Obama - Fascist and hater of the US Constitution

[implacable44]

Gang, this is the final warning. I mean it. This is the final warning. You cannot become -- you cannot get any clearer on what is coming. It amazes me day after day after day after day that America just doesn't seem to care anymore, but you cannot get any clearer. If this is out here and this man is elected, you are going to elect the most arrogant Marxist who will not be stopped because he came into office fully uncovered. Every -- do not pretend to be shocked when we begin to see a Marxist and who I believe will become a fascist President. And he will become fascist because he will not understand how you suddenly don't want to become Marxist. As he starts to change the Constitution, listen to what he said in 2001.

This from an interview :

VOICE: And you are joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois senator from the 13th district and a senior lecturer from the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movements and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay, but --

brief interruption into the interview for analysis----. Remember, he's not for reparations. That's the line that everybody will tell you if you talk about this. He's not for reparations. But what is the fundamental failure of the civil rights? You got the right to vote, you can sit at a lunch counter, you can be equal. But what was the fundamental failure of the civil rights movement? Here it is.

OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

So Obama now sees it is a purpose of the Supreme Court to redistribute wealth. Even if you agree that the role of government is to take wealth from one to another, should it be the role of unelected judges and justices that do this? Should it be the congress? Should it be the President? Should will be elected officials? Obama wants a radical interventionist court. He wants the court of Chuck Schumer's, and that is the court that he will get if there are 60, 60 members of the Democratic party controlling the Senate.

Now, the interview gets worse.

OBAMA: And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren court -- (The Warren court, so you know, is the most liberal court we have ever had. It is the court that okayed the Great Society and everything else. This is the most liberal. Notice he doesn't say that it is a liberal court. He says some people say it was -- they try to characterize it as radical. But it wasn't that radical. Why wasn't it radical?)

OBAMA: It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren interpreted it in the same way that generally is a charter of negative liberties.

For those who have read books like: The Forgotten Man, Liberal Fascism, the Woodrow Wilson stuff you know what all of this language means and it is absolutely amazing to me. Negative liberties, that the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. In other words, we're not going to take your guns, we're not going to take your speech. This is what the Progressive movement tried to do under FDR. They want to get rid of those things and tell you what they will do for you. Universal housing, universal healthcare, universal jobs. This is a fundamental change. This destroys the work of the founding fathers. This takes us from a small government to an oppressive government. All liberties come from them. All blessings come from them. It is no longer -- he's framing this as negative liberties. It is only negative liberties for the state. It is putting restrictions on the state, not on people. He's flipping power. It is no longer We the People. He also says, in something that doesn't make sense. In one breath Obama talks about the essential constraints placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and at the same time suggests that the Court should have broken free of the essential constraints put there in the Constitution by the founding fathers.

"Essential" to me has always meant that they're necessary, that they shouldn't be broken or overridden. That's what essential means to me, at least. back to the transcript

OBAMA: Says what the federal government can't do to you but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement. Was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

QUestion to obama during the interview : Made the point that the Warren court wasn't terribly radical, my question is -- with economic changes. My question, is it too late for that reparative work economically and is that the appropriate place for reparative work to take place?

Obama: Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but --( Where is the media on this man! He is not a law professor. There is a huge difference. Anyone who is at a university, will you speak up! He is not a law professor. He is a senior lecturer now on leave, period. That's what he is. There is a difference between a lecturer and a law professor. The man doesn't care. There is a vast difference between the two titles, a vast difference between the two titles. But "Professor" Obama doesn't seem to know that, or he's not going to let the facts get in the way. This man is unhinged from anything that we recognize as truth. This man is unhinged from anything that we recognize as fundamentally essentially American.

First of all, Senator Obama and senior lecturer, you talk about how the government, according to the Constitution, is defined, the federal government is told what it cannot do. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do. Have you read the Constitution? I know you're a senior lecturer, but have you read it, sir? What is the Tenth Amendment all about? "All powers not expressly stated in the Constitution are reserved to the states." The Constitution only plays restriction on the federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say what a state can't do. A state and a local government can do whatever they want. You are taking this Constitution. This man may be the man who drives the final nail into the coffin of our Constitution. He may be the man who drives the stake through the hearts of our founding fathers.

If anyone still believes, because this is what he's going to say, I'm talking about basic fairness. No, he's not. He is talking about reparations. I am talking about a system of government that I love. No, you do not, sir. You would like to change it into something else that you love. This is a guy who sees the Constitution and something that is outdated. That does not work, does not need to stand. It is exactly the same reason why the Democrats said no more power for this long with FDR. It is the same reason why the Democrats stopped FDR from packing the court. This is what FDR wanted to do. This is Liberal Fascism. And it is our final wake-up call, America. It is our final wake-up call. We are not going to get anything more clear from Senator Obama than this. You are not going to see it any plainer than this. I cannot believe how crystal clear this is. Now will America wake up. This is not about John McCain. I am not a supporter of John McCain.

[hater]

:lol

[ElNono]

Repeat after me: President Barack Obama. You can do it.

[Bartleby]

Were leaving together,

But still its farewell

And maybe well come back,

To earth, who can tell?

I guess there is no one to blame

Were leaving ground

Will things ever be the same again?



Its the final countdown...

[clambake]

i've come to the conclusion........that you suck.

you should consider moving on to the after-life.

[DaDakota]

Obama is a constitutional lawyer .......lol...EPIC FAIL !

DD

[BRHornet45]

son good post, but its pointless in here .... this board is full of silly, ignorant children who thinks the "cool thing to do" is vote democrat with NO questions asked. they have all fallen victim to the "Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, and Bill Maher" brainwashing effect as well as many of them being persuaded by their college professors liberal views. the Obama bandwagon is very strong and has fooled millions simply because Obama speaks well and is worshiped by the mainstream media because he has a "D" next to his name.

[doobs]

Were leaving together,

But still its farewell

And maybe well come back,

To earth, who can tell?

I guess there is no one to blame

Were leaving ground

Will things ever be the same again?



Its the final countdown...

Wow, I was thinking the exact same thing. Europe rocks.

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you pretending you are Glenn Beck?

And why has this been posted multiple times like it has just been discovered?

Oh yeah, because you are mindless talkingpointbots. :tu

[implacable44]

Obama is a constitutional lawyer .......lol...EPIC FAIL !

DD

Obama is a constitutional lawyer so that means he loves the constitution ? Now I see your logic and why you are voting for him. CLueless.

[hater]

son good post, but its pointless in here .... this board is full of silly, ignorant children who thinks the "cool thing to do" is vote democrat with NO questions asked. they have all fallen victim to the "Stephen Colbert, John Stewart, and Bill Maher" brainwashing effect as well as many of them being persuaded by their college professors liberal views. the Obama bandwagon is very strong and has fooled millions simply because Obama speaks well and is worshiped by the mainstream media because he has a "D" next to his name.

please keep posting long posts. It's easier to avoid accidentally reading them.

[implacable44]

I am not pretending to be Glenn Beck. If you want to address the issue then go ahead. He wants to virtually destroy the constitution -- his words exh Marx -- reflect communism as do his associations. Why are you a mindless regurgitator of Bill Maher, Keith Olberman and the like talkingpointbot ? The point being -- if you don't like the USA and the constitution that established it - Canada is a short drive away.

[implacable44]

please keep posting long posts. It's easier to avoid accidentally reading them.

good point -- in a nutshell - Obama wants to alter the constitution to ENFORCE STATE and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RIGHTS instead of protecting you - the private citizen from THE government. He is more concerned on what the State and more specifically the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD and MUST do for you.

[ChumpDumper]

I am not pretending to be Glenn Beck. If you want to address the issue then go ahead. He wants to virtually destroy the constitution -- his words exh Marx -- reflect communism as do his associations. Why are you a mindless regurgitator of Bill Maher, Keith Olberman and the like talkingpointbot ? The point being -- if you don't like the USA and the constitution that established it - Canada is a short drive away.I like the USA and the constitution that established it, so go fuck yourself.

You are a piece of shit, a plagiarist and a sore loser -- but mostly a piece of shit.

This leave the country bullshit is the most tired crap I have ever read. No one is going to change the constitution in this political environment, so enough of your spoon-fed talking point regurgitations. Just swallow your own puke and come up with something original for once.

You can't do it if you tried because you are a fucking idiot. Go wrap yourself in the flag and suffocate on it.

[hater]

good point -- in a nutshell - Obama wants to alter the constitution to ENFORCE STATE and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RIGHTS instead of protecting you - the private citizen from THE government. He is more concerned on what the State and more specifically the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD and MUST do for you.

he is not going to rewrite the constitution. step off the ledge.

[implacable44]

I like the USA and the constitution that established it, so go fuck yourself.

You are a piece of shit, a plagiarist and a sore loser -- but mostly a piece of shit.

This leave the country bullshit is the most tired crap I have ever read. No one is going to change the constitution in this political environment, so enough of your spoon-fed talking point regurgitations. Just swallow your own puke and come up with something original for once.

You can't do it if you tried because you are a fucking idiot. Go wrap yourself in the flag and suffocate on it.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/17313/
Retard. I don't plagiarize anything and if I did I would basically be Joe Biden but I got my law degree on my own merits - not through plagiarism. Chumpdumper sits at his PC with a little ook of 1001 whimzical quips and quotes to post as he replies. yippie .. yippie.

You think nobody is going to change the constitution ? You are talking about the most liberal politicians EVER - further to the left than even Woodrow Wilson and in his "righteous wind" he will have Pelosi and that disgrace to Mormonism Harry Reid- along with a supermajority and he will be able to do whatever he wants. You ignorant retard. Because of blind ignorance like yours our country will be led down this path to socialism and worse - much worse. The 2nd amm. will be in danger with 5 justices exceeding the age of 70 and the fairness doctrine will come back. the new new deal will come about.
Ignorant clown. Go wrap yourself in the hammer and sickle.

[implacable44]

he is not going to rewrite the constitution. step off the ledge.

step off the ledge... step off the ledge ? I know who he is from his associations - his black liberation theology -- and I know he will have a super majority. I know he believes the way to change the constitution legislatively and I know he will have the ability to do so with his "righteous wind".

