You Didn’t Build That

Advertisements

72 thoughts on “You Didn’t Build That

    • Amazona September 20, 2012 / 8:48 pm

      The author of this article says, of her Liberal friends, “… I know they disagree with Republican principles and proposals…”

      Really? How unusual. The Libs we see here know nothing of “…..Republican principles and proposals…” but merely flail away at what they kind of think might be conservative ideas and conservatives in general.

      Ask them what a conservative is and you either get an American version of the Muslims saying Jews drink the blood of babies or you get a blank look and a change of subject—you never, EVER, get anything like a real or rational account of conservative principles and ideology.

      The Libs we see here don’t know what they support or why, and they don’t care. They don’t know what they hate or why, and they don’t care.

      Aside from the fact that the author refers to Libs that we had no idea even exist, her points are excellent, and I doubt we will get an answer to any of her questions, or to one of mine: “Why doesn’t it bother you to be lied to?”

      • Canadian Observer September 21, 2012 / 6:22 am

        “Ask them what a conservative is and you either get an American version of the Muslims saying Jews drink the blood of babies or you get a blank look and a change of subject—you never, EVER, get anything like a real or rational account of conservative principles and ideology.”…Amazona

        —————————————————————————–
        I’m sure that you would be more than happy, Amazona, to educate the Libs here and provide them with a real or rational account of what constitutes conservative principles and ideology.

        Also, when you mark your ballot for Romney in November, will it be without hesitation, secure in the knowledge that he fully represents your deeply held conservative principles and ideology?

      • Green Mountain Boy September 21, 2012 / 7:09 am

        “Also, when you mark your ballot for Romney in November, will it be without hesitation, secure in the knowledge that he fully represents your deeply held conservative principles and ideology?”

        I am sure there are some who would agree with your statement. It is my belief that they are now minority. However the minority holds the power within the repub party. Mitt will win but he will not win on the strength of his own message. He will win by default for being the repub nominee this time around.

        There are legions of us who are only voting for Mitt to make sure that king putt and queen mooch see curb and return to wherever they claim their home is.

      • Retired Spook September 21, 2012 / 8:54 am

        I’m sure that you would be more than happy, Amazona, to educate the Libs here and provide them with a real or rational account of what constitutes conservative principles and ideology.

        That’s funny, CO. You’ve been here almost as long as Amazona and I have, and I’ve seen countless explanations from Amazona about what constitutes conservative principles and ideology and why she subscribes to them. Perhaps you could give us your take instead, although it’s pretty clear you haven’t got a clue about conservatism or any other ideology for that matter. As an “American Observer”, I find it both curious and humorous that Liberals, Progressives, or whatever you call yourselves today can never seem to explain what you believe and why you believe it, or, even more importantly, cite examples of where and when your philosophy has been successful. Nor are you able to explain what you think those of whom you’re critical believe. You never seem to be at a loss for words, though, about your disdain for us. Perhaps you could explain that.

      • Retired Spook September 21, 2012 / 9:09 am

        CO, I’ll even help you get started, although the last time you asked for help (on Shore Bank, remember?) you dropped the ball and never finished the project. Nevertheless, the video at the top of this post provides and excellent example of one of the basic differences between Conservatives and Progressives. Conservatives subscribe to the principles of rugged individualism, individual initiative and entrepreneurship, coupled with low taxes and limited government interference. Liberals subscribe to the principles of sharing, equality and fairness, coupled with a large government presence to insure that those principles are enforced. The two views, IMO, are incompatible with each other, and the second is incompatible with our Constitution and republican form of government.

        OK, now that’s a pretty good start. CO, lets see if you can take it from there without dropping the ball again. BTW, how IS your research on Shore Bank coming? Your grade on that is still incomplete.

      • Canadian Observer September 21, 2012 / 9:24 am

        Thanks for your concise definition of the differences between conservatives & liberals, Spook. Much appreciated. Do you think Romney will adhere to the conservative principles that are compatible with your Constitution and republican form of government?

      • Retired Spook September 21, 2012 / 9:38 am

        Do you think Romney will adhere to the conservative principles that are compatible with your Constitution and republican form of government?

        I do, CO.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 11:03 am

        Ahhh, I see the allegedly Canadian alleged observer is back to his silly little games.

        “….when you mark your ballot for Romney in November, will it be without hesitation, secure in the knowledge that he fully represents your deeply held conservative principles and ideology?”

        Hmmmmm. To the Rabidly Radical Left and their mouthpieces, it is evidently deemed quite clever to demand lockstep/goosestep conformity of thought for a vote to be valid, and the lack of same to be a condemnation of conservatism as a whole.

        What makes this funny to those of us who actually UNDERSTAND political systems, their ideologies and their histories, it has always been the Left which has insisted on this lockstep/goosestep absolute conformity of thought, while the Right has not only been based on individualism and freedom of thought and expression it has been defined by it.

      • J. R. Babcock September 21, 2012 / 12:30 pm

        Canadian Observer, we get that you like Obama and dislike Romney. Turning your question to Retired Spook around, if you were an American, could you mark your ballot for Obama in November, without hesitation, secure in the knowledge that he fully represents your deeply held Progressive principles and ideology?

      • Canadian Observer September 21, 2012 / 1:06 pm

        J. R. Babcock
        September 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm #
        Turning your question to Retired Spook around, if you were an American, could you mark your ballot for Obama in November, without hesitation, secure in the knowledge that he fully represents your deeply held Progressive principles and ideology?

        ———————————————————————————–
        Since the President’s first term (with Republican obstructionism taken into account) saw a glimmer of progressive principles and ideology enacted, it would be hoped that with a Democratic majority in the Senate & House he would finally be free to fulfill the promise of a better America for all its people. If I were an American, J.R., I would have no hesitation in giving President Obama my vote.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 1:48 pm

        CO, as your concept of “…the promise of a better America for all its people…” involves discarding the Constitution that provided the foundation for all the greatness this nation has achieved, and its economic prosperity and incredible personal liberty, in favor of an all-powerful central government unrestricted as to size, scope and power, and a collectivist approach to living forced upon its people, I am sure you can understand why your personal hope for OUR country is dismissed as not only irrelevant but unAmerican.

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 5:19 pm

        cO

        Since the President’s first term (with Republican obstructionism taken into account)

        you are really a dim bulb

        first two years BOTH houses and the WH
        second two years the Senate and the WH

        Mush you HUSKY ^%$&*#

  1. bozo September 21, 2012 / 2:11 am

    I love this video. it vindicates Al Gore’s invention of the internet. Just like the little girl, he didn’t make the parts. He just put it together legislatively, made it a public asset instead of military or corporate, and conservatives immediately cried “you didn’t build that!”

    • Green Mountain Boy September 21, 2012 / 6:31 am

      bozo type transparency at work. When someone in government claims they built something, they did. When someone outside of government claims they built something, they didn’t.

      I am sure Mr. Cerf would have survived and the internet would have came into being without owl bores grant money.

      All for the government, the government is all.

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 5:21 pm

        al bore?

        the PRIVATE who FLUNKED out of DIVINITY school??????
        Bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha

      • bozo September 23, 2012 / 1:38 am

        Mr. Cerf is AN AL GORE FAN, but you STILL insist “he didn’t build that.”

      • tiredoflibbs September 23, 2012 / 9:12 am

        Assclown, Gore “did not build that”‘ even your article says so.

