When is enough enough, liberals?

[Comunitee]

The biggest rapist of our Constitution in U.S. history is Richard Milhous Nixon.

Nope, but he was bad with the EPA. what he did has not become entrenched in our jurisprudential fabric. So you are wrong

First of all, the EPA was, and is, necessary.

Second of all, What Nixon did HAS become entrenched in our jurisprudential fabric. He appointed William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. That led directly to George W. Bush becoming President in an election he rightfully lost; which, in turn, resulted in the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who, along with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, enshrined into law the lie that corporations are "people."

The fact that Nixon paid -- sort of -- for what he did is beside the point.

The vast majority of Americans were better off for the laws that FDR signed. And when he did go too far, as with some of his New Deal programs, the Supreme Court stepped in -- and both learned: He signed better legislation, and the Court, even before he was able to replace 8 of the 9 Justices, accepted that the laws fit the Constitution.

If FDR were able to return to life, he'd tell us that conservatives can be dealt with as reasonable, if usually wrong, people; but the liberatarians, who always cry "Constitution" when they refuse to accept what it really means, are the impossible ones.

I suspect that Nixon, were he alive at age 100 and making new tapes, would be heard saying, "Argh, (expletive deleted) 'constitutional conservatives,' can't trust any of them, Henry."

 

[Comunitee]

As good as any. Are you serious about Peter King seeking the GOP nomination?

He seems to be serious about it: Peter King Says 'Right Now I'm Running' In 2016, Mike Huckabee Hasn't 'Ruled It Out'

 

[clownboy]

The biggest rapist of our Constitution in U.S. history is Richard Milhous Nixon.

First of all, the EPA was, and is, necessary.

Second of all, What Nixon did HAS become entrenched in our jurisprudential fabric. He appointed William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court. That led directly to George W. Bush becoming President in an election he rightfully lost; which, in turn, resulted in the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who, along with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, enshrined into law the lie that corporations are "people."

The fact that Nixon paid -- sort of -- for what he did is beside the point.

The vast majority of Americans were better off for the laws that FDR signed. And when he did go too far, as with some of his New Deal programs, the Supreme Court stepped in -- and both learned: He signed better legislation, and the Court, even before he was able to replace 8 of the 9 Justices, accepted that the laws fit the Constitution.

If FDR were able to return to life, he'd tell us that conservatives can be dealt with as reasonable, if usually wrong, people; but the liberatarians, who always cry "Constitution" when they refuse to accept what it really means, are the impossible ones.

I suspect that Nixon, were he alive at age 100 and making new tapes, would be heard saying, "Argh, (expletive deleted) 'constitutional conservatives,' can't trust any of them, Henry."

Not even close, FDR wins that title hands down. Most of the New Deal was unconstitutional, the SCOTUS actually ruled it so. They did however change their minds after being threatened. Which of course shows us all just how wrong the SCOTUS can be.

What you're basically arguing is that the people weren't raped if they ended up liking parts of it.

 

[Perotista]

Sounds like LePage is doing it to get around the federal shutdown: Dems, Union Question Maine Gov's Civil Emergency

Seems like a way over blown way to go. But with revenue sharing, the federal government has made the states reliant on them instead of themselves. there are times I wish that never happened.

 

[humbolt]

DrJohn, the definitive source of information...for those who don't want to be bothered to think for themselves and will buy into anyone telling them what they want to hear, even when it has no basis in reality...

You're right. Why, it's just like ThinkProgress or Moveon.org. or the Tides Foundation.

 

[Perotista]

He seems to be serious about it: Peter King Says 'Right Now I'm Running' In 2016, Mike Huckabee Hasn't 'Ruled It Out'

Well, well. I wouldn't give either one a chance against most of the dems I can think of who might be their nominee and I am not talking Biden as I don't think he has a chance either. but things change and time will tell.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Teach a man to fish, but choose not to give him a pole, or bait, and only allow him to fish in a river so polluted that the fish have all died, and he's not going to eat.

Give a man a job at a good wage, and he'll be able to buy food that tastes a hell of a lot better than fish.

Thats what the "Social safety net" is for. To make sure that person has what is needed to do it for themselves. There is not 1 single conservative out there who doesnt think we need to help people to survive.