[ElNono]

step off the ledge... step off the ledge ? I know who he is from his associations - his black liberation theology -- and I know he will have a super majority. I know he believes the way to change the constitution legislatively and I know he will have the ability to do so with his "righteous wind".

Repeat after me: President Barack Obama. You can do it.

[AZLouis]

I like that he is the socialist who wants to spread the wealth around yet only one of the 4 people on the two tickets is currently overseeing a spreading of the wealth around in her state.

[DarrinS]

We’re gonna spread happiness! We’re gonna spread freedom! Obama’s gonna change it….Obama’s gonna lead ‘em

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/602/602889/amityville-horror-20050408051830152-000.jpg

[Bartleby]

I don't plagiarize anything and if I did I would basically be Joe Biden but I got my law degree on my own merits - not through plagiarism.

:lol

Why didn't you post the link in your initial post? Did you skip class when they were talking about intellectual property?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't plagiarizeYou just did until you got called out, dumbass.
You think nobody is going to change the constitutionWho changes the constitution? Ask Glenn Beck -- though he wants to keep you scared, so he probably won't tell you.

Get back to us when you know how the constitution you claim to love (well, that Glenn told you to love) actually works.

[ChumpDumper]

I voted for Obama.

[implacable44]

:lol

Why didn't you post the link in your initial post? Did you skip class when they were talking about intellectual property?

my initial post says this is from an interview.

[implacable44]

You just did until you got called out, dumbass.Who changes the constitution? Ask Glenn Beck -- though he wants to keep you scared, so he probably won't tell you.

Get back to us when you know how the constitution you claim to love (well, that Glenn told you to love) actually works.

I do know the constitution - have actually read it. You keep waiting for that tax cut for 95% of Americans.. you keep hoping that those of you making less than $250K will not get touched by tax increases... or was it $150K like Biden said a few weeks ago.. or maybe it was $42K like Obama said several years back.. You keep hooting and hollering at those Bill Maher jokes and chuckling at Keith Olberman and his worst person of the day .. oh man those guys are funny...

[ChumpDumper]

People like Yoni and impractical like to act like they came up with this shit themselves for some reason. They are mightily insecure and don't like being exposed.

[Centaur of the Sun]

Only the states can make a change to the constitution. I don't remember what the vote has to be, but I'm assuming at least 2/3 if not 3/4.

[ChumpDumper]

I do know the constitution - have actually read it. You keep waiting for that tax cut for 95% of Americans.. you keep hoping that those of you making less than $250K will not get touched by tax increases... or was it $150K like Biden said a few weeks ago.. or maybe it was $42K like Obama said several years back.. You keep hooting and hollering at those Bill Maher jokes and chuckling at Keith Olberman and his worst person of the day .. oh man those guys are funny...Why are you changing the subject? Oh yeah, the original isn't working out too well for you.

We all understand.

[ElNono]

I do know the constitution - have actually read it. You keep waiting for that tax cut for 95% of Americans.. you keep hoping that those of you making less than $250K will not get touched by tax increases... or was it $150K like Biden said a few weeks ago.. or maybe it was $42K like Obama said several years back.. You keep hooting and hollering at those Bill Maher jokes and chuckling at Keith Olberman and his worst person of the day .. oh man those guys are funny...

I bet you voted Bush the socialist into office. Didn't you?
Worry not, here comes Obama to save the day. Repeat after me: Mr. President Barack Obama.

[implacable44]

I have posted the link 4 times. I don't pretend to come up with that myself - nor did Glenn and it wasnt his -- it was some interview done on the radio and it wasn't sourced - which is why I wrote on the initial post -- this is from an interview :

But then you already knew that.

[Bartleby]

my initial post says this is from an interview.

And all the references to Beck (whose words you lifted) have been left out of your post. You're like some dumbass seventh grader who copies his paper from the internet and forgets to delete the url.

[implacable44]

Why are you changing the subject? Oh yeah, the original isn't working out too well for you.

We all understand.

I didnt change the subject -

[ElNono]

Stop drinking the Glenn Beck Kool-Aid and hop into the Obama hope bandwagon! There's still room for you!

[implacable44]

And all the references to Beck (whose words you lifted) have been left out of your post. You're like some dumbass seventh grader who copies his paper from the internet and forgets to delete the url.

nope - I deleted refrences to beck where he cut in completely - for two reasons - those were his words - and Lord knows that the left hates beck and I just want to talk about Obama and what he said about the constitution

[implacable44]

I bet you voted Bush the socialist into office. Didn't you?
Worry not, here comes Obama to save the day. Repeat after me: Mr. President Barack Obama.

I voted Bush 2004. wish I would have voted for that Heinz guy though. Now I will have to wait 4 more years for a conservative swing.

[implacable44]

Stop drinking the Glenn Beck Kool-Aid and hop into the Obama hope bandwagon! There's still room for you!

Never - ever happen.

[Bartleby]

nope - I deleted refrences to beck where he cut in completely - for two reasons - those were his words - and Lord knows that the left hates beck and I just want to talk about Obama and what he said about the constitution

GLENN: Gang, this is the final warning. I mean it. This is the final warning. You cannot become -- you cannot get any clearer on what is coming. It amazes me day after day after day after day that America just doesn't seem to care anymore, but you cannot get any clearer. If this is out here and this man is elected, you are going to elect the most arrogant Marxist who will not be stopped because he came into office fully uncovered. Every -- do not pretend to be shocked when we begin to see a Marxist and who I believe will become a fascist President. And he will become fascist because he will not understand how you suddenly don't want to become Marxist. As he starts to change the Constitution, listen to what he said in 2001.

You're not talking about Obama. You're not even parroting people who do. You're just cutting and pasting.

[ChumpDumper]

I have posted the link 4 times. I don't pretend to come up with that myself - nor did Glenn and it wasnt his -- it was some interview done on the radio and it wasn't sourced - which is why I wrote on the initial post -- this is from an interview :

But then you already knew that.So Glenn Beck's words in Glenn Beck's article on Glenn Beck's website in no way belong to Glenn Beck. And it wasn't sourced but you provided a link to the source after you were called out on it. :lmao


I didnt change the subject -:lmao

[CubanMustGo]

Well, Bush the Lesser certainly suspended the Constitution when it suited him, so what's the big deal?

[implacable44]

dude i dont want to talk about Glenn beck or any of his words. Everywhere it said Glenn - it was deleted.. I don't care about Glenn -- I only cared about the words of Obama - please address.

[FromWayDowntown]

One great thing about the end of political campaigns is their tendency to reveal intellectual dishonesty among those who are most desperate to obtain or retain power.

[Centaur of the Sun]

Well, Bush the Lesser certainly suspended the Constitution when it suited him, so what's the big deal?
He can copy some more Glenn Beck quotes to argue this too, as this was the subject of his radio program this morning.

The whole "well he started it" thing.

[ChumpDumper]

So here is implacable44's original contribution to the first post:


This from an interview :

:rollin

[implacable44]

yes "this from an interview" and s till waiting for dungchump to address.......

[Drachen]

The OP of this thread shot himself in the foot before he even got to his point. He said something to the effect of "Obama is a Marxist ... Get ready for our first Fascist president." Now THAT would be interesting to see. THAT would be the ultimate politician, one who could jump from one end of the political spectrum, AAAAAALL the way to the other end of the political spectrum in that short of time.






Fascism is far right.
Marxism is far left.

OP: DOH!

[ChumpDumper]

yes "this from an interview" and s till waiting for dungchump to address.......Done and done. You were too busy trying to rationalize your plagiarism and changing the subject to notice.

[clambake]

this guy makes yoni look genius.

[implacable44]

Done and done. You were too busy trying to rationalize your plagiarism and changing the subject to notice.

Im not rationalizing anything. I didn't plagiarize anything. You just have no answer to the facts about what Obama said about the constitution.

[ElNono]

Im not rationalizing anything. I didn't plagiarize anything. You just have no answer to the facts about what Obama said about the constitution.

You just need to chill out, grab a pinha colada, and join your buddies in the cruise-for-change. Obama loves you. Embrace him.

[ChumpDumper]

Im not rationalizing anything. I didn't plagiarize anything.:lmao
You just have no answer to the facts about what Obama said about the constitution.Sure I do. Already did.

It's quite difficult to change the constitution, especially in this current political climate. Therefore I am not worried about anyone's changing the constitution and anyone who plagiarizes another guy's words saying he is afraid of changes being made to the constitution is an idiot.

[DaDakota]

McCain/Palin = LOSERS !

[implacable44]

:lmaoSure I do. Already did.

It's quite difficult to change the constitution, especially in this current political climate. Therefore I am not worried about anyone's changing the constitution and anyone who plagiarizes another guy's words saying he is afraid of changes being made to the constitution is an idiot.

no you didnt. You had nothing to offer and what do you mean by this political climate? do you mean the one of today -- with Bush and the democratically held congress -- then yes.. I agree - but Obama will walk into a "righteous wind" with (more than likely) a super majority and have free reign. Under that political climate two things for sure will get attacked immediately - gun rights (especially with 5 of the justices 70+) and the fairness doctrine will come back.

PLease explain how Marxism and Fascism are oppposites - one from the left and one from the right ? with the understanding that the right is for very very small centralized government while the left is for HUGE central government. ELABORATE>

[ChumpDumper]

no you didnt. You had nothing to offer and what do you mean by this political climate? do you mean the one of today -- with Bush and the democratically held congress -- then yes.. I agree - but Obama will walk into a "righteous wind" with (more than likely) a super majority and have free reign. Under that political climate two things for sure will get attacked immediately - gun rights (especially with 5 of the justices 70+) and the fairness doctrine will come back.Still not enough to change the constitution. You really don't know how the constitution is changed, do you? Get back to me when find a Glenn Beck page that tells you.


PLease explain how Marxism and Fascism are oppposites - one from the left and one from the right ? with the understanding that the right is for very very small centralized government while the left is for HUGE central government. ELABORATE>You're so busy rationalizing your plagiarism, you can't even keep track of who posted what. :lol

[implacable44]

I didnt think I had to address all you liberal geniuses by name when I responded .. is that a requirement for you girls ?

