tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post46441880783563770..comments2023-07-07T04:02:25.375-04:00Comments on Sane Political Discourse: The Death of America in GraphsPatrick Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-70020210630922119752010-05-06T13:07:13.655-04:002010-05-06T13:07:13.655-04:00"Second, I'll concede Bush was a fiscal m..."Second, I'll concede Bush was a fiscal mistake"<br /><br />And whenever Bush DID veto a wasteful spending bill, the Democrats screamed blooody murder.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-44326698217176711342010-05-04T15:27:10.863-04:002010-05-04T15:27:10.863-04:00Toad: Just a point or two here.
First, the probl...Toad: Just a point or two here.<br /><br />First, the problem is mounting government debt, primarily due to massive entitlements. How does adding ANOTHER massive entitlement avoid the eventual bankruptcy. And the 1/3 of US households is a BS number and you know it.<br /><br />Second, I'll concede Bush was a fiscal mistake. Reagan, not so much, because he was working with the perpetual Democrat majority. But the GOP needs to clean out all the big government "conservatives" and let them be Democrats.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-22584083163282619472010-05-04T15:22:21.330-04:002010-05-04T15:22:21.330-04:00Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the the o...Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the the original bill of rights gave SOME individual rights to corporations, or even other groups of individuals. <br /><br />Where is that?Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-43490830043333058002010-05-04T14:44:26.822-04:002010-05-04T14:44:26.822-04:00Jerry: Individuals who are associated with corpora...Jerry: Individuals who are associated with corporations are still individuals.<br /><br />McCain-Feingold and similar laws deny people their First Amendment rights on the grounds of their association with some businesses. That is, it punishes them for exercising their freedom of association.<br /><br />Note that these laws censor some "corporations" and not others. They aren't even consistent.<br /><br />Jerry, if you don't like what someone says, why can't you simply just ignore it?<br /><br />"But the way to solve the problem is not with a progressive, activist, liberal interpretation of the Constitution as has been done by the current Supreme Court."<br /><br />The court actually returned things to the original Bill of Rights. They stripped away all the liberal re-engineering of the Constitution on this matter.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-45982833221034317162010-04-30T11:01:35.750-04:002010-04-30T11:01:35.750-04:00And if you compare those graphs with the rise in t...And if you compare those graphs with the rise in the cost of health care, I am sure you will find a correlation...Which is exactly why we needed health care reform as it was going to bankrupt the Government as well as 1/3 of all US households. <br /><br />Oh, and stop voting for big government Republicans like Reagan and Bush.Toad734https://www.blogger.com/profile/01450263690181812924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-25581176828292353882010-04-29T20:12:27.068-04:002010-04-29T20:12:27.068-04:00But a corporation is not an individual.But a corporation is not an individual.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-60418235098957108872010-04-29T19:49:32.264-04:002010-04-29T19:49:32.264-04:00Furthermore, if I remember correctly, it was a par...Furthermore, if I remember correctly, it was a part of the McCain-Feingold rape of free speech, which should have never been allowed to blot out the sun in the first place.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-59327457185637640532010-04-29T19:48:05.022-04:002010-04-29T19:48:05.022-04:00Actually, no. The first amendment says: Congress ...Actually, no. The first amendment says: <i>Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...,</i><br /><br />It's understood that it's an individual right, and that it is most importantly for political speech.<br /><br /> The problem is that the law that was overturned by this "progressive, activist, liberal interpretation" was a law that abridged the freedom of political speech if it occurred as part of a collective organization. In other words, individual rights were abridged. That's not a "progressive, activist, liberal interpretation."Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-37474777511122221922010-04-29T15:27:28.577-04:002010-04-29T15:27:28.577-04:00We are kind of arguing two different things. I am...We are kind of arguing two different things. I am saying that the Constitution only covers free speech for people. You are saying that if you don't cover any organization of people, then you have a dangerous slippery slope leading to, I guess, some sort of disaster.<br /><br />I will give you your slippery slope. But the way to solve the problem is not with a progressive, activist, liberal interpretation of the Constitution as has been done by the current Supreme Court.<br /><br />The way to do it is to do it as specified in the Constitution. Congress passes and the States ratify a constitutional amendment extending the rights of people to "any organization consisting of people". <br /><br />Legislation should come from Congress, not the Supreme Court.