        Sheesh. You proggies are still harping on that 12years later.

    • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 10:48 am

      Gee, who knew the famously dense Mr. Gore was a secret brainiac working with the military and computer scientists to come up with a whole new CONCEPT of computer use and communication?

      Oh, that’s right—-he WASN’T!

      But he voted for it, and really, isn’t that the same thing?

      You know, like how a radical Leftist is really a political conservative?

      Like how paying for a product or service is really just like giving someone a check for doing nothing?

      • freethinker September 21, 2012 / 12:45 pm

        “Gee, who knew the famously dense Mr. Gore was a secret brainiac working with the military and computer scientists to come up with a whole new CONCEPT of computer use and communication?”

        Apparently that would be you, miss know it all.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 1:44 pm

        Velma, it is good to see you have given up even the flimsy pretense of trying to make sense.

      • tiredoflibbs September 23, 2012 / 9:14 am

        Wow, Velma, you too are ignorant of Internet history. Gore was 30 years too late.

        Freethinker my eye.

  2. Cluster September 21, 2012 / 9:56 am

    Liberals subscribe to the principles of sharing, equality and fairness, coupled with a large government presence to insure that those principles are enforced. – Spook

    That is a really good concise description of liberalism, but at the end of the day, equal outcome is the goal, and I will add that what matters to liberals is the intent, not the results. As long as some government official “says” they are trying to be fair, to not offend, and to bring about equal outcome, well that is all that is needed. Strangely, results don’t matter in the liberal universe, and you see that in the teacher unions, in the other public unions, in the large private unions, and in virtually every elected office including the POTUS.

    Results matter in the conservative world, and sometimes results are not fair, because conservatives subscribe to the notion of equal opportunity.

    • Retired Spook September 21, 2012 / 10:01 am

      Strangely, results don’t matter in the liberal universe, and you see that in the teacher unions, in the other public unions, in the large private unions, and in virtually every elected office including the POTUS.

      Especially in the office of POTUS. In spite of extremely poor results, the Left wants to give the current POTUS “tenure”.

      • freethinker September 21, 2012 / 11:53 am

        Spook, your party picked one of the worst possible candidates possible this time. People cannot relate to this man, nor can he relate to the average person who will be casting their vote in November. He is wooden and changes his tone depending on who he is talking to. No one really knows who this man is or what he really stands for. To me he is an opportunist – saying what he believes his audience wants to hear. Seriously, he does not understand the average family or individual working to make a living and take care of their families. You may argue that he does know what it is like to live with very little, but I don’t buy it. He and Ann may have lived in a basement apartment when they got married, but who hasn’t when they are in college? They came out of years of schooling with no debt. His father bought them their first house when Mitt graduated and paid for his college and advanced degrees. They lived off of stocks given to them by Mitt’s father. And Mitt wants everyone to believe he is a self-made man. Baloney! Without his father’s wealth he would not have been able to get the first class education he got without going into deep debt. He was a child of privilege and knows no other life style.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 21, 2012 / 1:25 pm

        Like anyone can relate to guy that parties under $100,000 worth of champagne?

        You live in a very strange world. You sure you are not one of the fork crew?

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 1:42 pm

        Velma, Mitt donated what his father left to him. We’ve gone over this before.

        Yes, to the stupid, like you, one has to experience something personally to understand it, but —big news flash here—-most people are smarter than that.

        And it is interesting that you look at a man who was brought up in the heart of America, in a normal family with father and mother and siblings, going to 4th of July parades, going on family vacations to national parks, studying his country’s history and government, attending a Christian church and furthermore dedicating two years of his life and at least 10% of his income to it as well as countless hours of personal time, participating in the free market system that made this country great, and in the tradition of our Founding Fathers moving into public service, and declare that Americans just can’t “relate” to someone like this. Why? Because he has earned a lot of money.

        But you think we CAN relate to a man who did not even set foot in the Continental United States till he was 18, who grew up in a chaotic and dysfunctional family in which his father abandoned him, his mother dumped him off on her parents, he was taught to hate his stepfather for not being enough of a radical socialist, whose mother and father both hated the United States and capitalism, who was sent off at the age of 10 to be “mentored” by a pedophile/Communist, who spent his school years drunk and stoned, who has had at least two different names and two different religions, who chose a Christian religion based on its hatred of whites and its distortion of Christianity, who spent his school years and life since then seeking out and associating with Leftist radicals, and who also has a lot of money—but money he did not earn?

        And BTW, people who judge other people by how much money they have are shallow, superficial, snobs. Just because you hate someone for having money instead of for NOT having money does not make you any better.

        Of course, you also hate people who are smarter than you, so it looks like you have put yourself in a quite a small little box of resentment and rage, as so many of us not only make a lot more money than you but are vastly more intelligent.

      • irisspirit September 24, 2012 / 11:53 am

        As usual Amazona, you are an idiot. When did I ever say I hate people who have money. So, you are not only an idiot but you are also stupid. Normally I never read your rants, and being of sound mind I will go back to that policy.

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 11:59 am

        Velma, you just waddle on back to a nice saucer of milk, OK?

        You ranted and raved about Romney, one snarl after another, and about half of your screed was centered on his money.

        Who really knows why you hate him? Who really cares? It’s not as if it is based on anything normal, or rational. It’s just sour old velma, carrying on the way she does.

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 12:09 pm

        But Velma, keep in mind—everyone here has noticed that you ducked the question: What about Obama is supposedly so much easier to “relate to” than Romney?

        Oh, that’s right—you set up an excuse for ducking this question, by claiming you won’t read any of my posts. Yeah, like anyone is going to believe THAT.

        No, you can’t address it. What could possibly be easier for the average American to relate to than an All-American kid, an Eagle Scout, who went to 4th of July parades and picnics, volunteered at his church, went on family vacations with his mother and father and siblings to National Parks, only used one name his whole life, and is an example of the American Dream, having achieved economic and personal success?

        Oh,that’s right—we are supposed to “relate to” a man who did not grow up in this country, whose mother hated the United States and capitalism and spent her life seeking out men who shared her political views, whose foreign father abandoned him, who was turned against his stepfather by his mother when the stepfather started to veer away from radical anti-capitalist anti-America hatreds, who grew up with his radical Leftist grandparents going to a posh private school but spending his time drunk and stoned and grinding out cigarettes on the carpet to express his rage, whose choice of religion was based on an anti-white comment by its overtly racist pastor, and who was mentored throughout his youth by a pornographer/pedophile on the FBI Watch List for his Communist Party membership and anti-American activities?

        I am merely pointing out the abject silliness and superficiality of basing a political decision on who is more “likable” or who we might be able to “relate to”.

  3. chrissyann September 21, 2012 / 1:15 pm

    ……………and da Kennedys were poh white trash!

  4. James September 21, 2012 / 1:48 pm

    So I stop by and read that Amazona and Spook want a liberal to define their political ideology so that they can better understand the progressive movement…..Since i have a few moments, ill explain my personal beliefs and why I am a Democrat through and through.

    1. I believe in the bill of rights of the constitution. I don’t however believe that the 10th amendment was meant to limit the federal government the way conservatives want to limit it. I believe that a large and somewhat effective federal government is a good thing, and not a bad thing.

    I want the federal government to impose rules that allow all people a fair shot. Rules like progressive taxation, educational standards for each state, national ID which would naturally replace state issued ID’s, and even national license plates.