I don't have time to educate you on how to change it .. on of your like minds earlier made a comment about only the states can change it -- which is not true. There are several ways to change or ammend the constitution Dungdrinker. Get educated. Take a course or ask Keith.

[clambake]

:lmao @ dungdrinker.

[Centaur of the Sun]

Fascism isn't really a political view... more of a political state.

Xenophobia, extreme nationalist views, police state... I'm not sure if it's ever been concretely defined.

[Tully365]

Ah, I remember in 1992 how nearly every person belonging to a certain party warned that the the young charismatic Governor from Arkansas would bankrupt the country with his leftist tax an' spend policies... I mean, he was sooo far left that he was practically a dang comm-u-nist! He would turn the USA into a hodgepodge cultural economic combination of atheist commie soviets and sissy commie frenchies! Beware! Beware!

And what happened? Bill Clinton turned out to be a brilliant fiscal conservative/social liberal who gave us the first yearly surplus in decades and left behind a legacy of massive wealth expansion, low unemployment, low crime, and too many other positives to list. And so, knowing they were dead wrong on all charges, what was the next strategy for his enemies? Yeah-- a sex scandal!

Give me a break with this boy who cried wolf post. I hope you stick to your word and make it the final warning, which will mean you can't post something else in a few days claiming that Obama wants to give Florida away to Kenya for free or make the entire state of Nebraska a reservation for White Women.

[Drachen]

no you didnt. You had nothing to offer and what do you mean by this political climate? do you mean the one of today -- with Bush and the democratically held congress -- then yes.. I agree - but Obama will walk into a "righteous wind" with (more than likely) a super majority and have free reign. Under that political climate two things for sure will get attacked immediately - gun rights (especially with 5 of the justices 70+) and the fairness doctrine will come back.

PLease explain how Marxism and Fascism are oppposites - one from the left and one from the right ? with the understanding that the right is for very very small centralized government while the left is for HUGE central government. ELABORATE>

"Fascism, modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence. "

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568245/fascism.html

"Fascism opposes communism, liberalism, conservatism and international socialism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#cite_note-eatwellhist-10
sourced from
^ Eatwell, Roger. Fascism: A History. University of Michigan. ISBN 071399147X.
^ a b c d Payne, Stanley. A History of Fascism, 1914-45. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0299148742.
^ Nolte, Ernst. Three Faces of Fascism: Action Française, Italian Fascism and National Socialism. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
^ Fritzsche, Peter. Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195057805.
^ "Collectivism", Encyclopædia Britannica (8 January 2008).
^ Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology, Chapter published in Alessandro Campi (ed.), Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Roma, 2003, pp. 97-122. (Speaks of fascism seeing international socialism as a threat.

[Centaur of the Sun]

Fairness Doctrine will not be implemented. It may be discussed, but there is no way it passes... even with a large Democratic majority. That's political suicide.

Even if it DOES somehow pass, the Supreme Court would deem it unconstitutional at the word "go".

[ChumpDumper]

There are two ways to originate an amendment, one of which has never been used.

There are two ways to ratify an amendment, one of which has only been used once.

Both ratification schemes require approval of three fourths of all the states. That is the main reason no radical change to the constitution is going to happen. If you want everyone to be scared like Glenn Beck told you to be, please give us a scenario in which three fourths of the states approve a radical amendment to the constitution.

We're waiting.

[Drachen]

Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

Either way 75% of the states have to approve the amendment.

Me: DOH!
Sorry CD I didn't see you posting this already. Well at least now he can't argue that there is no source.

[implacable44]

Fairness Doctrine will not be implemented. It may be discussed, but there is no way it passes... even with a large Democratic majority. That's political suicide.

Even if it DOES somehow pass, the Supreme Court would deem it unconstitutional at the word "go".

we have already lived under the fairness doctrine for many years.

[ChumpDumper]

Me: DOH!
Sorry CD I didn't see you posting this already. Well at least now he can't argue that there is no source.No worries. He needed to be educated about the amendment process anyway. You have provided a valuable service, provided he actually reads it. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

[implacable44]

There are two ways to originate an amendment, one of which has never been used.

There are two ways to ratify an amendment, one of which has only been used once.

Both ratification schemes require approval of three fourths of all the states. That is the main reason no radical change to the constitution is going to happen. If you want everyone to be scared like Glenn Beck told you to be, please give us a scenario in which three fourths of the states approve a radical amendment to the constitution.

We're waiting.


there are two ways ? Well I guess you could try and make it a debate about the third and most probable way that your guns might be taken - via the US Supreme court who is open to "interpreting" the constitution - and although you might debate and say it does not "amend" it the law will be establised by the court and it will be followed and thus it will be an "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment very different from the way it is now. Same result as an amendment proposed either trough legislation of from the States and passed.

of course there is also the line item veto power the President holds which also can effectively change an amendment (proposed).

[Centaur of the Sun]

we have already lived under the fairness doctrine for many years.

If I'm not mistaken it was a policy used in the the 50's and 60's. Large scale media was in its infancy back then. Even the SCOTUS said that it was only applicable when sources of information were limited. In today's world it just wouldn't happen. The media, the internet... everything is too big and complex to implement such a crock of shit.

[implacable44]

No worries. He needed to be educated about the amendment process anyway. You have provided a valuable service, provided he actually reads it. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

I have no need of an education from dungdrinker - least of all on the merits and understanding of the United States Constitution.

[implacable44]

If I'm not mistaken it was a policy used in the the 50's and 60's. Large scale media was in its infancy back then. Even the SCOTUS said that it was only applicable when sources of information were limited. In today's world it just wouldn't happen. The media, the internet... everything is too big and complex to implement such a crock of shit.

Sure hope you are right - it has already been proposed and has lots of support. We will see if those words come back to bite you in the tush

[Centaur of the Sun]

Nobody is taking your guns away, nobody is taking your God away, nobody is taking your children away, and nobody is taking your liberties away.

It's all designed to get you worked up... which of course it has clearly succeeded.

[ChumpDumper]

there are two ways ? Well I guess you could try and make it a debate about the third and most probable way that your guns might be taken - via the US Supreme court who is open to "interpreting" the constitution - and although you might debate and say it does not "amend" it the law will be establised by the court and it will be followed and thus it will be an "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment very different from the way it is now. Same result as an amendment proposed either trough legislation of from the States and passed. So you don't have any scenario of how the constitution could be changed.

Classic.


of course there is also the line item veto power the President holds which also can effectively change an amendment (proposed).Ok, you REALLY don't know what an amendment is or how government works.

Stick to plagiarism, you ignorant turd.

[FromWayDowntown]

there are two ways ? Well I guess you could try and make it a debate about the third and most probable way that your guns might be taken - via the US Supreme court who is open to "interpreting" the constitution - and although you might debate and say it does not "amend" it the law will be establised by the court and it will be followed and thus it will be an "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment very different from the way it is now. Same result as an amendment proposed either trough legislation of from the States and passed.

of course there is also the line item veto power the President holds which also can effectively change an amendment (proposed).

Of course, all Heller did was provide an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That you or I happen to agree with that interpretation doesn't make it objectively correct. It makes it an interpretation that we agree with.

You presume that an Obama Court will necessarily change those things. But it will, of course, take one of the conservative Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees to retire before the voting balance on the Court actually changes -- given the Rasputin-like staying power of Supreme Court justices when non-ideologically similar Presidents are in power, that will likely take a very long time to occur.

And, even then, the interpretation won't amend the Constitution.

[byrontx]

Republicans are worried about the Constitution?

"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.''

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist -- a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

Later in the hearing, Gonzales described habeas corpus as "one of our most cherished rights'' and noted that Congress had protected that right in the 1789 law that established the federal court system. But he never budged from his position on the absence of constitutional protection -- a position that seemingly would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/24/MNGDONO11O1.DTL

Habeas Corpus
habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint. [<Med. Lat., you should have the body] Source: AHD

The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ of habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html

[implacable44]

So you don't have any scenario of how the constitution could be changed.

Classic.

Ok, you REALLY don't know what an amendment is or how government works.

Stick to plagiarism, you ignorant turd.

I just gave you one you retard. The judiciary has more power than the constitution alludes because it is allowed to inpterpret it as a matter of law - so if the US Supreme court gets a case -- like the recent one regarding Washington DC's ban on handguns that was overturned by the slimmest of margins (5-4). Obama will likely appoint a few justices to the courts. BReyer, Stevens, Ginsburg (all left leaning) exceed the age of 70 -- while Scalia is 72 (leans right).. Kennedy is 72 as well and some of his decisions lean right - some lean left -- often he is the deciding vote. So - should Scalia or Kennedy pass or retire then the court is changed ( or Thomas, Alito or Roberts) and the next right to bear arms case ( say one from New York) hits the supreme court.. you have a different decision and the understanding of that 2nd amendment clause about the right to bear arms is changed - altered and the law is in effect.

[implacable44]

Of course, all Heller did was provide an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That you or I happen to agree with that interpretation doesn't make it objectively correct. It makes it an interpretation that we agree with.

You presume that an Obama Court will necessarily change those things. But it will, of course, take one of the conservative Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees to retire before the voting balance on the Court actually changes -- given the Rasputin-like staying power of Supreme Court justices when non-ideologically similar Presidents are in power, that will likely take a very long time to occur.

And, even then, the interpretation won't amend the Constitution.

It doesn't make it an interpretation that we agree with - it makes it an interpretation that 5 of the 9 justices agreed with. That "interpretation" of the wording in the 2nd amendment serves the same purpose as an actual change to the Constitution. When an issue arises about the interpretation -the final say rests with the 9 justices and what they deem it to be and accordingly they have the power to change -- alter - amend - choose your verb Mr. dungsemantics .. either way it is changed.

[ChumpDumper]

So this argument really has nothing at all to do with Glenn Beck's article.

Good idea to change the subject again.

[implacable44]

So this argument really has nothing at all to do with Glenn Beck's article.