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-68022004762891262782010-04-29T14:23:23.478-04:002010-04-29T14:23:23.478-04:00However, the problem is that corporations are made...However, the problem is that corporations are made of people (not exactly like Soylent Green, but you get the idea) If the government has the power to take away the ability of any organization consisting of people, then it has control over pooling resources for free speech. This then extends to advocacy groups, non-profits, and any organization that exists as a legal entity. This would include organizations such as the NRA, Moveon.org, the Heritage Foundation, the ACLU, and all news organizations (which happen to be corporations. And consider what would happen if, say, George W Bush had the power to limit the power of organizations to exercise their right to speak. <br /><br />You can't say free speech applies to x, but not y. it's a dangerous slippery slope, and one of those things that ultimately hurts us. To clarify, I have no problem with a law that would require transparency, only with those that limit the ability to exercise the speech.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-39940227131415786332010-04-28T21:55:35.440-04:002010-04-28T21:55:35.440-04:00Corporations do not have speech. People have spee...Corporations do not have speech. People have speech. A corporation is a legal entity. It is not flesh and bone. It is a legal entity made up by man. To consider it a person is ludicrous.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-55902412025631895732010-04-28T16:45:02.477-04:002010-04-28T16:45:02.477-04:00Dmarks: Actually, Stephen King probably wrote som...Dmarks: Actually, Stephen King probably wrote something that bears a resemblance to the Obamacare disaster.<br /><br />Jerry: So you're saying that corporations have no right to free speech? Because generally, when the government is NOT allowed to abridge a right, that's considered a win for the Constitution, especially when it's a stated right in an amendment.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-51225878719360249872010-04-27T15:09:23.392-04:002010-04-27T15:09:23.392-04:00In their recent ruling, SCOTUS did exactly what th...In their recent ruling, SCOTUS did exactly what the left has been accused of doing -- interpreting the First Amendment to apply to corporations.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-62138552918089523742010-04-27T14:36:50.347-04:002010-04-27T14:36:50.347-04:00Patrick M: Indeed, the Heritage Foundation had as ...Patrick M: Indeed, the Heritage Foundation had as much to do with writing the Obama healthcare plan as Stephen King did.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-4099181757806526642010-04-27T14:34:54.967-04:002010-04-27T14:34:54.967-04:00Jerry: It is the left-wing part of the court which...Jerry: It is the left-wing part of the court which makes up stuff to deny people their rights. To use imagination.<br /><br />Look at the recent free speech ruling. The leftists tried to rule to destroy the First Amendment: they thought it was a good idea to censor people from criticizing the government.<br /><br />The court is really in the middle, really. Just one vote divides Roberts and his friends who defend our rights and Stevens's friends who abuse their power and make up laws on the bench and typically rule without reference to the Constitution.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-89006376446667658912010-04-25T17:27:57.727-04:002010-04-25T17:27:57.727-04:00Tao: Let's be clear. The POS that is Obamaca...Tao: Let's be clear. The POS that is Obamacare has nothing to do with anything Heritage has come up with, except in using similar nomenclature. Heritage already addressed that crap.<br /><br />http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2010/04/Obamas-Health-Reform-Isnt-Modeled-After-Heritage-Foundation-Ideas<br /><br />Dave: That's why I like hard numbers. Because they do show some important things. Like the success of Clinton and the GOP Congress to get things under control. No argument there. It was a refreshing break from the usual spending orgy that started under Ford, then less under Carter, then the worst under Reagan and Bush (with Dems running things in Congress the whole time), then reinstated under the Jr Bush (this time with the GOP getting stupid).<br /><br />But the trend is ever-expanding government. That's what will ultimately topple the republic.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-10251011697633397582010-04-24T11:37:31.031-04:002010-04-24T11:37:31.031-04:00Well, the left-wing Supreme Court is gone and now ...Well, the left-wing Supreme Court is gone and now we have a right-wing court "using pure imagination without reference to the Constitution".Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-76883644418886838402010-04-24T00:52:03.920-04:002010-04-24T00:52:03.920-04:00SDD: There IS a proper method for a living Constit...SDD: There IS a proper method for a living Constitution. It's called the amendment process. That's a far cry from left-wing Supreme Court Justices using pure imagination, without reference to the Constitution, as they make rulings to take peoples' rights away.<br /><br />Beth said: "I agree Dave, I wish that more presidents were like Clinton is reducing the deficit"<br /><br />Clinton had a choice. He could have reduce the deficit to $0 in his first year. Instead, he ran deficits each year he was in office, to a total of $1.6 trillion debt. I know that's nothig compared to a typical Obama annual deficit, but it shows that Clinton was very irresponsible.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-37504386713034917852010-04-23T04:53:46.825-04:002010-04-23T04:53:46.825-04:00And in the same way that you eat shrimp and wouldn...And in the same way that you eat shrimp and wouldn't stone your rebellious child despite the injunctions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, these documents get REINTERPRETED as times change.<br /><br />I'm not speaking Tagalog here, Beth. Stop twisting everything I say into some kind of self-serving pretzel.<br /><br />All I'm saying is that as times and circumstances change, documents get reinterpreted according to those times and circumstances.<br /><br />Unless, of course, you're following all those dietary injunctions... or, if you believe that since you're not Jewish, you don't HAVE to follow those injunctions, then unless you're following all of Paul's rules, such as being silent, keeping your head covered, submitting in every way to your husband, never cutting your hair and so on.