
Constitution should be sufficiently dynamic to cope with any number of
anticipated and unanticipated challenges that might confront the
nation. As the discussion about canal building shows, Madison,
Washington and other key framers were pragmatists.
One-Sided Debate
Yet, while the Right was bending the founding narrative to its
purposes, the Left largely dismissed the importance of this debate,
perhaps in part because the Left tends to disdain many Founders as
slave-owning aristocrats who hypocritically denied their precious
“unalienable rights” to women, blacks, Indians, the poor and many
others.
While that surely was true, the nation’s founding narrative retains a
strong mythic appeal to many Americans – and the Right’s twisting of
the history has proved a powerful tactic to rally many middle- and
working-class Americans, particularly white men, to the Tea Party
cause and to the Republican Party.
Believing they’re channeling the true spirit of the Founders, many of
these average Americans end up siding with ultra-rich plutocrats who
see an effective and democratized federal government as the last
obstacle to their total domination of the United States.
Thus, the Tea Partiers and their allies fight: to let Wall Street
banks operate as recklessly as they wish; to let health insurance
companies deny coverage to sick people; to let rich investors pay
lower tax rates than their secretaries; to let billionaires buy up the
political process through Super-PACs; to let companies outsource jobs;
to let industry despoil the environment; and to slash life-saving
federal programs like Medicare, food stamps and Social Security.
The “logic” behind this “populist” support for the interests of the
rich is that many average folk think they are engaged in a principled
stand for “liberty” – with the federal government their oppressor,
standing in for the British Crown in 1776. That’s why the Tea Partiers
wave “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and dress up in Revolutionary War
costumes.
Simply put, these Tea Partiers have been fooled by a well-funded
propaganda campaign tricking them by substituting a false narrative
about the nation’s founding and thus enlisting their help in
dismantling the Great American Middle Class.
Building the Middle Class
Many of these Americans have forgotten a basic truth: that the Great
American Middle Class was largely a creation of the federal government
and its policies dating back to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. For
many Tea Partiers, it is more satisfying to think that they or their
parents climbed the social ladder on their own, that they “didn’t need
no guv-mint help.”
But the truth is that it was government policies arising out of the
Great Depression and carried forward through the post-World War II
years by both Republican and Democratic presidents that created the
opportunities for tens of millions of Americans to achieve relative
comfort and economic security.
Those policies ranged from Social Security and labor rights in the
1930s to the GI Bill after World War II to Medicare in the 1960s and
to government investments in infrastructure and technological research
over many decades. Even in recent years, despite right-wing efforts to
choke off money to government research, federal programs – such as the
Internet – have brought greater efficiency to markets, as well as
wealth to many entrepreneurs.
So, the Right’s success in dismantling the New Deal, piece by piece,
and shoving more and more Americans down the social ladder has hinged
on the demonization of “guv-mint.” This message – often wrapped in
patriotic hoopla and coded appeals to bigotry – were delivered most
effectively by the personable Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
Yet, while rallying many working-class “Reagan Democrats” to his
banner, Reagan’s most important policy was slashing taxes on the rich.
Under Reagan’s “supply-side economics,” the top marginal tax rate –
what the richest Americans pay on their highest tranche of income –
was more than halved, from 70 percent to 28 percent.
Still, the promised surge in “supply-side” growth never really
materialized and a key result was the dramatic rise in the national
debt. Another less obvious change was the incentivizing of greed,
which had been discouraged by the much higher marginal tax rates of
the post-World War II years, from Dwight Eisenhower (when the top
marginal tax rate was 90 percent) through Jimmy Carter (with a 70
percent top rate).
After all, if 70 to 90 percent of your highest tranche of income went
to the government to help pay for building the nation, you had little
personal incentive to press for that extra $1 million or $2 million in
compensation.
So corporate CEOs – while well-paid – were happy earning about 25
times as much as their average worker in the 1960s. A few decades
later, that ratio on CEO pay was about 200 times what the average
worker was making.
The consequences of several decades of Reaganism and its related ideas
(such as the “free-market” shipping of many middle-class jobs overseas
where workers are paid much less) are now apparent. Wealth has been
concentrated at the top with billionaires living extravagant lives
while the middle class struggles. One everyman after another gets
shoved down the ladder.
The data is now clear that the last three decades have witnessed a
divergence between the haves and the have-nots unprecedented in the
United States, at least since the lead-up to the Great Depression when
a similar era of income inequality set the stage for financial
disaster.
For instance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office – in an
analysis of data from 1979 to 2005 – found that the inflation-adjusted
income of middle-class Americans rose about 21 percent (only about one-
fifth the increase enjoyed by the middle class during the post-World
War II era).
Meanwhile, the income for the ultra-rich (the top 100th of one
percent) jumped 480 percent from 1979 to 2005, rising from an average
of $4.2 million to $24.3 million. And CBO’s analysis ends in 2005,
thus missing the decimation of the middle class from the Wall Street
bust of 2008.
Struggling Americans
Behind the numbers, the real-life consequences are painful. Millions
of Americans forego needed medical care because they can’t afford
health insurance; young people, burdened by college loans, crowd back
in with their parents; trained workers settle for low-paying jobs or
are unemployed; families skip vacations and other simple pleasures of
life.
Beyond the unfairness, there is the macro-economic problem which comes
from massive income disparity. A strong economy is one in which the
vast majority people can buy products, which can then be manufactured
more cheaply, creating a positive cycle of profits and prosperity.
Plus, the problems facing the nation grow even more severe with
looming shortages of vital resources and the impending catastrophe of
global warming. Only an energetic federal government can focus the
national will to tackle these challenges.
The pragmatic Founders would understand this need for unified action.
Yet, Republicans running for President and GOP members of Congress
continue to call for further cuts in taxes for the rich and more cuts
in government spending, rending the social safety net and slashing
investments in infrastructure, education, research and the
environment.
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled a plan Tuesday to reduce the
highest marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent – even lower
than it was under Reagan – while domestic spending would be slashed
and Medicare would be turned into a voucher system with the elderly
paying a much higher share of their health costs.
As in the past, this approach is accompanied by assurances of faster
economic growth, but the record for those promises should now be
clear. The GOP plans are also wrapped in rhetoric about “liberty” and
the “spirit of the Founders” – though in truth that spirit was infused
with a pragmatic notion of the country pulling together to meet its
challenges
So, what’s at stake in 2012 is not just who wins and how that will
affect the immediate welfare of the American people – but whether a
false narrative about America’s past will lead it into a darkening
future.


however, many tories(CONSERVATIVES) left america after the liberal
founders won the war against "CONSERVATISM".