    Generally speaking, I don’t subscribe to the idea that each state has sovereignty and that it can do whatever it wants inside its borders as long as it follows the federal constitution. That’s not sovereignty at all. If you look at the state constitutions across our nation you would find that some states limit certain rights such as gay marriage and abortion, while others don’t.

    I believe and most democrats do as well that certain rights and constitutional issues you cannot leave up to the states to decide. Abortion, Gay marriage, equal protection under the law, education, healthcare, welfare, etc.

    Those issues are to important to leave up to states. Those issues need to be uniformly enforced across state lines.

    Some may say that the 10th amendment limits the fed’s power, and that’s a fair argument…but i’d reply that the 10th amendment is more reserved for things that aren’t related to our rights. I believe that states should determine their own criminal code, their own driving regulations and laws, and their own enforcement, and punishment of non violent crimes and criminals. On those issues, let’s call them non-core issues, I’d say the states have every right to determine their own fates.

    On other issues, of which I have mentioned some above, I believe the federal government must and should enforce a national standard.

    There is nothing wrong with national FDA standards on food and drugs, or EPA standards on industry, or even education standards for states to live up to.

    This election is a choice moment. I believe this nation is better served with a stronger federal government that can level the playing field. Mind you, I didn’t say promote the outcome, just level the playing field so that everyone that wants to put in the effort, can at least expect to have the same rules apply to them as the next guy.

    A lot of conservatives, cluster and spook among them think that Democrats don’t want equal opportunity, but equal results…I reject that categorically.

    I believe that we are all in this together, I don’t believe in radical individualism like some conservatives do. I don’t want the government to get out of the way and let me do it on my own, I want my tax dollars to be used to HELP me when I need it, or help others if they need it.

    Like Clinton said in his speech to the DNC…We are all in this together, I like that much more than, you’re on your own…

    James, normally you’re posts are routinely deleted. We’re leaving this one up as you’ve actually made some points instead of just snarky attacks//Moderator

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 21, 2012 / 2:32 pm

      And I’ll actually respond because it is a fair appraisal of liberal ideals – anything a liberal cares about is to be dictated from the center because one thing a liberal can’t stand is to have any of his ideals not be supreme in the land. If, on the other hand, there is something a liberal doesn’t particularly care about, they are quite happy to let local people do as they wish. The ultimate problem here, though, is that while Liberal A might care about Subject X and demand a federal law, he might not care about Subject Y and is thus willing to leave it to the locals…but Liberal B does care about Subject Y while not caring too much about Subject X. The upshot is that given all the varied liberal demands there will ultimately be no power left to local people (liberals never actually argue with each other – each demand by a liberal group is just tossed on the pile and all of them are advanced in the general cause of liberalism).

      A properly functioning, just society, however, requires that local people be largely able to run their own lives – even if the way they do it causes offense to people who don’t live there. For us on our side, we’re not terribly concerned if San Francisco provides taxpayer funds to advance the cause of so-called gay rights…that is for the taxpayers of San Francisco to decide. We do, however, dissent from the notion that because San Francisco wants to spend taxpayer dollars that way, so must Bakersfield.

      Our conception of the federal government is not that of helper but as defense of last resort -they are not to umpire our disputes but merely to ensure that whatever we decide does not directly violate a specific, written provision in the Constitution. We’re ok if atheists in some decayed, increasingly barbaric liberal city manage to ban prayer in their local public schools (which each year have fewer children, anyway, because liberals don’t have that many kids) – but we’re outraged that these same liberals manage to bamboozle the federal courts in to saying that a deeply religious rural or suburban area must also ban prayer in public school. it is no one’s business but the locals.

      Political freedom is just that – the freedom of people to make their own political decisions. If we don’t have that – if our decisions are pre-made by judges or bureaucrats operating on the theory that the federal government is supreme in anything it chooses to interest itself in – then we simply don’t have political freedom.

    • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 2:56 pm

      Moderator, I appreciate your leaving James’ post up, as he at least has the courage to say what the other Pseudo Lefties refuse to admit.

      First, let me clear something up. We do not ask the Leftists here to define your political philosophy so we “…can better understand the progressive movement..” On the contrary, we DO understand the Progressive Movement, and we ask the question to illustrate the fact that we do and the posters here do NOT.

      Or, if they do, they are afraid to explain it because they realize the truth is unpalatable to most Americans.

      You say: ” I believe in the bill of rights of the constitution.”

      First of all, the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments to the Constitution, and therefore part of the Constitution. It is not possible to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you think should be the law of the land.

      The 10th Amendment is very specific, and to understand it you have to understand the Constitution to which it refers. The original Constitution delegated certain duties, or responsibilities, to the federal government. These are often referred to as the “enumerated” duties of the federal government—-that is, what the federal government MUST do.

      The only reason the Constitution was passed—-ratified—-by a new nation quite determined to never allow a strong central government to exist, having just fought a bloody war against powerful central authority, was because the Founders gave their solemn promise that once the Constitution was ratified, they would quickly reinforce it with amendments firming it up. While they wanted it understood that anything allowed to the federal government would be stated in the body of the original document, they also understood that human nature would soon start to try to play games with it, and claim that if something was not specifically addressed in the Constitution then it was up to the whim of the moment

      So they followed up on this promise, and outlined eight guarantees of rights in a very specific manner. They then tied it all up with the statement that if something was not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, or prohibited by the Constitution, it could only be achieved by the States, or by the People.

      It is very clear.

      So some of your comments declare that you do not accept this as defining law.

      You say: “I don’t however believe that the 10th amendment was meant to limit the federal government the way conservatives want to limit it”

      You say: “Generally speaking, I don’t subscribe to the idea that each state has sovereignty and that it can do whatever it wants inside its borders as long as it follows the federal constitution.”

      You say: “I believe and most democrats do as well that certain rights and constitutional issues you cannot leave up to the states to decide.”

      But you can’t say you believe in the Bill of Rights and then in the same statement go on to explain that you really DON’T. It is inconsistent.

      It would help you a lot to do some studying about the origins of the Constitution, the writings of the Founding Fathers, the ideas that spurred them to write what they did the way they did. It might be confusing to just glance at the Constitution now, in the 21st Century, without any historical context or contemporaneous writings of the creators, but once you see the pattern of determination to impose severe restrictions on the size, scope and power of the central government and the determination to keep as much power and authority as possible localized, to states and to the people, it all makes complete sense.

      When you say .. I don’t subscribe to the idea that each state has sovereignty and that it can do whatever it wants inside its borders as long as it follows the federal constitution you are saying you don’t believe the Constitution is or should be the law of the land. It is that simple. You cannot say you believe in it and then say you don’t believe in what it says. And that is what it says, as clear as day——the individual states CAN be sovereign, CAN make their own laws, as long as they follow the federal Constitution. What’s more, it says that if the states want to do something that is not an enumerated duty of the federal government, they have to look at that something and see if it is prohibited by the Constitution. If it is not enumerated, and not prohibited, the only way to legally do it is through the state. Or the people.

      It is very hard to admit that you really don’t, at your core, believe in our Constitution. But it is foolish to say you do and then simultaneously say you also believe in a form of government that is in direct opposition to it. It is tempting to try to play both sides, just as some Christians who are teetotalers will assert that when Jesus turned water into wine, it wasn’t REALLY “wine” but unfermented grape juice. It’s human nature to try to have conflicting beliefs merge, but it just can’t be done.