Conservatives believe in people. People are to help other people. Thats what makes a society, a community. As a community we help each other. Some can help with giving time while others help by giving money while others volunteer to help in other ways.

Liberals believe that is governments job to fix all the woes in the world and if government is not doing it then it is not being done anywhere.

 

[Redress]

You're right. Why, it's just like ThinkProgress or Moveon.org. or the Tides Foundation.

Correct. That is why I make fun of them too. It is called consistency, you might try it.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Well, well. I wouldn't give either one a chance against most of the dems I can think of who might be their nominee and I am not talking Biden as I don't think he has a chance either. but things change and time will tell.

Honestly, I would like to see a non politician run. Someone out of nowhere with a plan...a common sense approach to fixing things like; SS, the welfare system, the tax code. Within the boundaries of the law and within the procedural processes. No E.O. to bypass congress, no reinterpretation of the law.

This "my way or the highway" approach is friggin insane and they have been running the country like this since the 60's. And there isnt a damn one of us out there that says we are in better shape now than we were then, as a whole.

I know, I'm dreaming.

 

[humbolt]

Correct. That is why I make fun of them too. It is called consistency, you might try it.

I'm consistently conservative, but not dogmatically disagreeable.

 

[Perotista]

Honestly, I would like to see a non politician run. Someone out of nowhere with a plan...a common sense approach to fixing things like; SS, the welfare system, the tax code. Within the boundaries of the law and within the procedural processes. No E.O. to bypass congress, no reinterpretation of the law.

This "my way or the highway" approach is friggin insane and they have been running the country like this since the 60's. And there isnt a damn one of us out there that says we are in better shape now than we were then, as a whole.

I know, I'm dreaming.

Maybe not. During the last 13 years or so those who call themselves independents has risen from 30% to 45% while the two major parties has shrunk. During Perot's time only 39% of the American electorate said they would consider voting for a third party candidate. Today that number is up to 81%. People are getting more and more dissatisfied with both political parties and the choice of candidates they offer.

I don't know who that candidate would be. He would have to be charismatic, talk common sense and have solutions to the problems this country faces. He also would have to be rich in order to challenge the election laws written to keep such a candidate off the ballot and to combat the hundreds of millions given to the two major parties by corporations and wall street. But the time is ripe for such a man to step forward.

I am not talking about a Donald Trump or someone like him either. More in the mode of Ross Perot who has a business back ground and hadn't devolved into politics but knows how the game is played. That is asking a lot, but perhaps, just maybe.

 

[Linc]

Though the KOCH brothers letter to the Repub Congress has loosened the stranglehold on America's citizens, their endgame remains unchanged.
This letter causing Boehner to offer the debt-ceiling shows their enormous power.
Meanwhile, they continue to be responsible for electing these TEAturds with Citizens United.

Then let's go Stones on the GOP, so they can't get no satisfaction.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Maybe not. During the last 13 years or so those who call themselves independents has risen from 30% to 45% while the two major parties has shrunk. During Perot's time only 39% of the American electorate said they would consider voting for a third party candidate. Today that number is up to 81%. People are getting more and more dissatisfied with both political parties and the choice of candidates they offer.

I don't know who that candidate would be. He would have to be charismatic, talk common sense and have solutions to the problems this country faces. He also would have to be rich in order to challenge the election laws written to keep such a candidate off the ballot and to combat the hundreds of millions given to the two major parties by corporations and wall street. But the time is ripe for such a man to step forward.

I am not talking about a Donald Trump or someone like him either. More in the mode of Ross Perot who has a business back ground and hadn't devolved into politics but knows how the game is played. That is asking a lot, but perhaps, just maybe.

I dont think it needs to be someone who is rich, maybe someone who ran a small mom & pop shop but thats about it...but they dont have to be rich by any means. I would rather see a struggling small business owner be elected. Someone who knows what it is like to have to scratch together the money for the bills...the rich dont have the worries of day to day life to worry about. They dont know what it is like living week to week struggling to make ends meet.

If such a person did exist and popped up the two big parties and their media lap dogs would dig into that persons past and bring out every skeleton you could imagine possible to beat that person down.