Good idea to change the subject again.

that is what we are discussing - Obama and his desire to change the constitution. I know it is hard to follow along from the kiddie table

[LnGrrrR]

good point -- in a nutshell - Obama wants to alter the constitution to ENFORCE STATE and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RIGHTS instead of protecting you - the private citizen from THE government. He is more concerned on what the State and more specifically the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD and MUST do for you.

Uhmm... you mean, he's for amending the Constitution instead of court-mandated rulings? I thought that was the conservative position?

[ChumpDumper]

What you just posted had nothing at all to do with changing the constitution. I know you aren't smart enough to follow your own thoughts, but that's not my problem. Why don't you find a Beck article about the supreme court and plagiarize that?

[implacable44]

What you just posted had nothing at all to do with changing the constitution. I know you aren't smart enough to follow your own thoughts, but that's not my problem. Why don't you find a Beck article about the supreme court and plagiarize that?

Look Keith - I can't help you if you can't help yourself. Now pay attention or mommy will spank you and send you to your room where you can nominate some Sen. Stevens as worst person of the day -- and completey ignore Charlie Rangel and Sen. Todd who should be in prison but walk free with no recourse for worse transgressions.

You asked me a question - I answered it. About changing the constitution - you want to play semantics - but should the supreme court decide in favor of one of these cases -- I imagine New York Gun laws will be the next to come under fire -- and should one of the conservative justices be replaced -- the decision will come back in favor of and the consitution as we have understood "the right to bear arms" will have been changed.

back to Obamarx and the things he said about the constitution and it only containing "negatives".

or we could discuss his relationships and how he surrounds himself and has surrounded himself with Marxist people for 25+ years.

[clambake]

Look Keith - I can't help you if you can't help yourself. Now pay attention or mommy will spank you and send you to your room where you can nominate some Sen. Stevens as worst person of the day -- and completey ignore Charlie Rangel and Sen. Todd who should be in prison but walk free with no recourse for worse transgressions.

You asked me a question - I answered it. About changing the constitution - you want to play semantics - but should the supreme court decide in favor of one of these cases -- I imagine New York Gun laws will be the next to come under fire -- and should one of the conservative justices be replaced -- the decision will come back in favor of and the consitution as we have understood "the right to bear arms" will have been changed.

back to Obamarx and the things he said about the constitution and it only containing "negatives".

or we could discuss his relationships and how he surrounds himself and has surrounded himself with Marxist people for 25+ years.

are you worried?

[ChumpDumper]

I just find your constant changing of the subject amusing.

You plagiarizing Beck: "Obama wants to change the constitution!"

Any reasonable person: "It's very difficult to change the constitution, so even if he wanted to change it radically there is almost now chance it would actually happen."

You, trying to think for yourself for once: "Supreme Court justices will change the constitution!"

Any reasonable person: "Their decisions don't change the constitution."

You, feeling exposed: "See, I proved Obama wanted to change the constitution!"

Any reasonable person: "That did nothing of the sort."

You, losing it: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggh! Marx! Olbermann! Ed Begley Jr.! Spanking!"

[JoeChalupa]

This thread is so freakin' lame.

[implacable44]

I just find your constant changing of the subject amusing.

You plagiarizing Beck: "Obama wants to change the constitution!"

Any reasonable person: "It's very difficult to change the constitution, so even if he wanted to change it radically there is almost now chance it would actually happen."

You, trying to think for yourself for once: "Supreme Court justices will change the constitution!"

Any reasonable person: "Their decisions don't change the constitution."

You, feeling exposed: "See, I proved Obama wanted to change the constitution!"

Any reasonable person: "That did nothing of the sort."

You, losing it: "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaggh! Marx! Olbermann! Ed Begley Jr.!"

Oh you really are retarded. I didn't know they let computers in the facility. It all makes sense now.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh you really are retarded. I didn't know they let computers in the facility. It all makes sense now.Hey, at least I know what amendments and line item vetos are. Hopefully someone emails you Glenn Beck's definitions of each.

[Shastafarian]

of course there is also the line item veto power the President holds which also can effectively change an amendment (proposed).

I must've missed something...What the fuck are you talking about?

[ChumpDumper]

I must've missed something...What the fuck are you talking about?He doesn't know. He gets lost when he stops reading someone else's script.

[implacable44]

are you worried?

No not at all -- I hope Obama gets in and makes Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, Sarkozy -- can all have appointments in his cabinet .. and Rev. Wright can be ambassador to the UN. It will be wonderful. - and we can all become citizens of the world and be taxed accordingly.

[clambake]

I must've missed something...What the fuck are you talking about?

he's spewing the machine that's been generated to make him feel better about a purchase he's already made.

it's designed for him.

[Anti.Hero]

Most you should be ashamed for not even questioning Obama for yourselves.


Why do you think he is so articulate in 2001, then stutters and stammers in 2008? It's because he is trying so hard to hide his true intentions while on the big stage.

[smeagol]

"Please don't take my guns away . . .!" :cry

[Shastafarian]

He doesn't know. He gets lost when he stops reading someone else's script.

Does he really think a line item veto (which must be GRANTED, it is not held) gives the president power to change an amendment?

[ChumpDumper]

Does he really think a line item veto (which must be GRANTED, it is not held) gives the president power to change an amendment?To say nothing of the fact that if an amendment has enough votes to pass it is already veto-proof.

AND the fact that even if Obama could veto a line in an amendment, that would mean he's trying NOT to change the constitution in that respect.

So it's ignorant AND stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

Most you should be ashamed for not even questioning Obama for yourselves.


Why do you think he is so articulate in 2001, then stutters and stammers in 2008? It's because he is trying so hard to hide his true intentions while on the big stage.Thanks, Kreskin. I enjoy psychic political commentary.

[Centaur of the Sun]

I love hearing Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity talking points.

Love it, love it, love it.

[Shastafarian]

To say nothing of the fact that if an amendment has enough votes to pass it is already veto-proof.

AND the fact that even if Obama could veto a line in an amendment, that would mean he's trying NOT to change the constitution in that respect.

So it's ignorant AND stupid.

Ah so he's being rather superficial in his term "change". If the line-item veto power is given to the President, then he can alter it. Gotcha.

[ElNono]

Most you should be ashamed for not even questioning Obama for yourselves.

Why do you think he is so articulate in 2001, then stutters and stammers in 2008? It's because he is trying so hard to hide his true intentions while on the big stage.

Link to psychology study you based your conclusion on?

[Anti.Hero]

www.emperorhasnoclothes.com

[ElNono]

www.youreallfools.com

Figures...

[Anti.Hero]

www.emperorhasnoclothes.com

[ChumpDumper]

www.iamasoreloserwhomakesshitup.com

[Anti.Hero]

Sore loser? Is this a sporting event? It's America who has lost.

At 22, I have a greater grasp of reality than you kool-aid drinkers.


my edited link was ownage. Too bad elnono caught my ninja edit.

[ChumpDumper]

At 22, you are a sore loser who has made up more shit than most people have in an entire lifetime.

[JoeChalupa]

22!? You belong to the age group that BHornet deplores. I was voting before you were even born and the only thing you have a grasp on is yourself :jack

[2centsworth]

Sore loser? Is this a sporting event?

At 22, I have a greater grasp of reality than you kool-aid drinkers.


my edited link was ownage. Too bad elnono caught my ninja edit.

they treat it as a sport. actually, they want to shame you in being quiet. otherwise, they will have to pass legislation to shut you up.

[ChumpDumper]

they treat it as a sport. actually, they want to shame you in being quiet. otherwise, they will have to pass legislation to shut you up.:lmao

Now you guys are going to pretend there are no losers in politics.

That's the way losers make themselves feel better.

I would never want to shut up that kind of loser talk.

[2centsworth]

:lmao

Now you guys are going to pretend there are no losers in politics.

That's the way losers make themselves feel better.

I would never want to shut up that kind of loser talk.

you have self-esteem issues dude. I'm happy politics makes you feel this good about yourself.

btw, what do we win or lose?

It's up to me to bank no matter who's in power. However, is there something I should be afraid of if Obama is elected?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Most you should be ashamed for not even questioning Obama for yourselves.


Why do you think he is so articulate in 2001, then stutters and stammers in 2008? It's because he is trying so hard to hide his true intentions while on the big stage.

We can fire him in 4 yrs if he shows his 'true' self. Simple solution.

[ChumpDumper]

you have self-esteem issues dude. I'm happy politics makes you feel this good about yourself.I just read your loser talk to make me laugh.


btw, what do we win or lose?Your candidates and party lose an election. Did you really not know this?


It's up to me to bank no matter who's in power. However, is there something I should be afraid of if Obama is elected?That's what you people have been talking about all year. Did you just take a blow to the head and forgot it all?

[2centsworth]

I just read your loser talk to make me laugh.


please tell me what I have lost?


Your candidates and party lose an election. Did you really not know this? more confirmation you're rooting for a team.



That's what you people have been talking about all year. Did you just take a blow to the head and forgot it all?

"you people":lol. Now that's loser talk. Please tell me what I have lost with an Obama victory?

your best bet is to change the line of questioning and answer things that haven't been asked in typical Chump fashion.

[ChumpDumper]

please tell me what I have lost?Already told you.


more confirmation you're rooting for a team.When politicians stop using sports analogies, you can act like that means something.


"you people":lol. Now that's loser talk. Please tell me what I have lost with an Obama victory?Are you voting for Obama? If not and he wins, your candidate and party lose. Because they don't win. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.


your best bet is to change the line of questioning and answer things that haven't been asked in typical Chump fashion.Losing is what happens when you don't win. It happens in sports and elections.

[FromWayDowntown]

It doesn't make it an interpretation that we agree with - it makes it an interpretation that 5 of the 9 justices agreed with. That "interpretation" of the wording in the 2nd amendment serves the same purpose as an actual change to the Constitution. When an issue arises about the interpretation -the final say rests with the 9 justices and what they deem it to be and accordingly they have the power to change -- alter - amend - choose your verb Mr. dungsemantics .. either way it is changed.

Right, so when George W. Bush appointed 2 justices who would interpret the Constitution in a manner that he was more likely to agree with, he wanted the Constitution changed.

Freakin' Bush, that Constitution-changing power fiend!!!!!


Wait -- actually, that's pretty much right.

[2centsworth]

Already told you.