      • James September 21, 2012 / 3:19 pm

        Amazona,

        Your reply tries to do exactly what you say you don’t do. You try and parse my words into something they are not.

        Its very simple. The bill of rights is obviously part of the constitution, but they aren’t just some amendments like you claim them to be. They are the core of the constitution. Also, to assume that I don’t know the history of the constitution or its origins is again another example of arrogance on your part.

        Moving on, your thinking is that anything that isn’t in the constitution, and isn’t prohibited by the constitution, is a state right. You also state that at that point, only a state can enact those things or the “people”….

        let’s first start with the first part. I categorically reject your statement. The constitution doesn’t prohibit gay marriage, and it doesn’t expressly endorse it. According to you, this should be then left up to the states to decide on an individual basis. Wrong. I could argue that gay marriage comes under the equal protection clause of the constitution, and under that clause, thus, the federal government has the right to nationally enforce gay marriage, or at least have the authority to decide.

        the second part of your statement is that if the state doesn’t use its 10th amendment powers, then the people can do so. How do the people in our nation express their will? by voting for nationally elected officials like congressmen and senators and Presidents. If let’s just say, the people decide to elect a president who believes we need a national ID..and therefore that president in accordance with the senate and congress decides to pass a law to nationally force people to get national ID’s….you would probably, or most certainly say that is against the constitution because of the 10th amendment. I would vehemently disagree.

        The constitution isn’t like the bible. It’s not written in stone, and its not meant, or at least I don’t think it was meant to be static.

        If the people through national elections, or referendums decide to implement something that isn’t stated in the constitution, but isn’t prohibited either…then its ok.

        You take states’ rights to be more important than the federal government. I disagree. I believe the federal government, as the first line of defense, and the protector of our freedoms should be the first and most powerful agent of control and change in the land. period.

        Why should Louisiana have a different license than Georgia? why should they have different license plates? different laws for marriage? abortion? capital punishment?

        You would rather the USA become a confederate states of america, while I would rather see the states as provinces…with semi-autonomy over their borders, but responsible first and foremost to the federal government for all issues deemed to be national in nature.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 4:09 pm

        James, I did not “parse” your words but quoted them, verbatim, and addressed exactly what they said.

        When you misstate the intent of what you admit is the “core” of the Constitution, it is hard to imagine that you are informed about the origins of the Constitution or its foundational beliefs or intents.

        As the contemporaneous writings of the Founders are so clear regarding their absolute determination to protect state sovereignty, and your own words, taken verbatim from your post, argue that you believe in only very limited state sovereignty, naturally the conclusion is that you are unaware of the debates, discussions and arguments that formed the background for what was actually written and ratified.

        BTW, I do not agree that the Bill of Rights is the “core” of the Constitution, but merely define terms and clarify the intent of the Constitution in unambiguous terms.

        “Moving on, your thinking is that anything that isn’t in the constitution, and isn’t prohibited by the constitution, is a state right. You also state that at that point, only a state can enact those things or the “people”….”

        This is correct. I am going by what the Constitution actually says to arrive at this conclusion, with a minor caveat: I do not say that anything not included in the enumerated duties, or prohibited by the Constitution, is a “state right”. I am far less casual than you about the use of the term “right”. An ability is not a right. A state has the ability to legislate something if it wants so, if what it wants to do is not prohibited by the Constitution.

        “The constitution doesn’t prohibit gay marriage, and it doesn’t expressly endorse it. According to you, this should be then left up to the states to decide on an individual basis. ”

        True, though here again your terminology is misleading. The issue is not about the legal status of a homosexual union, but merely about the WORD applied to it. And yes, as this is not part of any enumerated duty, nor is it prohibited by any mention in the Constitution, it IS within the legal ability of any state to make its own law regarding the use of this WORD.

        Or regarding how the state wishes to address homosexual unions in general.

        Again: Not delegated, not prohibited = state.

        “I could argue that gay marriage comes under the equal protection clause of the constitution, and under that clause, thus, the federal government has the right to nationally enforce gay marriage, or at least have the authority to decide. ”

        Yes, you can argue this, just as you can argue your personal interpretation of "state sovereignty" or the real meaning of the 10th Amendment, just as people have argued that the General Welfare Clause is Constitutional approval of federal charity. Lots and lots of arguments have been made about lots and lots of readings of lots and lots of words and clauses in the Constitution.

        But what you are overlooking is that you are basing your argument on another false premise—that gay people are prohibited from marrying. This is simply untrue. Any gay man has exactly the same right to marry a woman as any other man. etc. What you are arguing is not a "right to marry" but a "right to redefine a term into something totally unrelated to its historical, cultural and religious history and context". And deciding on this is not an enumerated duty of the federal government, nor prohibited to it by the Constitution and is therefore permitted to the States.

        “the second part of your statement is that if the state doesn’t use its 10th amendment powers, then the people can do so. How do the people in our nation express their will? by voting for nationally elected officials like congressmen and senators and Presidents.”

        No, that’s not what I said at all. And after you misquoted me, you misstated a fact. No we do not just express our will by electing “nationally elected officials like congressmen and senators and Presidents.” This is wrong on several levels. The most obvious is that Congressmen and Senators are not “nationally elected” officials but elected state by state for Senator and district by district, within the state, for Congressmen. The other glaring error is that we also elect local officials, from county commissioners to mayors to governors and all sorts of other local, county and state offices.

        You also show your filter system, as you indicate that when we refer to “the People” we refer to some governmental or quasi-governmental entity. But in fact we refer to our churches, our community groups, our families, ourselves. If I want to help a group I think is doing good work, I don’t need a governmental agency to do it—-I can organize a bake sale, a clothing drive, a pledge walk, a donation campaign.

        I think your default assumption that “the People” automatically means some sort of governmental entity is quite consistent with your other comments, but antithetical to the intent and wording of the Constitution.

        “If let’s just say, the people decide to elect a president who believes we need a national ID..and therefore that president in accordance with the senate and congress decides to pass a law to nationally force people to get national ID’s….you would probably, or most certainly say that is against the constitution because of the 10th amendment. I would vehemently disagree. ”

        Yes, you would. And you would be staking out a territory I mentioned in one of my other posts. You do not mention amending the Constitution to add this power to the enumerated duties ALLOWED to the federal government, so you seem to be camped on the "…overthrow or simply subvert the Constitution…." approach.

        “The constitution isn’t like the bible. It’s not written in stone, and its not meant, or at least I don’t think it was meant to be static.”

        But, yeah, it pretty much is, since infinitely flexible laws are pretty much like no laws at all.

        Not COMPLETELY static, you understand—there is a process for amending the Constitution, and it has been done what? ? 27 times??. But without amendments, yes, it is what it is.

        “If the people through national elections, or referendums decide to implement something that isn’t stated in the constitution, but isn’t prohibited either…then its ok. ”

        No. Not nationally.

        “You take states’ rights to be more important than the federal government. I disagree. I believe the federal government, as the first line of defense, and the protector of our freedoms should be the first and most powerful agent of control and change in the land. period.”

        Yes, like the Founders, I do believe the bulk of all power and authority should rest with the states. I agree that the purpose of the federal government is to provide an umbrella of protection, of national security and of our rights, but that it should not be involved in “control and change in the land”.