The funny thing is, I would prefer a normal person with some common sense over a professional politician who has been "handled" all their lives to cover over any thing they have in their past.

 

[Perotista]

I dont think it needs to be someone who is rich, maybe someone who ran a small mom & pop shop but thats about it...but they dont have to be rich by any means. I would rather see a struggling small business owner be elected. Someone who knows what it is like to have to scratch together the money for the bills...the rich dont have the worries of day to day life to worry about. They dont know what it is like living week to week struggling to make ends meet.

If such a person did exist and popped up the two big parties and their media lap dogs would dig into that persons past and bring out every skeleton you could imagine possible to beat that person down.

The funny thing is, I would prefer a normal person with some common sense over a professional politician who has been "handled" all their lives to cover over any thing they have in their past.

yes, exactly. The reason I mention rich, I know from experience the court battle Perot had to go through just to get his name on the ballot. Only someone who is rich could have afforded the lawyers to battle the two major party apparatus. A owner of a mom and pop sounds good to me.

 

[Kobie]

You're right. Why, it's just like ThinkProgress or Moveon.org. or the Tides Foundation.

I would say some idiot with a blog has significantly less gravitas than a think tank.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

yes, exactly. The reason I mention rich, I know from experience the court battle Perot had to go through just to get his name on the ballot. Only someone who is rich could have afforded the lawyers to battle the two major party apparatus. A owner of a mom and pop sounds good to me.

It doesnt matter how much money they might have, the media will do the same to them as they do everyone else, tear them to shreds and give them no airtime. Look at what they did to lesser candidates in their own parties...Ron Paul for example. No airtime or coverage compared to the "Prime Time" players.




I know that person is out there, we just need to find them.

 

[tech30528]

How about having The Speaker put that clean bill up for a vote so we can actually see if Congress wants it or not?

They did that yesterday. Your boy Obama refused it. Got anything else to say smartass?

 

[Perotista]

It doesnt matter how much money they might have, the media will do the same to them as they do everyone else, tear them to shreds and give them no airtime. Look at what they did to lesser candidates in their own parties...Ron Paul for example. No airtime or coverage compared to the "Prime Time" players.

View attachment 67154963


I know that person is out there, we just need to find them.

I love your pic as it shows my sentiments exactly. With the general election Perot was able to buy his air time and getting shut out wasn't a problem. What you mention was a big problem with the Republican candidate outside of Romeny, but Romney had for the most part all the money. In the states he won in the primaries, he out spent all his opponents 5-1 and in a couple of states 10-1. In the states where the money was relative even, he lost those states. It was more a problem with the other candidates of not have the money than being denied buying the air time. Although in one or two states I remember, Romney did sweep in before the primary and try to buy up all the spots.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

I love your pic as it shows my sentiments exactly. With the general election Perot was able to buy his air time and getting shut out wasn't a problem. What you mention was a big problem with the Republican candidate outside of Romeny, but Romney had for the most part all the money. In the states he won in the primaries, he out spent all his opponents 5-1 and in a couple of states 10-1. In the states where the money was relative even, he lost those states. It was more a problem with the other candidates of not have the money than being denied buying the air time. Although in one or two states I remember, Romney did sweep in before the primary and try to buy up all the spots.

And look how the Republican party & the media lied about Ron Paul winning some of the primaries...they reported that Romney won them.

The media and the parties are choosing our candidates and this needs to stop.

God how I pray for a real candidate to vote for rather than casting a vote against the worst candidate.

 

[humbolt]

I would say some idiot with a blog has significantly less gravitas than a think tank.

I don't think all that much of either, so in my view they're both on poor soil

 

[Perotista]

And look how the Republican party & the media lied about Ron Paul winning some of the primaries...they reported that Romney won them.

The media and the parties are choosing our candidates and this needs to stop.

God how I pray for a real candidate to vote for rather than casting a vote against the worst candidate.