When politicians stop using sports analogies, you can act like that means something.

Are you voting for Obama? If not and he wins, your candidate and party lose. Because they don't win. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

Losing is what happens when you don't win. It happens in sports and elections.


politics is more than just an election. now this may sound naive, but it supposed to be about real life. In real life, what have I lost because of this election?

[FromWayDowntown]

politics is more than just an election. now this may sound naive, but it supposed to be about real life. In real life, what have I lost because of this election?

Given all of the concerns voiced about the economic difference that one choice will make over another, I would think that the outcome could potentially create great losses for you and others. Unless all of that talk about economic differences was just bluster.

[2centsworth]

Right, so when George W. Bush appointed 2 justices who would interpret the Constitution in a manner that he was more likely to agree with, he wanted the Constitution changed.

Freakin' Bush, that Constitution-changing power fiend!!!!!


Wait -- actually, that's pretty much right.

are you purposely creating ambiguity so that judges have more power? the broader the interpretations that we allow, the more power we put in the hands of judges. the legislative branch should be in control of creating boundaries, no?

[ElNono]

are you purposely creating ambiguity so that judges have more power? the broader the interpretations that we allow, the more power we put in the hands of judges. the legislative branch should be in control of creating boundaries, no?

Actually, there's an opinion by two renowned conservative judges that specifically say that the ruling on the 2nd amendment was nothing but a political stance, and equated it to roe vs wade. I'll try to find it, it makes for an interesting read.

EDIT: Here's an article about it: LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/washington/21guns.html?em)

[ChumpDumper]

politics is more than just an election. now this may sound naive, but it supposed to be about real life. In real life, what have I lost because of this election?The election. There are sides and winers and losers. This is how representative politics works. Again, I can't make it any more plain to you. Now if you need to rationalize your side's loss by saying you lost nothing in real life, by all means do. Losers do that kind of thing. There's nothing wrong with that.

[ChumpDumper]

are you purposely creating ambiguity so that judges have more power? the broader the interpretations that we allow, the more power we put in the hands of judges. the legislative branch should be in control of creating boundaries, no?If they really want to take it out of the hands of the judges, that's when they should change the constitution. Otherwise, the courts and their decisions will always somewhat reflect those who appointed them. So if Obama appoints some judge that takes some guns away, some time later some Republican will appoint some judge who will give them back.

[DarkReign]

politics is more than just an election. now this may sound naive, but it supposed to be about real life. In real life, what have I lost because of this election?

Do you make over $250k?

Thats rhetorical, but it is potentially one thing.

To be clear, Im not an "us", "we" sort either. Not with sports or sports teams and certainly not politics.

I think Obama would be/will be a good President. But with a super majority?

Absolute power....

[2centsworth]

Given all of the concerns voiced about the economic difference that one choice will make over another, I would think that the outcome could potentially create great losses for you and others. Unless all of that talk about economic differences was just bluster.

I lose the narrative, fair enough.:toast

[RandomGuy]

This is a guy who sees the Constitution and something that is outdated. That does not work, does not need to stand. It is exactly the same reason why the Democrats said no more power for this long with FDR. It is the same reason why the Democrats stopped FDR from packing the court. This is what FDR wanted to do. This is Liberal Fascism. And it is our final wake-up call, America. It is our final wake-up call. We are not going to get anything more clear from Senator Obama than this. You are not going to see it any plainer than this. I cannot believe how crystal clear this is. Now will America wake up. This is not about John McCain. I am not a supporter of John McCain.

and when it doesn't happen in 8 years?

Gawd, I am going to print a bunch of this kind of hand-wringing apocolyptic bullshit, and save it up.

You might not be posting here in 8 years, but whereever I end up posting in a political forum, and I am going to spend a few days posting all of the "oh my god, he's a closet muslim that is going to impose sharia" and "oh my god we're on the road to "liberal fascism"" and laugh.

If it doesn't happen in 8 years, will you admit you were wrong?

Or will you bury the memory of your hysteria so deep that you will have forgotten it?

[FromWayDowntown]

are you purposely creating ambiguity so that judges have more power? the broader the interpretations that we allow, the more power we put in the hands of judges. the legislative branch should be in control of creating boundaries, no?

Oh, I agree with that. I think most people would agree that the legislative and executive branches should be rule-making bodies and that the Supreme Court functions largely to assess whether those enactments (or the acts of States) violate Constitutional principles.

What I'm responding to is impenetrable's notion that a Supreme Court opinion interpreting the Constitution "changes" the Constitution and functions like an amendment. If that's going to be true under an Obama administration, he has to admit that the same has been true under every other administration since the beginning of the nation.

The difference is that he doesn't like what he thinks an Obama Court will do in interpreting the Constitution. But his ultimate point -- preaching fear that this will happen (aside from its absurd absence of any mooring in reality) -- is precisely what the Supreme Court does, regardless of who the President is. And, frankly, lots of people don't agree with lots of those decisions. The suggestion that an Obama Presidency and its impact on the Court will somehow be unique in having the Court interpret the Constitution ignores nearly 250 years of history.

[Mr. Peabody]

I was listening to Dennis Prager (?) today and he played the audio clip at issue in this thread. Before he played it, he said "Now, you have to listen to this intelligently and keeping in mind the other things Barack has said to get the full meaning of this"

In other words, "This clip really really doesn't say much without me spinning it for you afterward."

It's hard to believe that this is the last week of the election and this is it. This is what the GOP is hoping will turn the election. This is the "game-changer" as Prager put it. This issue is so lame.....

:lol

[Mr. Peabody]

Oh, I agree with that. I think most people would agree that the legislative and executive branches should be rule-making bodies and that the Supreme Court functions largely to assess whether those enactments (or the acts of States) violate Constitutional principles.

What I'm responding to is impenetrable's notion that a Supreme Court opinion interpreting the Constitution "changes" the Constitution and functions like an amendment. If that's going to be true under an Obama administration, he has to admit that the same has been true under every other administration since the beginning of the nation.

The difference is that he doesn't like what he thinks an Obama Court will do in interpreting the Constitution. But his ultimate point -- preaching fear that this will happen (aside from its absurd absence of any mooring in reality) -- is precisely what the Supreme Court does, regardless of who the President is. And, frankly, lots of people don't agree with lots of those decisions. The suggestion that an Obama Presidency and its impact on the Court will somehow be unique in having the Court interpret the Constitution ignores nearly 250 years of history.

This is similar to the whole "legislating from the bench" issue drummed up by the GOP in 2006/2007. I don't hear the Republican outrage in Texas when our Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals issue decisions that eviscerate existing state law.

[FromWayDowntown]

I was listening to Dennis Prager (?) today and he played the audio clip at issue in this thread. Before he played it, he said "Now, you have to listen to this intelligently and keeping in mind the other things Barack has said to get the full meaning of this"

In other words, "This clip really really doesn't say much without me spinning it for you afterward."

It's hard to believe that this is the last week of the election and this is it. This is what the GOP is hoping will turn the election. This is the "game-changer" as Prager put it. This issue is so lame.....

:lol

I'd be curious to hear the interview in its unedited form. I hate to pull the Wild Cobra context card, but the snippets I've heard, dissected as they have been, suggest that it could be that Obama was asked to discuss the victories and failings of the civil rights movement, argued that if the goal of the civil rights movement was to right economic inequities that it failed, suggested that those goals could have been achieved through legislative or executive action, explained that community organization might have been a means to achieve those ends (he was a community organizer, after all), and noted that it would have be a truly "radical" act by the Warren Court to both interpret the Constitution to fulfill those goals and attempt to administer that fulfillment -- and radical because it would fundamentally change the Constitutional function of the Court.

Now, I'll admit to that being a decidedly pro-Obama suggestion, but without more context, it seems just as likely (to me) that Obama was speaking in those terms as it is that he was laying the roots for the political/economic/constitutional philosophy that he intended to pursue when he was elected President 7 years later.

[FromWayDowntown]

This is similar to the whole "legislating from the bench" issue drummed up by the GOP in 2006/2007. I don't hear the Republican outrage in Texas when our Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals issue decisions that eviscerate existing state law.

Precisely.

Implacable doesn't like the way that he anticipates the Constitution will be interpreted by a Court with Obama appointees, so he argues that such a Court will be fundamentally changing the Constitution (in a manner indistinguishable from amendment) by its opinions. Of course, when the Roberts Court interprets the Constitution in way that implacable likes, that interpretation isn't one that changes the Constitution at all.

I'm not sure that you can have it both ways -- just like the sanctimonious arguments about judicial activism.

[hitmanyr2k]

Just more pathetic "I have a crystal ball" bullshit. That's all these guys have left. Day after day the same old pathetic crap. "Obama is going to do this, Obama is going to do that...BOO!! :wow ". Did I scare ya?

[2centsworth]

I was listening to Dennis Prager (?) today and he played the audio clip at issue in this thread. Before he played it, he said "Now, you have to listen to this intelligently and keeping in mind the other things Barack has said to get the full meaning of this"

In other words, "This clip really really doesn't say much without me spinning it for you afterward."

It's hard to believe that this is the last week of the election and this is it. This is what the GOP is hoping will turn the election. This is the "game-changer" as Prager put it. This issue is so lame.....

:lol


Prager is usually very fair. I listened to the clip of the interview and I didn't interpret it as Obama suggesting the court redistribute wealth. My understanding is Obama suggested more should have been done on the local level to "redistribute wealth". I do think Obama has got this absolutely wrong tough. There is no need to redistribute wealth. The need is to grow wealth in lower class and minority communiities. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is just an illussion of doing something.

the way to grow wealth in the lower class and minority communities is to encourage personal responsibility, create access to capital through the SBA and other methods*, require financial management courses be mandatory in schools, reduce the freakin cost of health care!

*I would like for the government to allow direct fully tax-deductible contributions to the SBA of up to $25,000 per person. This would encourage the rich to invest in small businesses and give minorities access to capital. Plus, the SBA serves as a small business incubator. All interest from the loans would go back to the donee. This would be a great way of uniting and not dividing.

[Cry Havoc]

and when it doesn't happen in 8 years?