        “Why should Louisiana have a different license than Georgia? why should they have different license plates? different laws for marriage? abortion? capital punishment? ”

        Well, because they are states. We are now back at the beginning of your circular argument. You do not believe in states’ rights. I do, and I do because I see this clearly laid out as a founding and defining principle of the entire nation.

        “You would rather the USA become a confederate states of america, while I would rather see the states as provinces…with semi-autonomy over their borders, but responsible first and foremost to the federal government for all issues deemed to be national in nature.”

        Thank you for your candor. I am sure you reflect the core beliefs of many who post here, who lack your courage in coming out and stating your position with such clarity and conviction.

        And, as I said, you have staked out your territory.

    • dbschmidt September 21, 2012 / 3:08 pm

      James,

      I am just asking for clarification here about your post and that you have read and understood the Constitution of the United States / Bill of Rights, and the individual Constitutions of the individual States. Just the basics here, not going back past the Articles of Confederation, but the first ten amendments of the Constitution are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, and were reiterated because of the belief of their importance. Of that, the Tenth, deals with the enumerated duties of the Federal Government. These (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) are the things the Federal government can and must do—that is it. No more ~ no less. One should view the Constitution as a document that limits the governance of this country at the Federal level while leaving everything that is not enumerated to the States, or the individual. Maybe it is time to talk about the enumerated duties and the welfare clause but this is not it.

      Nevertheless, I am not going to split ideology from more general beliefs in this post but in several cases you juxtapose the two while contradicting yourself. Hence the need for clarification. You believe in a larger, overreaching Federal Government and that States do not actually have sovereignty even though it is clear that these are in direct opposition to the actual Constitutions at both State and Federal level? There is a reason behind the saying “United States of America.”

      You mix what you perceive are “rights” like abortion, gay marriage with those inalienable rights given to us by our Creator: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (owning property). You bring up the point you think it is “too important” to be left at State level. However, you bring up Federal ID (would it be required to vote? Or even be on the street?) and even license plates when driving is a privilege. You are apparently mixing responsibilities with some Brave New World meme. Same with agencies like the FDA, EPA, NEA which should, IMHO, be disbanded at the Federal level and if States want to continue enforcement—fine. Closer to the people–the better. Not sure on shrimp on treadmills or measuring cow farts. I could see National Guidelines but not enforcement of a National Standard.

      You also argue with the “level playing field” which means curtailing those above the median while supplementing those below to level the playing field. You say you categorically deny that take on this issue but augment you post with several such statements.

      But basically, You appear to be for;
      Overreaching Federal government
      Federal over States
      Level Playing field no matter who gets injured in the process
      Collective versus Individual
      Making non-rights into full blown rights over the majority beliefs of this country

      Did I miss anything?

      • James September 21, 2012 / 3:34 pm

        DB, you’re misunderstanding my statements, so let me clear them up.

        You mix what you perceive are “rights” like abortion, gay marriage with those inalienable rights given to us by our Creator: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (owning property).

        I don’t believe in this creator…so therefore, it would be hard for me to have the same set of fundamentals you have. but with regards to rights…

        You mean to tell me that children don’t have a right to education? You mean that gay and lesbians don’t have the right to marry and be happy? if the pursuit of happiness is what you believe, than allowing people to marry, or not marry should be part of that. Abortion was considered a right to privacy under the constitution. Do you believe we don’t have a right to privacy? If your definition of rights is only those stated in the declaration of independence, then we will never agree and its best we stop discussing this issue.

        You bring up the point you think it is “too important” to be left at State level. However, you bring up Federal ID (would it be required to vote? Or even be on the street?) and even license plates when driving is a privilege.

        I said certain things are to important to allow states to decide. Slavery would be one of those things. the states decided to have it, some didn’t, that was wrong. Abortion is not a state level issue. period. the right to marry whomever you want is not a state issue. If it was the case that we allow the states to decide everything that’s not in the constitution, there would still be slavery and segregation. societies evolve and progress. Nothing is ever static.

        Federal ID’s and licence plates are examples. You dont have to drive, if you do however, why does each state have to have a different plate and DMV departments? is that really efficient? if i move from one state to another, I have to get a new plate, new emission stickers, new ID, new everything. why not have one national licence plate and ID? closer to the people isn’t always better, to imply otherwise is to be dogmatic.

        You are apparently mixing responsibilities with some Brave New World meme. Same with agencies like the FDA, EPA, NEA which should, IMHO, be disbanded at the Federal level and if States want to continue enforcement—fine.

        There you go again. let the states decide if the environment, or clean air and water are important enough to enforce. that’s the best solution to you? to have 50 different EPA’s, and FDA’s and NEAs? you’re so narrow and dogmatic in your views toward governance, that you don’t see the impossibility of your proposal. Instead of having one DEA and EPA that imposes rules for the nation, for our citizens, you want each of the 50 states to make their own rules. as if the air from Georgia never blows over to Florida. Its simply impossible to live and govern a nation like that.

        Closer to the people–the better.

        I categorically reject that notion. I gave examples above.

        You also argue with the “level playing field” which means curtailing those above the median while supplementing those below to level the playing field.

        Who ever said that? you took that from my words? really? So ensuring that each child has a good school to go to paid for by taxpayers is not right? how is that curtailing the above average? ensuring that each person has access to affordable health care is somehow not right and just?

        But basically, You appear to be for;
        Overreaching Federal government

        overreaching in YOUR view. keep that in mind. there is a reason your party and view is down in the polls.

        Federal over States

        Absolutely.

        Level Playing field no matter who gets injured in the process

        Those are your words, not mine. I never said that. to imply that I did is dishonest and improper.

        Collective versus Individual

        I believe “we are all in this together” is better than “you’re on your own”. Yes.

        Making non-rights into full blown rights over the majority beliefs of this country

        Again, you want people to do what you believe according to your religion? really? you want to go there?

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 4:22 pm

        James, aside from your rather shrill insistence that the happiness of gay people depends on the accepted use of one WORD, you have laid out your case for the Left quite clearly, and I thank you.

        You never really got into the actual POLITICAL ideology of the Left, kind of skirting around the edges and sticking to the more emotional aspects that the Left uses to lure people into supporting it so it can have the power to implement its true political and economic agendas, but at least you are candid about the superficial identity things that make you so passionate, and that is a start.

        Do you feel ready to move on to the actual POLITICS of the Left, the blueprint of the Left for governance, and its economic policies? You have come close a few times but then veered off into social issues, which obviously get more of your attention. Your personal involvement with the gay “marriage” issue is quite clear.

        You express yourself well, and I am sure you have some very strong opinions on the the superiority of the collectivist political model, as you do on the superiority of a central authority unlimited as to size, scope and power.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 4:30 pm

        “Abortion was considered a right to privacy under the constitution. ”

        No, not really. You have it backwards. First a "right to privacy" was assumed, though never stated or referred to in the Constitution. Some justices decided it would be a nice thing to have so they said we have it.

        Then some other justices imagined a 'penumbra', or halo, of other nuanced assumptions circling this newly invented/discovered "right".

        Then they decided they could detect an "emanation" of some sort from this vague halo of undefined associations of this newly invented or discovered "right"

        And THEN, and only then, did they connect all these vague dots, and decide that if there is a right to privacy, and if it does have a penumbra of associated rights, and if that penumbra does emanate some mysterious vapor or something, that emanation says it is OK to ignore the equal protection clause and kill human beings because of their age.

        The act of isolating human beings and targeting them for death based on their age is actually three steps away from the discovery of the "right to privacy".