<br /><br />You make this shit actually painful, Beth. Every statement I make takes ten more just to break it down and dispel the myths and spin you put into it.Satyavati devi dasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13980257934310271457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-23035735101825017882010-04-22T21:52:29.349-04:002010-04-22T21:52:29.349-04:00But the basic message of the Bible doesn't cha...But the basic message of the Bible doesn't change, and neither (in my opinion) should the principles behind the Constitution.Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04069893764658122257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-29341576050275732812010-04-22T20:46:49.178-04:002010-04-22T20:46:49.178-04:00Beth,
Indulge me for a moment as I conduct a bri...Beth, <br /><br />Indulge me for a moment as I conduct a brief experiment.<br /><br /><b>I suppose then that the Bible and the Koran, written much longer than the Constitution has very little value also in today's world in your opinion, Saty?</b><br /><br />That was what you said.<br /><br />The experiment is to determine what sort of parabola of logic you used to come to your conclusion (that the Constitution has 'very little value') when what I said was this:<br /><br /><b>This is not to say that what they wrote was worthless. It is to say that things require review and reinterpretation as times change.</b><br /><br />Do you actually read the words I write, Beth, or do they get put through some kind of filter that changes them into whatever you'd like them to read? How do you come up with these things? I try really hard to be clear, but give me a break here, I can't break things down any further than I have without resorting to Sesame Street.Satyavati devi dasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13980257934310271457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-83268881369469273492010-04-22T20:26:07.977-04:002010-04-22T20:26:07.977-04:00I suppose then that the Bible and the Koran, writt...I suppose then that the Bible and the Koran, written much longer than the Constitution has very little value also in today's world in your opinion, Saty?Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04069893764658122257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-46995128840196957392010-04-22T17:59:06.496-04:002010-04-22T17:59:06.496-04:00I'd like to bring up what I believe is an oft ...I'd like to bring up what I believe is an oft overlooked yet salient point: in 1776, this country had a population of 3 million people (as opposed to 300 million), no electricity, no real infrastructure, a total area about 1/6 (if not less) of today's US, and no concept of the global, internationalized world and economy we're dealing with today.<br /><br />What I'm saying is that just as times change, things have to be interpreted and reinterpreted. We're in 2010. I'm getting internet from a chunk of man-made machinery that's in permanent geosynchronous orbit around our planet and communicating instantaneously with people all over the planet thereby. My daily commute to work, which I do five days a week, would take days were I to be going by horse and buggy. I wear clothes made in Pakistan and eat food grown in California. We live in a world completely foreign and completely beyond the wildest imagination of anyone who was alive in 1776.<br /><br />This is not to say that what they wrote was worthless. It is to say that things require review and reinterpretation as times change.<br /><br />Otherwise, we become political Luddites, and thus slowly, inexorably, but definitely contribute to our own obsolescence in a world that continues to progress and change and require new strategies, new plans, and new innovations.Satyavati devi dasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13980257934310271457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-81886078628037652462010-04-22T07:58:21.833-04:002010-04-22T07:58:21.833-04:00I agree Dave, I wish that more presidents were lik...I agree Dave, I wish that more presidents were like Clinton is reducing the deficit, and as for Tao saying the government helps people getting wealthier, then shouldn't we all agree that the government should shrink substantially and not be in the business of helping people get wealthy, if that is what they are doing? Just let the free market prevail and we don't need the government getting involved, period!<br /><br />We should all be on the same side of LESS government, because big government in the hands of either ideology is going to piss off the other half, so cut them ALL down to size I say! Our founders understood this!Bethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04069893764658122257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-8326915247881845942010-04-21T18:19:23.784-04:002010-04-21T18:19:23.784-04:00Dave said: "Dmarks, let's not forget that...Dave said: "Dmarks, let's not forget that a great majority of that rightful ownership of wealth came at the expense of many exploited people through practices like slavery."<br /><br />Do you have any evidence of this?<br /><br />So let's look at the Old South, which was but a part of the old US, gone for about 150 years. A less wealthy part, too.<br /><br />Assuming nothing happened, old fortunes quickly dissipate through the generations. Tell me how many Astors and Carnegies in the Forbes 400? There'd be nothing left of this wealth today.<br /><br />But something did happen. The Civil War. The South was crushed and shashed. Even less liklihood of the old slaveholder wealth remaining.<br /><br />So, I ask, do you have any evidence of what you claim? Specific dollars?dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.com