Gawd, I am going to print a bunch of this kind of hand-wringing apocolyptic bullshit, and save it up.

You might not be posting here in 8 years, but whereever I end up posting in a political forum, and I am going to spend a few days posting all of the "oh my god, he's a closet muslim that is going to impose sharia" and "oh my god we're on the road to "liberal fascism"" and laugh.

If it doesn't happen in 8 years, will you admit you were wrong?

Or will you bury the memory of your hysteria so deep that you will have forgotten it?

No, of course not. Rather, they will argue that Obama was/is a fascist or a communist, and that he tried everything he could do to make this the United States of Social Fascists, or whatever bizarre formula they can concoct, but that he did not have enough house support to accomplish it, thanks to the efforts of the staunch right wingers who saved this country from being plunged into Armageddon. They will then do much as they are now: citing snippets of conversations and questioning the character of those Obama meets with. They will find a way to associate his behavior with socialism, communism, or fascism based on extremely loose evidence. They will then milk these points for all they're worth and draw up crazy circumstantial ties to make their logic fit with the Obama presidency.

[JoeChalupa]

FAct check people.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_redistribution_bombshel.html

In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:

" One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

[boutons_]

you right-wingers are shilling for liars, but that's normal.

The Facts

"Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!" runs the YouTube headline from the conservative video blog Naked Emperor News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck). "This video exposes the radical beneath the rhetoric."
On closer inspection, the "bombshell audio" turns out to be a rather wonkish, somewhat impenetrable, discussion of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Obama, then a University of Chicago law professor and Illinois state senator, argued that the courts have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in income distribution questions. He suggested that the civil rights movement had made a mistake in expecting too much from the courts -- and that such issues were better decided by the legislative branch of government.

You can read the entire transcript of the interview here (http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27), courtesy of Fox News, but here is the passage in which Obama explains that courts are "not very good" at redistributing wealth:
Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:
One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_redistribution_bombshel.html

======

The socialist slime just isn't sticking, because it's all desperate lies by losers.

[2centsworth]

FAct check people.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_redistribution_bombshel.html

In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:

" One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

that's right on Joe, but still the concept of "redistribution" versus "creation" is problematic for me. redistribution is like taking money from one credit card to pay another credit card.

[JoeChalupa]

that's right on Joe, but still the concept of "redistribution" versus "creation" is problematic for me. redistribution is like taking money from one credit card to pay another credit card.

Taxes ARE redistribution. You pay school/property tax that goes to build/support projects that may or not benefit you directly. Gas taxes that go to build roads that you may never drive on...etc.

[2centsworth]

Taxes ARE redistribution. You pay school/property tax that goes to build/support projects that may or not benefit you directly. Gas taxes that go to build roads that you may never drive on...etc.

taxes are supposed to pay for such things as defense, clean water, infrastructure and other public entities that are for the greater good.

Implementing taxes to directly take from one party to give to another party is redistribution. For instance, the government demanding $2000 from me to give to you is what I'm referring to.

[TheMadHatter]

taxes are supposed to pay for such things as defense, clean water, infrastructure and other public entities that are for the greater good.

Implementing taxes to directly take from one party to give to another party is redistribution. For instance, the government demanding $2000 from me to give to you is what I'm referring to.

So your tax dollars that go towards the war in Iraq in which we gave no bid contracts to companies like Haliburton is different how? That's "redistribution" of wealth, just cleverly concealed so idiots like you wouldn't know the difference.

[2centsworth]

So your tax dollars that go towards the war in Iraq in which we gave no bid contracts to companies like Haliburton is different how? That's "redistribution" of wealth, just cleverly concealed so idiots like you wouldn't know the difference.

you're an ideologue. there are plenty of other threads for you to play in. I'm having a conversation with Joe.

[JoeChalupa]

taxes are supposed to pay for such things as defense, clean water, infrastructure and other public entities that are for the greater good.

Implementing taxes to directly take from one party to give to another party is redistribution. For instance, the government demanding $2000 from me to give to you is what I'm referring to.

I understand that logic. The billion dollar bail out is taking our tax dollars and giving it to the fat cats on wall street. It happens all the time and neither candidate is going to stop it.

[2centsworth]

I understand that logic. The billion dollar bail out is taking our tax dollars and giving it to the fat cats on wall street. It happens all the time and neither candidate is going to stop it.

even if i agreed with you about the bail out, and I don't, but if I did would two wrongs make a right?

as far as the bailout is concerned, it was designed to keep middle america employed and keep liquidity available for consumer loans.

the fat cats don't need our help, that is why they are fat cats.

[FromWayDowntown]

the fat cats don't need our help, that is why they are fat cats.

They just need tax cuts?

[2centsworth]

They just need tax cuts?

no, but the argument is that tax cuts stimulate the economy and creates jobs. Did you know that since the 2003 tax cut took place, Tax Revenues are at record highs.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

[JoeChalupa]

even if i agreed with you about the bail out, and I don't, but if I did would two wrongs make a right?

as far as the bailout is concerned, it was designed to keep middle america employed and keep liquidity available for consumer loans.

the fat cats don't need our help, that is why they are fat cats.

No, my point is that McCain keeps talking about re-distribution and his tax plan also has re-distribution so he doesn't make sense. And those fat cats ARE benefiting from the bail out.

[JoeChalupa]

no, but the argument is that tax cuts stimulate the economy and creates jobs. Did you know that since the 2003 tax cut took place, Tax Revenues are at record highs.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/revenue20growth.jpg

So is the deficit and we've lost thousands of jobs.

[boutons_]

"it was designed to keep middle america employed and keep liquidity available for consumer loans."

Because the bailout always and still is a gift to the perpetrators, with no strings attached, the banks are not increasing lending, but sitting on the taxpayers' gift cash to shore up their balance sheets, and prepare for rainy days. The credit tightness, illiquidity is still in place with no signs of letting up. ie, Paulsen's giveway is failing.

But the right wing go spittle-flinging rabid if HUSSEIN says he will income tax by 4% of small fraction of the top end earners.

[2centsworth]

No, my point is that McCain keeps talking about re-distribution and his tax plan also has re-distribution so he doesn't make sense. And those fat cats ARE benefiting from the bail out.

where does McCain suggest redistribution? Also, the bailout was fully intended to help middle america, but we couldn't do it without some assistance to fat cats. The point is fat cats don't need our money, they like it, but don't need it.

[JoeChalupa]

where does McCain suggest redistribution? Also, the bailout was fully intended to help middle america, but we couldn't do it without some assistance to fat cats. The point is fat cats don't need our money, they like it, but don't need it.

They may not need it but they sure do benefit from it.
Are you joking? McCain's current stump speeches are a noun a verb and "re-distribution of wealth from Obama". The bail out was "said" to help middle Americans not lose their homes.

[boutons_]

Breakdown "federal revenues" into personal income tax (househould income has been essentially stagnant for all of dubya's Reign of Error), corporate income tax, whatever.

Household revenues stagnant, job creation not keeping up with population growth, where are these increased "federal revenues" coming from?

[2centsworth]

So is the deficit and we've lost thousands of jobs.

so spending is a problem and i agree with that.

[2centsworth]

Breakdown "federal revenues" into personal income tax (househould income has been essentially stagnant for all of dubya's Reign of Error), corporate income tax, whatever.

Household revenues stagnant, job creation not keeping up with population growth, where are these increased "federal revenues" coming from?

I'm pro growth in the middle markets too, but it doesn't require us cutting off our noses despite our faces. We need to give the wealthy incentives to invest in lower income and minority communities. One of the best ways I can think of is allowing individuals to make a $25,000 direct tax deductible contribution to the SBA for the benefit of small and minority owned businesses.

[TheMadHatter]

2centsworth is definitely drinking the RNC kool-aid in regards to trickle-down economics.

Guess what, trickle-down has been proven NOT to work in our economy. Want to know why? Because when you give money to rich people they don't reinvest into our economy, that money goes to off-shore banking accounts and into foreign markets at a much higher rate than it goes into our economy. It's ridiculous to think that giving already wealthy people more money will somehow trickle prosperity down to the middle-class.

Want to know how to directly stimulate the economy? Give more money to the working class, we KNOW they will spend that money directly on goods and services which will no doubt stimulate the economy.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm pro growth in the middle markets too, but it doesn't require us cutting off our noses despite our faces. We need to give the wealthy incentives to invest in lower income and minority communities. One of the best ways I can think of is allowing individuals to make a $25,000 direct tax deductible contribution to the SBA for the benefit of small and minority owned businesses.

Another tax deduction for the wealthy who can afford to give $25K as a write off? I'm no economic wiz I'm just asking.

[2centsworth]

2centsworth is definitely drinking the RNC kool-aid in regards to trickle-down economics.

Guess what, trickle-down has been proven NOT to work in our economy. Want to know why? Because when you give money to rich people they don't reinvest into our economy, that money goes to off-shore banking accounts and into foreign markets at a much higher rate than it goes into our economy. It's ridiculous to think that giving already wealthy people more money will somehow trickle prosperity down to the middle-class.

Want to know how to directly stimulate the economy? Give more money to the working class, we KNOW they will spend that money directly on goods and services which will no doubt stimulate the economy.

take the blinders off and read the posts. nobody is talking about trickle-down economics. We're talking about increasing federal tax revenue which is what took place after the last tax cut. Maybe the increased economic activity is concentrated? I'm cool if that's your argument, but the fact is we need increased economic activity and increased federal tax revenues. The debate, and it's not so much a Obama vs McCain debate, is how best to grow while increasing opportunity?

taking from one person and giving to another is silly and only intended to buy votes.

[2centsworth]

Another tax deduction for the wealthy who can afford to give $25K as a write off? I'm no economic wiz I'm just asking.

when you say write off, please understand how it works first. if you give away $25,000 you save $8000 in taxes. Ok, so which one is more valuable, $25,000 or $8000?

The incentive for the wealthy to give $25,000 is not only the $8000 tax savings, but most importantly the return on their investment which a recipient of an SBA loan would gladly pay.

The way to relate it to your situation is your contribution to a 401k. Would you contribute if you got nothing back except the write off?