        Even people who think the very young should not be protected under the equal protection clause understand Roe v Wade to be bad law, based on bizarre assumptions and claims that do not exist in real law.

      • James September 21, 2012 / 4:37 pm

        No, not really. You have it backwards. First a “right to privacy” was assumed, though never stated or referred to in the Constitution. Some justices decided it would be a nice thing to have so they said we have it.

        I can’t have a discussion with you if you demean the very people that are trusted by the founders to be the vanguard of the constitution. Just because you don’t agree with the ruling on abortion, you categorically demean, belittle, and ridicule the justices that decided the case.

        You either accept their authority to decide constitutional matters, or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.

        The justices arrived at their decision through a legal and logical method.

        You are not a constitutional scholar, nor a justice. If the ruling had gone the other way, you’d be praising them for their wisdom and justice and adherence to the constitution.

        But because it didn’t, you post these smug condescending posts to accomplish what? It does nothing but make you look bitter, and worse, it makes you look like a petulant child who didn’t get what they wanted and are now pouting.

        If you don’t accept the Supreme Court’s judgment, and or authority to rule on constitutional matters EVEN when you disagree with the ruling….then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 4:44 pm

        Oh, I agree it is the law.

        I notice that when you are presented with facts you don’t like you just stomp off in a huff, hurling insults over your shoulder.

        Verry mature and sooo intellectual.

        Yet you cannot dispute what I said about the breadcrumb trail of “right to privacy” to “penumbra” to “emanation”.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 4:47 pm

        Does anyone else think that James decided to have a hissy fit and stomp off, allegedly over my lack of reverence for the Supreme Court, because I challenged him to expand his emotion-based social issues into an actual POLITICAL discussion about ideology and economic principles?

        ?????????????

        But he put up a good show, for a while, and he DID admit out loud to what we know most Libs really feel but understand they must never say in public.

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 4:55 pm

        Did I miss anything?

        atheistic COMMUNISM!!

      • James September 21, 2012 / 4:58 pm

        huh? stomp off?

        Does anyone else think that James decided to have a hissy fit and stomp off, allegedly over my lack of reverence for the Supreme Court, because I challenged him to expand his emotion-based social issues into an actual POLITICAL discussion about ideology and economic principles?

        where did you get this from? you challenged me to expand my emotional social issues? really?

        The reason your side is losing is because you’re to rigid, outdated, and worst of all, out of touch with current cultural norms and beliefs.

        you want to talk economics, go ahead, ill be sure to reply and state my positions.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 5:17 pm

        huh? stomp off?……where did you get that from?

        “….then I have nothing more to discuss with you…”

        “… you challenged me to expand my emotional social issues? really? “

        No, not really, not even close. Try again. Feel free to move your lips when you read if that will help.

        I challenged you to expand your emotion-based social issues into an actual POLITICAL discussion about ideology and economic principles

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 21, 2012 / 6:48 pm

        James,

        I’ll state it point blank: children don’t have a right to education, nor do gay people have a right to marry and be happy.

        For something to be a basic, human right it must be something that a person, at least potentially, can do on their own. If I have a right to marry and to education and to be happy then I have a right to command you to marry me, educate me and make me happy. You can instantly see how absurd such a position is – but that is your stated position.

        No one has a right to marry – people have a right to seek marriage and in order to do it they must, first of all, obtain the voluntary consent of another person. Given that the ability to marry requires voluntary consent of at least one other person, it is within the purview of society to regulate how, when and under what conditions this shall be done. You can seek to marry whomever you wish and, indeed, the object of your desire may consent…but at the end of the day as this is a societal thing (not just the exercise of an individual right), the rest of us will have our say…and right now we say that no matter how much consent there is on either side, a person cannot marry their parent, sibling, child, uncle, aunt, grandparent, first cousin or someone of the same sex, nor can they marry more than one person at a time. If you want to change that and allow for someone to marry a person of the same sex then have at it – but don’t try and sell the absurd notion that you’re trying to secure a basic, human right. You’re just trying to get people to agree to something you’d like…and if the refuse they aren’t being mean.

        It is indeed telling that you view the States as provinces – it shows a desire for an authortarian system, even if you, yourself, don’t see it that way. If the States are mere provinces then they don’t have electoral votes nor do they have a role in ratifying the constitution and its amendments. The reason the States do have electoral votes and a role in ratifying is because they are sovereign States. We settled in 1865 whether or not a State, once in, can get out but the Civil War in no way destroyed the sovereign character of the States…and, indeed, the 13th amendment banning slavery could not take effect until three quarters of all the States, including those involved in the rebellion, had ratified. We, the people, lend some of our sovereign power (in American usage, sovereignty resides with the people) to our State governments which, in turn, lent some of it to the federal government when the Constitution was created. You’re thinking of the federal government as the creator of the people when it is the people who created the federal government.

      • irisspirit September 24, 2012 / 12:04 pm

        “Does anyone else think that James decided to have a hissy fit and stomp off, allegedly over my lack of reverence for the Supreme Court, because I challenged him to expand his emotion-based social issues into an actual POLITICAL discussion about ideology and economic principles?”

        No, Amazona, I don’t think James had a hissy fit and stomped off. I don’t think you understand that trying to have a civil discussion with you is nearly impossible. You twist his words with your snide remarks and your attitude that you are better than everyone else here; people get sick and tired of you. You have a serious attitude problem to say nothing of your bitterness in everything you write. You are pathetic and it appears you need to either get some counseling (I am serious) or stay away from the internet for a while and find something in life that gives you some joy. Because you are seriously lacking joy in your miserable little world.

      • Amazona September 24, 2012 / 12:36 pm

        Well, Velma, settle down, wipe the milk off your whiskers, and take a breath here while we look at your little temper tantrum.

        I did not twist or distort anything that James said. If you claim I did, point it out. Oh, you can bleat that ” You twist his words with your snide remarks and your attitude that you are better than everyone else here….” but you can’t give an example of my ‘twisting’ of his words. You can fret and fuss because you don’t like the reality of what his words actually say, when it is pointed out to you, but that is not the same as twisting the words themselves. You either didn’t read everything that was said, or you simply lie.

        I engaged James in a discussion using direct quotes of his own words, dissecting them to show his inherent disrespect for our Constitutional rule of law and his desire to “fundamentally transform” this nation into a country not only not intended by its Founders but antithetical to it. You are apparently unable to address any of the specific issues brought up and discussed, so you do the only thing you CAN do, and spit and snarl in impotent rage at being incapable of mounting an intelligent counter-argument.

        My attitude is the farthest thing from believing that I am better than everyone else here. On the contrary, I routinely acknowledge the far greater knowledge and contributions of Spook, the Count, Cluster, tiredoflibs, dbschmidt, and J.R. I often thank neo when he contributes his many excellent comments and links, though I also disagree with him on many subjects.

        “Better than…..” in terms of political knowledge, when talking about you, mitche, bozo, et al—you bet. I say that and I can back it up, as proven every single time I challenge any of you to actually define your political system, or mine for that matter, and none of you can.

        And let’s face it, velma, snide is the only appropriate reaction to the sludge you post.

        My world is quite expansive and full of joy, thank you very much. As for needing “counseling” allow me to point out that I do not compulsively barge into websites promoting Liberal thought and agendas and proceed to attack them and everyone who posts there, so I suggest that your perception of mental health is pretty skewed.

        No, I sought out a blog dedicated to political discourse and conservative in nature, and while here I am routinely subjected, as are all the conservatives who post here, to shrill, strident, often vicious attacks on what is wrongly described as “conservatism”, on Republican candidates, and on the conservatives who post here.

        I am not talking about spirited political discourse and disagreements on ideology, on how well the two opposing political systems have worked in the past, etc. No, I am talking about emotion-based, hate-based, attacks, usually personal in nature, which are devoid of actual political content but reeking of vitriol and pathology.

        Please note that your shrill squealing about MY alleged mental health issues comes from someone who has gone out of her way to seek out a conservative site to hysterically and irrationally attack people and ideas—a site where she is routinely dismissed by every conservative here, in very strong terms. Evidently you feel that being the kind of person who persists in returning to mount more attacks is an example of both intelligence and good mental health, while merely defending myself and my political positions against such an irrational intruder is somehow proof of a need for “counseling”.

        You need a good mirror.

    • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 3:11 pm

      James, you have also based a lot of your ideas on false premises, the biggest of which is your definition of “rights”.

      You say ” If you look at the state constitutions across our nation you would find that some states limit certain rights such as gay marriage and abortion, while others don’t.”

      But there is no inherent constitutional “right” to suddenly redefine a long-held cultural and religious term. So the vote of a state on whether or not to call a homosexual union “marriage” is a judgment call by that state, not a confirmation of or denial of, a “right”.

      While a Supreme Court declared they had found a “right” to abortion tucked away in what they admitted was a mere “emanation” from a “penumbra” of a completely different assumed but not stated “right”, that of the “right to privacy”, it did not define the specifics of the circumstances under which an abortion could be considered legal. This, not being an enumerated duty of the federal government, and not prohibited as it is never even discussed, therefore falls to the states.

      “I believe and most democrats do as well that certain rights and constitutional issues you cannot leave up to the states to decide. Abortion, Gay marriage, equal protection under the law, education, healthcare, welfare, etc. ”

      You talk about ” Abortion, Gay marriage, equal protection under the law, education, healthcare, welfare, etc. ”

      Well, the federal Constitution already demands equal protection under the law, though in fact it simultaneously removes some of these protections for some people based on the age of the person involved—-a problem that will have to be addressed and rectified one way or another.

      The federal government does not only NOT have “welfare” as an enumerated duty, some of the Founding Fathers were quite clear in writings at or near the time of the ratification of the Constitution that welfare was never, in any way, intended to be a responsibility of the federal government. Because of this, and the reinforcing power of the 10th Amendment it is legally prohibited to the federal government, and that leaves only the states.

      Or the people.

      Ditto for health care, though to be more specific at this time the argument is not about health care but about paying for health care.

      Ditto for education.

      You will find this much easier if you can just learn to wrap your head around the simple fact that if something is not delegated to the federal government in its 17 enumerated duties, nor prohibited by the Constitution, if it is going to be done at all the only legal way to do it is by the States, or by local government.

      Or by the People.

      If you do not like this, and I can see you do not, you have only two choices: Amend the Constitution to include duties you feel should be delegated to the federal government, or overthrow or simply subvert the Constitution.

      • James September 21, 2012 / 4:25 pm

        Amazona, I will reply point by point. before I do however, let me just say that your rigid dogmatic views are the exact reason your side is on the losing end of the election at this moment.

        But there is no inherent constitutional “right” to suddenly redefine a long-held cultural and religious term. So the vote of a state on whether or not to call a homosexual union “marriage” is a judgment call by that state, not a confirmation of or denial of, a “right”.

        This is categorically wrong and dangerous. 60 years ago, there was no “right” to suddenly marry outside your race, defying long held cultural and religious terms. 60 years ago, some people couldn’t eat in the same restaurants others did. it was against cultural norms and beliefs. You prove my point. society today doesnt believe in segregation anymore, it was FORCED unto us by the federal government, and people evolved in their views after some time.

        Today, you are one of those people who doesn’t want to progress because its against your long held cultural beliefs…I haven’t found a culture yet that hasn’t changed or adapted or evolved over the course of its existence. If you believe in the right to pursue happiness, and if you believe in equal protection under the law, and equality of all citizens…then you don’t have a leg to stand on.

        While a Supreme Court declared they had found a “right” to abortion tucked away in what they admitted was a mere “emanation” from a “penumbra” of a completely different assumed but not stated “right”, that of the “right to privacy”, it did not define the specifics of the circumstances under which an abortion could be considered legal. This, not being an enumerated duty of the federal government, and not prohibited as it is never even discussed, therefore falls to the states.

        Wrong. just because you dont agree with the decision of Roe v Wade, you demean the very people we have entrusted to interpret our constitution. If you agree to the tenet that the Supreme Court is the vanguard of our constitution, you must accept their rulings as law of the land. Period. The supreme court ruled that abortion is a right under the privacy provisions of the constitution. no more discussion needed.

        The federal government does not only NOT have “welfare” as an enumerated duty, some of the Founding Fathers were quite clear in writings at or near the time of the ratification of the Constitution that welfare was never, in any way, intended to be a responsibility of the federal government. Because of this, and the reinforcing power of the 10th Amendment it is legally prohibited to the federal government, and that leaves only the states.

        again, you cite what the founding fathers wanted or thought they wanted and ignore the will of the citizens of this nation today. I could retort and say the founding fathers obviously wanted slavery since they didn’t outlaw it in the constitution, therefore, we can’t outlaw it now since it wasn’t in the constitution. You fail to grasp the concept of evolving societies and cultures. Again, find me one culture or society that hasn’t evolved over the course of 200 years and then we can talk.

        Ditto for education.

        YES! lets set 50 different standards for educating our kids. let’s create 50 different department of educations because that will make things more efficient. let’s make sure that each state is allowed to have their own standards so that our kids all graduate with different levels of education. NOT. your ideas on education are unfeasible at best and dangerous at worst.

        You will find this much easier if you can just learn to wrap your head around the simple fact that if something is not delegated to the federal government in its 17 enumerated duties, nor prohibited by the Constitution, if it is going to be done at all the only legal way to do it is by the States, or by local government.

        again, you make an assumption that I don’t know the constitution. I do, I simply disagree with the 10th amendment. not completely, on every issue, but on some issues which I have laid out in previous posts. don’t be so condescending, its unbecoming of a “lady”.

        If you do not like this, and I can see you do not, you have only two choices: Amend the Constitution to include duties you feel should be delegated to the federal government, or overthrow or simply subvert the Constitution.

        Again this rigid dogmatic ideology comes out. you only see black or white, you only see blue or red. You don’t see the possibility of maybe taking the interest of the nation above the strict adherance to the constitution. maybe, just maybe, we should have national education standards, national laws on marriage, abortion, etc. in your eyes, cultures and norms don’t evolve….nope, they bend to the will of your bible..aka..constitution. While on the flip side, in my view, you bend the constitution and adhere it to cultural norms and the will of the people.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 4:37 pm

        James, we have gone over this already, and are not going to find common ground. I am a Constitutional Conservative, you are a radical Leftist, and the two cannot coexist under the same form of government.

        I accept that.

        I do, however, take offense at the trivialization of the Civil Rights movement and all it stood for by trying to compare it to the shrill demands of a very few, not about the right or ability to have equal protections under the law but about the ability to use a single WORD, which you clearly believe will somehow magically convey societal ignorance of the basic differences in the very natures of real marriage vs homosexual unions.