[JoeChalupa]

when you say write off, please understand how it works first. if you give away $25,000 you save $8000 in taxes. Ok, so which one is more valuable, $25,000 or $8000?

The incentive for the wealthy to give $25,000 is not only the $8000 tax savings, but most importantly the return on their investment which a recipient of an SBA loan would gladly pay.

The way to relate it to your situation is your contribution to a 401k. Would you contribute if you got nothing back except the write off?

Well, I do contribute the max I can to my 401K which got hammered this year but at least I'm trying. To be able to drop $25K is above my pay grade.
But I hear ya.

[2centsworth]

Well, I do contribute the max I can to my 401K which got hammered this year but at least I'm trying. To be able to drop $25K is above my pay grade.
But I hear ya.

me too, but if you had an idea for a business wouldn't it be nice to have access to capital? most of the people who start businesses usually go to family and friends for money. Problem with most minorities is that our families and friends are broke. give the people who have an incentive to give us money and help us succeed.

[JoeChalupa]

me too, but if you had an idea for a business wouldn't it be nice to have access to capital? most of the people who start businesses usually go to family and friends for money. Problem with most minorities is that our families and friends are broke. give the people who have an incentive to give us money and help us succeed.

People starting businesses need to get that book from the Question Mark suit wearing dude and find the funds that are out there.

[2centsworth]

People starting businesses need to get that book from the Question Mark suit wearing dude and find the funds that are out there.

most infomercials are a joke. anyways, both McCain and Obama are way off IMO.

[implacable44]

and when it doesn't happen in 8 years?

Gawd, I am going to print a bunch of this kind of hand-wringing apocolyptic bullshit, and save it up.

You might not be posting here in 8 years, but whereever I end up posting in a political forum, and I am going to spend a few days posting all of the "oh my god, he's a closet muslim that is going to impose sharia" and "oh my god we're on the road to "liberal fascism"" and laugh.

If it doesn't happen in 8 years, will you admit you were wrong?

Or will you bury the memory of your hysteria so deep that you will have forgotten it?


Yes I will admit I was wrong. No question. If his term passes and we aren't France then I will say I was wrong.

And to answer several others -- No -- I never said I wanted it both ways -- the way our system is set-up the judicial branch does "change" thje constitution based on its' interpretations -- and the way the couret is set-up makes those decisions almost entirely political. Guns - as someone posted -- Roe V. Wade - political decisions based on who appointed them - except in the case of Reagan who appointed judges who are now considered left leaning.

I accept that the Roberts was a conservative leaning choice. Obama will probably appoint justices that agree with him politically.

[ChumpDumper]

Will you admit you had no fucking idea that a line item veto could do nothing to a passed amendment and that you were an idiot to say that it could?

[implacable44]

Will you admit you had no fucking idea that a line item veto could do nothing to a passed amendment and that you were an idiot to say that it could?

well no - Clinton had the Line Item Veto Act in 1996 I believe and used it -- 11 or so times... I believe 43 governors have the power and virtually every President has asked for it -- and there are those who believe that it could be granted again..

[ChumpDumper]

well no - Clinton had the Line Item Veto Act in 1996 I believe and used it -- 11 or so times... I believe 43 governors have the power and virtually every President has asked for it -- and there are those who believe that it could be granted again..How many constitutional amendments did Clinton use it on?

[implacable44]

He could have used it -- if he chose to. I don't know - like I said - that was off pure memory -- and should it come back -- it could be used again for any proposed amm.

[FromWayDowntown]

except in the case of Reagan who appointed judges who are now considered left leaning.

What a ridiculous assertion!

Ronald Reagan had 4 appointments to the Supreme Court during his two terms as President. In 1981, he replaced Justice Stewart with Sandra Day O'Connor. In 1986, he elevated Justice Rehnquist to Chief Justice to replace Chief Justice Burger and appointed Antonin Scalia to the Court to take the seat vacated by Justice Rehnquist. And in 1987, he appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Court (after losing battles to appoint Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg).

As for the assertion that Reagan's appointees "are now considered left leaning," it's beyond absurd to claim that anyone thinks (or ever thought) of William Rehnquist or Antonin Scalia as "left-leaning" except, perhaps, when a car either was riding in made a sharp left turn. Indeed, Rehnquist and Scalia are both considered judicial pointmen in the "conservative revolution."

Justice Kennedy might have once been considered to be a slightly leftward-leaning moderate, but more recent terms have shown him to be consistently voting with the established conservatives on the Court. In the last term (October Term, 2007), in non-unanimous cases, Kennedy sided with Roberts 83% of the time, sided with Scalia 75% of the time, and sided with Alito 80% of the time. In the term before that (OT 2006), in the same kinds of cases, Kennedy sided with Roberts 81% of the time, with Scalia 72% of the time, and with Alito 87% of time. Whatever claims of leftism might have once followed Kennedy around are now long since abandoned.

Justice O'Connor might have, on certain issues, been considered somewhat leftward-leaning, but her overall voting record suggests that either: (1) she was much more conservative than most think; or (2) the Justices who are considered to be conservatives must actually be liberals. In the 9 terms between OT '95 and OT '04, O'Connor voted most frequently with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas; at the lowest, she voted with Rehnquist 79% of the time (OT '01), with Scalia 81% of the time (OT '04), with Kennedy 83% of the time (OT '95) and with Thomas 81% of the time (OT '02). That's hardly a liberal voting record, I would say.

[implacable44]

What a ridiculous assertion!

Ronald Reagan had 4 appointments to the Supreme Court during his two terms as President. In 1981, he replaced Justice Stewart with Sandra Day O'Connor. In 1986, he elevated Justice Rehnquist to Chief Justice to replace Chief Justice Burger and appointed Antonin Scalia to the Court to take the seat vacated by Justice Rehnquist. And in 1987, he appointed Anthony Kennedy to the Court (after losing battles to appoint Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg).

As for the assertion that Reagan's appointees "are now considered left leaning," it's beyond absurd to claim that anyone thinks (or ever thought) of William Rehnquist or Antonin Scalia as "left-leaning" except, perhaps, when a car either was riding in made a sharp left turn. Indeed, Rehnquist and Scalia are both considered judicial pointmen in the "conservative revolution."

Justice Kennedy might have once been considered to be a slightly leftward-leaning moderate, but more recent terms have shown him to be consistently voting with the established conservatives on the Court. In the last term (October Term, 2007), in non-unanimous cases, Kennedy sided with Roberts 83% of the time, sided with Scalia 75% of the time, and sided with Alito 80% of the time. In the term before that (OT 2006), in the same kinds of cases, Kennedy sided with Roberts 81% of the time, with Scalia 72% of the time, and with Alito 87% of time. Whatever claims of leftism might have once followed Kennedy around are now long since abandoned.

Justice O'Connor might have, on certain issues, been considered somewhat leftward-leaning, but her overall voting record suggests that either: (1) she was much more conservative than most think; or (2) the Justices who are considered to be conservatives must actually be liberals. In the 9 terms between OT '95 and OT '04, O'Connor voted most frequently with Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas; at the lowest, she voted with Rehnquist 79% of the time (OT '01), with Scalia 81% of the time (OT '04), with Kennedy 83% of the time (OT '95) and with Thomas 81% of the time (OT '02). That's hardly a liberal voting record, I would say.


two of the four he appointed leaned left more than what was anticipated for a justice appointed by Reagan. A conservative would have expected them to be more like Roberts or Thomas -- SCALIA. It is not absurd.

[ChumpDumper]

He could have used it -- if he chose to. I don't know - like I said - that was off pure memory -- and should it come back -- it could be used again for any proposed amm.O

M

G.

:lmao

I really have to tip my hat to this kind of stupidity. It is rare indeed when I point out exactly why someone is wrong in very plain language, and the person still insists on repeating the same completely wrong argument.

:toast

[ElNono]

two of the four he appointed leaned left more than what was anticipated for a justice appointed by Reagan. A conservative would have expected them to be more like Roberts or Thomas -- SCALIA. It is not absurd.

Are you arguing against their conservative voting record?

[implacable44]

O

M

G.

:lmao

I really have to tip my hat to this kind of stupidity. It is rare indeed when I point out exactly why someone is wrong in very plain language, and the person still insists on repeating the same completely wrong argument.

:toast

You are as stupid as the day is long. Line Item Veto could very easily be given and could be used on proposed legislation and or amm. Several law professors have argued this point - BUsh attempted line item veto back in 2004 I think.

[ChumpDumper]

You are as stupid as the day is long. Line Item Veto could very easily be given and could be used on proposed legislation and or amm. Several law professors have argued this point - BUsh attempted line item veto back in 2004 I think.A passed amendment has already been passed by a veto-proof majority.

[implacable44]

Are you arguing against their conservative voting record?

O'connor and Kennedy both voted the same way in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992. Which is more specific to the issue of who Reagan appointed and how they gained that reputation

[implacable44]

:lmao

You need to go back in the thread a bit to where I tried to help you out.

Please do that. You are only making things worse for yourself.

no dung -- I am fine. We will see what happens in time.

[FromWayDowntown]

two of the four he appointed leaned left more than what was anticipated for a justice appointed by Reagan. A conservative would have expected them to be more like Roberts or Thomas -- SCALIA. It is not absurd.

It is. Your point would be valid if you were complaining about George H.W. Bush's appointments -- Thomas and Souter. Thomas is undoubtedly a conservative, but Souter is clearly left-leaning. Neither O'Connor nor Kennedy is left-leaning in any real objective sense; that neither is as conservative as Scalia or Thomas doesn't make either left-leaning.

[FromWayDowntown]

O'connor and Kennedy both voted the same way in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992. Which is more specific to the issue of who Reagan appointed and how they gained that reputation

So one case -- one vote that actually gave States greater ability to limit the availability of abortion -- is your basis for calling them left-leaning?

[Drachen]

You are as stupid as the day is long. Line Item Veto could very easily be given and could be used on proposed legislation and or amm. Several law professors have argued this point - BUsh attempted line item veto back in 2004 I think.

Go back and read the part about how an amendment is made. If it is going through it never touches the president's desk regardless of which way it is being proposed. Of the two ways, only one has ever been used. A proposed amendment must pass the congress by a 2/3 vote in order to be sent to the states for ratification. Do you know the signifigance of a 2/3 vote? It is veto-proof! To further explain, lets say a law is proposed, and it passes with a 62% majority, then the president vetos it (line item or otherwise), but lets say those 62% really really want this bill to pass. They will take it back to Congress and try really hard to get that remaining 4.67%. Why? because it OVERRIDES the presidents veto and becomes law at that moment. Back to the amendment to the constitution, if it passes congress, it is ONLY because it has AT LEAST a 2/3 vote, i.e. a veto is already overridden and it is sent directly to the states for ratification. In the other scenario that hasn't been used, the states hold conventions for a proposed amendment, decide on the wording, and try to get 75% of their bretheren to ratify it. The federal government and most of all the president are not even involved. Once again, this has already been explained to you, why you are unable to grasp this is beyond me, but I won't call you stupid, just completely oblivious to reality.

[implacable44]

Go back and read the part about how an amendment is made. If it is going through it never touches the president's desk regardless of which way it is being proposed. Of the two ways, only one has ever been used. A proposed amendment must pass the congress by a 2/3 vote in order to be sent to the states for ratification. Do you know the signifigance of a 2/3 vote? It is veto-proof! To further explain, lets say a law is proposed, and it passes with a 62% majority, then the president vetos it (line item or otherwise), but lets say those 62% really really want this bill to pass. They will take it back to Congress and try really hard to get that remaining 4.67%. Why? because it OVERRIDES the presidents veto and becomes law at that moment. Back to the amendment to the constitution, if it passes congress, it is ONLY because it has AT LEAST a 2/3 vote, i.e. a veto is already overridden and it is sent directly to the states for ratification. In the other scenario that hasn't been used, the states hold conventions for a proposed amendment, decide on the wording, and try to get 75% of their bretheren to ratify it. The federal government and most of all the president are not even involved. Once again, this has already been explained to you, why you are unable to grasp this is beyond me, but I won't call you stupid, just completely oblivious to reality.


Bro I understand it. I need no help with simpleton explanations of it. We will see what happens as congress has debated ammending the constitution to grant this power to the President and with a liberal super majority behind him -- we will see.....

[FromWayDowntown]

Bro I understand it. I need no help with simpleton explanations of it. We will see what happens as congress has debated ammending the constitution to grant this power to the President and with a liberal super majority behind him -- we will see.....

You're insane.

Even if a liberal super majority in Congress could get the amendment sent to the States for ratification, it still takes 38 states to ratify the amendment.

I'll remind you of this:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Oct29.png

Do you really think there are 38 states that are liberal enough to ensure ratification of an amendment that will likely be opposed by the most vociferous talking heads in the media?

[implacable44]

You're insane.

Even if a liberal super majority in Congress could get the amendment sent to the States for ratification, it still takes 38 states to ratify the amendment.

I'll remind you of this:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Oct29.png

Do you really think there are 38 states that are liberal enough to ensure ratification of an amendment that will likely be opposed by the most vociferous talking heads in the media?

before or after the fairness doctrine ?

[FromWayDowntown]

before or after the fairness doctrine ?

Yes, Red States will undoubtedly become Blue States if the "Fairness Doctrine" is re-implemented. :lol

[implacable44]

I cant help your ignorance

[DarkReign]

Bro I understand it. I need no help with simpleton explanations of it. We will see what happens as congress has debated ammending the constitution to grant this power to the President and with a liberal super majority behind him -- we will see.....

Your fears and subsequent spread of that fear are unsubstantiated and that pisses you off.

No reason to continue humping your own leg. You were wrong, it sucks, get over it.

[implacable44]

I don't fear it and we will see if it is a wrong assumption.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, Red States will undoubtedly become Blue States if the "Fairness Doctrine" is re-implemented. :lol

+27

[LnGrrrR]

Your fears and subsequent spread of that fear are unsubstantiated and that pisses you off.

No reason to continue humping your own leg. You were wrong, it sucks, get over it.

I ask again... don't Republicans get tired of being wrong so often lately? I mean, just plain denial of reality...

[Drachen]

Bro I understand it. I need no help with simpleton explanations of it. We will see what happens as congress has debated ammending the constitution to grant this power to the President and with a liberal super majority behind him -- we will see.....


I am seriously trying to understand this. Are you changing your arguement from saying that Obama would use the veto to stop amendments to the constitution (which as I pointed out is impossible), to saying that Congress will amend the constitution to grant Obama the power to veto and therefore stop amendments to the constitution? If so, let me speak to that point.
I dont care what kind of super majority a President Obama would have it could be 100% Democrat, and while I admit that anything in this world is possible, I find it highly impropable that Congress would vote on something that would specifically take power away from itself. That is their ace in the hole that they can override a presidential veto. This would have the effect of congress voting to dissolve itself because they would know that all legislation passed no matter how popular amongst members of congress would not go into effect unless it is supported by the president. Basically, that scenario would mean that congress is voting to make themselves yes men to the president. Many politicians like power, thus HIGHLY IMPROPABLE. Now that we have that out of the way, I dont care if the congress is 100% democrat, then nation isn't so even if by the smallest of chances the congress decided to vote in favor of dissolving itself, it would still have to pass the muster with 75% of the states. This makes that minute possibility even smaller. Like I said, I wont say it wont happen because anything in this world is possible, but you are talking about chances that are so small that it would be like spitting somewhere in the cosmos and then sending someone out to find it with nothing but a magnifying glass.

[ChumpDumper]

Board Republicans get really pissed off when they are asked to explain themselves. It usually leads to their shitting on their attempts at second-hand, drive-by punditry.

[Shastafarian]

Board Republicans get really pissed off when they are asked to explain themselves. It usually leads to their shitting on their attempts at second-hand, drive-by punditry.

This guy implacable is so fucking dumb. Jesus, I thought whottt and Wild Cobra said stupid things. This guy is king....of the idiots.

[FromWayDowntown]

I cant help your ignorance

Mine?

Let's put it this way, if you took an electoral map as an indication about which way a state would be likely to vote on a hotly-disputed constitutional amendment, history shows that the "red states" would outnumber the "blue states" in most instances by a significant margin. Since 1972, the Democratic candidate for President has won more states than the Republican candidate on exactly 2 occasions -- 1992 and 1996. In both 1984 and 1972, the Republican candidate won 49 of the 50 states. In 1980, the Democratic candidate won 6 states and in 1988, the Democratic candidate won only 10. Until 1987, the "fairness doctrine" was in place -- thus, despite the enforcement of that regulation (including the 1988 election), the Republican candidate won the majority of the votes in 209 states while the Democratic candidate won the majority of the votes in 41. Since the "fairness doctrine" was abolished, the Republican candidate has won the majority of votes in 97 states, while the Democratic candidate has won the majority in 103 states.

If anything, the Republicans had more success when the fairness doctrine was in place.

While I don't support imposition of the fairness doctrine in any respect, I think you're out of your mind if you believe that enough "red states" will become "blue states" to allow ratification of amendments that are anathema to Republican principles (or which Republicans would fight on purely political grounds). There's way too much consistency in the data; it demonstrates quite clearly that your argument is absurd.

[RandomGuy]

Board Republicans get really pissed off when they are asked to explain themselves. It usually leads to their shitting on their attempts at second-hand, drive-by punditry.

That is Republicans in general.

[ChumpDumper]

That is Republicans in general.Joe the Plumber was a fantastic example on Fox yesterday.

[implacable44]

Joe the Plumber was a fantastic example on Fox yesterday.

How so ? All Joe the PLumber did was get Obamarx to admit that he is socialist and wants to redistribute the wealth. Granted he won't be sharing any of his own millions and well you don't have any money for him to take -- but he sure wants to take money from other folks and give it to those poor folks that live for hand outs and entitlements.

[Shastafarian]

How so ? All Joe the PLumber did was get Obamarx to admit that he is socialist and wants to redistribute the wealth. Granted he won't be sharing any of his own millions and well you don't have any money for him to take -- but he sure wants to take money from other folks and give it to those poor folks that live for hand outs and entitlements.

I like run-on sentences too.

[ChumpDumper]

How so ? All Joe the PLumber did was get Obamarx to admit that he is socialist and wants to redistribute the wealth. Granted he won't be sharing any of his own millions and well you don't have any money for him to take -- but he sure wants to take money from other folks and give it to those poor folks that live for hand outs and entitlements.Learn to read, dumbass.
Joe the Plumber was a fantastic example on Fox yesterday.He wasn't talking about any of that on Fox yesterday, you idiot.

[implacable44]

Learn to read, dumbass. He wasn't talking about any of that on Fox yesterday, you idiot.

I know he wasn't talking about any of that on Fox Dung -- My point is -- who cares about his taxes or what he does or his license. None of that matters-- I don't care about his opinions or his sexual preference either -- all I know is he asked Obamarx a question and Obarmarx didn't have his talking points and came out of the closet.

[Shastafarian]

I know he wasn't talking about any of that on Fox Dung -- My point is -- who cares about his taxes or what he does or his license. None of that matters-- I don't care about his opinions or his sexual preference either -- all I know is he asked Obamarx a question and Obarmarx didn't have his talking points and came out of the closet.

Well you can't be as dumb as you seem. It takes some kind of brain power to back pedal as fast as you are.

[ChumpDumper]

I know he wasn't talking about any of that on Fox.Then talk about what he did on Fox yesterday. Give us all your impression on Joe the Plumber's performance on Fox yesterday, since that is what I was talking about and nothing you said had anything to do with it.

[Shastafarian]

Then talk about what he did on Fox yesterday. Give us all your impression on Joe the Plumber's performance on Fox yesterday, since that is what I was talking about and nothing you said had anything to do with it.

CD: Joe the Plumber is an example of how Republicans get all pissed off when asked to explain their misguided beliefs

implacable: Why because Joe the Plumber got Obamarx to admit he's a Socialist from Socialism 9 in the Gamma Quadrant?

CD: No because of how he got owned on Fox yesterday...on FOX

implacable: Why does what he thinks matter? I don't care and no one else should either no matter how many times he is quoted in the press

Everyone reading: ....this guy implacable is really dumb