        As human beings, you have the right to bond with others, to form legal unions, and even to have the same legal and tax and inheritance privileges that real marriages have.

        But this is not what you want. What you are fighting for is the WORD, and you stoop to trivializing the tragic struggle of people for true equality under our law by pretending it is the same as your silly and infantile demands to play-act.

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 4:40 pm

        ” You don’t see the possibility of maybe taking the interest of the nation above the strict adherance to the constitution. maybe,”

        And you don’t find a decision to NOT strictly adhere to the Constitution to be a choice to either amend it or ignore it?

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 4:42 pm

        “in my view, you bend the constitution and adhere it to cultural norms and the will of the people.”

        That is, you either amend it or you ignore it. Or you “bend” (subvert) it.

        What I said.

      • James September 21, 2012 / 4:45 pm

        James, we have gone over this already, and are not going to find common ground. I am a Constitutional Conservative, you are a radical Leftist, and the two cannot coexist under the same form of government.

        I accept that.

        I’d say you’re a radical conservative, and I am a progressive. There is a reason we have elections, there is a reason you are down in the polls (at least your side).

        I’d say judging from the last 60 years, my side is slowly but surely winning.

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 5:04 pm

        I’d say judging from the last 60 years, my side is slowly but surely winning.

        you must be sooooo proud of “your side”.
        the representatives of unapologetic atheism, abortion, sodomy, racism, theft of OPM, haters of Christianity and Judaism, riots, murder, mayhem……OOH yeah, it is there for all to see what you are “winning”
        detroit, DC, NO, LA, Miami and dozens of other donk led hellholes and that is just in the US.

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 5:07 pm

        jummah

        This is categorically wrong and dangerous. 60 years ago, there was no “right” to suddenly marry outside your race,

        that is a LIE
        in southern DEMOCRAT states,? sure
        Northern states? BS!!

      • Amazona September 21, 2012 / 5:07 pm

        ‘I’d say you’re a radical conservative, and I am a progressive.”

        Yes. What I said. Of course, to you a “radical conservative” is someone who believes that our Constitution is the law of the land, and you might actually be ignorant of the fact that the Progressive Movement IS radical Leftism.

        But I am quite happy with my position as a Constitutional Conservative, I am not ashamed of it, I am not ignorant of what it means, and I do not hesitate to explain it, define it, and defend it.

        And I agree that the radical Left has crept into American politics a lot in the last 60 years or so—but there is a developing theory that the election and hubris of Barack Obama, and the newly emboldened radical Left which has taken this as permission to come out of the political closet, have alerted many Americans to the dangers posed to our Constitution and our way of life.

        As I started saying in January of 2009, Barack Obama is the best thing that could have happened to our country. Up till then, the Left had been slowly and gradually inching its way into our government, donning conservative garb every election and then voting as Lefties, and the sudden elevation of a real Marxist to the highest office got you guys so giddy you forgot to pretend to be conservative and showed your true (red) colors.

        You may be surprised at how many eyes have been opened, and at how many frogs are jumping out of the pot now that you have cranked the heat up and they realize this is serious business.

        I really appreciate your contribution to this educational effort on our part. Our entire conversation has just been saved to a Word document, and I am sure you will see it surfacing in bits and pieces as the election cycle proceeds, as the true belief system of the Progressive Movement.

        Thank you.

      • Bulky Skeleton, the World's Tallest Miget September 21, 2012 / 5:31 pm

        Radical Conservative?

        I believe James clearly misunderstood the assignment as this description is almost exactly what most traditional progressives would find a genuine imitation of a New classic definition. I heard a newsreader use this term on the local network from a live recording the other night and thought, “I wonder if a radical conservative would support assisted suicide or would that garner partial unanimity from the center-right world as well.

        Most of James’ diatribe belongs in a sanitary landfill so it’s fitting that he is terribly pleased with himself, seeing as how the whole point is pretty ugly.

        Good grief!

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 5:35 pm

        more of the lefts Loooove

        VANDALS TRASH NYC DELI WITH ANTI-SEMITIC GRAFFITI AND URINE…

  5. Retired Spook September 21, 2012 / 5:34 pm

    Great discussion — sorry I missed so much of it.

    James, your comments have piqued my curiosity. Do you believe that the Constitution is a contract between the government and the states/people? If you don’t believe that, then further conversation is futile. If you do believe that, then I would ask, would you sign an employment contract, mortgage contract, sales contract, etc. which states that the terms of the contract are subject to change as the employer, bank, retailer, etc. sees fit? Would you sign a contract that is allowed to “evolve” or “progress” as economic conditions change?

    • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 5:47 pm

      does the US constitution trump the states constitution?

      I think it wasnt until the early 1900’s before any federal agency’s could be armed.
      Today there are DOZENS of jack booted, swat like agency’s armed to the teeth…..

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 4:07 pm

      BOTH parties agree BIG difference Moron!

  6. neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 6:18 pm

    well see in 4 years after he replaces the pro gay marriage, DADT, universal healthcare, muslim commie.

    • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 6:19 pm

      whew
      the SHADOW = quick draw McGraw, LOL

      zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 6:23 pm

        now what does the left have in common with?
        these guys?
        the heralded muslim spring? led by the muslim (nazi) brotherhood?

        Pakistan explodes in protest; 17 killed…
        .
        PROTESTS IN IRAN, INDONESIA, IRAQ, SRI LANKA, BANGLADESH, LEBANON, KASHMIR…

        awwww camon, they are just a bunch of kids just like the OWS

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 6:23 pm

        ROTFLMAO…….

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 6:37 pm

        SECRET SERVICE INVESTIGATES EMPTY CHAIR ‘LYNCHINGS’…

        A Centreville man who hung an empty chair from a tree in his backyard with a sign reading “Nobama” attached to it denies that it was meant to represent any inference to lynching or had any racist connotations, though he did manage to “get on the radar” of the Secret Service.

        Read more: Va. man: No lynching connotations to strung-up ‘Nobama’ chair – Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/21/va-man-no-lynching-connotations-strung-nobama-chai/#ixzz27998tIyZ
        Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

        but NOT the black panthers!!!!!!!!!!

        FUBO and the whole rotten regime.
        Psalm 109:8

      • neocon1 September 21, 2012 / 6:44 pm

        Ye HAW give em hell in Texas……

        “I don’t support Obama and the empty chair and that’s why,” he said.

        On Wednesday, Johnson told Burnt Orange Report that he didn’t “really give a damn whether it disturbs you or not.”

        “You can take [your concerns] and go straight to hell and take Obama with you,” he said. “I don’t give a sh-t. If you don’t like it, don’t come down my street.”

  7. sarahbloch September 22, 2012 / 9:27 am

    jummah

    This is categorically wrong and dangerous. 60 years ago, there was no “right” to suddenly marry outside your race,

    that is a LIE
    in southern DEMOCRAT states,? sure
    Northern states? BS!!

    Incorrect Neocon1 as usual you don’t know enough history to back up your beliefs. Until 1948-1967, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, California, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Utah and Maryland all had anti-miscegenation laws on their books.

    • neocon1 September 22, 2012 / 4:05 pm

      and the REST DIDNT

      but in the south the DONKS would just KKKill you.

      I LIVED through this HISTORY and KNEW black men married to white women in the 1960’s you FOOL!

Comments are closed.