I made up my mind a long time ago I would never again vote for the least worst candidate and in my mind, I haven't done so since 1992. In 92 and 96 I voted for Perot, not because I wanted Bush the first, Bob Dole or Bill Clinton to lose, I wanted Perot to win. Well, I guess since I wanted Perot to win, I did want the other three to lose. This last election I voted for Gary Johnson, whom like Perot I thought was the best candidate and would make the better president than the other two. I really didn't care who won between Romney and Obama. To me it would be more of the same and business as usual. Running up the debt and deficits as far as the eye could see. Both would push their own agenda's, not Americas and both would continue to worry and fret over their party's future and not Americas. Both would do what was good for their party and not even give a thought about what was good for America. No, in 5 of the lat 6 presidential elections I voted third party.

The media and both parties do an excellent job of selling independents and those who are fed up with both parties that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. He can't win they say, so vote for a candidate who can win, even though he is a lousy candidate and will continue to run America into the ground. But he isn't as bad or evil as the other guy. So we continue to elect the lesser of two evils. Guess what, he may be the lesser of two evils, but he is still evil. For me, a vote for the same culprits who have gotten this country into the mess it is in, now that is truly a wasted vote.

Excuse the rant

 

[shrubnose]

The far right losers at Flopping Aces have about as much credibility as those who waste time at that website looking for wisdom. = Zero.

Anyone who wants to pay any attention to what they think about anything, has my permission to do so.

I will continue to ignore them.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

I made up my mind a long time ago I would never again vote for the least worst candidate and in my mind, I haven't done so since 1992. In 92 and 96 I voted for Perot, not because I wanted Bush the first, Bob Dole or Bill Clinton to lose, I wanted Perot to win. Well, I guess since I wanted Perot to win, I did want the other three to lose. This last election I voted for Gary Johnson, whom like Perot I thought was the best candidate and would make the better president than the other two. I really didn't care who won between Romney and Obama. To me it would be more of the same and business as usual. Running up the debt and deficits as far as the eye could see. Both would push their own agenda's, not Americas and both would continue to worry and fret over their party's future and not Americas. Both would do what was good for their party and not even give a thought about what was good for America. No, in 5 of the lat 6 presidential elections I voted third party.

The media and both parties do an excellent job of selling independents and those who are fed up with both parties that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. He can't win they say, so vote for a candidate who can win, even though he is a lousy candidate and will continue to run America into the ground. But he isn't as bad or evil as the other guy. So we continue to elect the lesser of two evils. Guess what, he may be the lesser of two evils, but he is still evil. For me, a vote for the same culprits who have gotten this country into the mess it is in, now that is truly a wasted vote.

Excuse the rant

I completely agree with you.

One thing I would like to see is open ballots. Just fill out the necessary info - name & office requested then let the people decide. Yea, we might have 50 names in each state running for one particular office but then the people know there is more than the "Big 2" parties running for an office.

We also need to figure out a way to hamstring the media bias towards the "Big 2". Them basically hiding candidates (by refusing to cover them) isnt right, but we have to do it without forcing them through regulation. Thats just as wrong.

The powers that be have spent a long time entrenching themselves in the system, like cockroaches, you are going to play hell getting rid of them.

 

[pbrauer]

They did that yesterday. Your boy Obama refused it. Got anything else to say smartass?

That's not true, President Obama turned down a short term extension which didn't solve the present impasse.

 

[Perotista]

I completely agree with you.

One thing I would like to see is open ballots. Just fill out the necessary info - name & office requested then let the people decide. Yea, we might have 50 names in each state running for one particular office but then the people know there is more than the "Big 2" parties running for an office.

We also need to figure out a way to hamstring the media bias towards the "Big 2". Them basically hiding candidates (by refusing to cover them) isnt right, but we have to do it without forcing them through regulation. Thats just as wrong.

The powers that be have spent a long time entrenching themselves in the system, like cockroaches, you are going to play hell getting rid of them.

Only C-Span broadcast the third party debates last year. I think if the American people could actually hear what a Johnson or a Goode or some other candidate had to say, they might change their opinions or mind. But then there is not only the news coverage of the big two, you have Romney and Obama spending a billion dollars each. Johnson spent a bit over 2 million and I have no idea what the others spent.

But where did Romney and Obama get that billion dollars each. Mostly from corporations and Wall Street firms. Who ever won would owe those corporation and Wall Street firms plenty. Most corporations donate to both parties and candidates, that way whoever wins, will owe them. I guess the political correct way of calling this is buying access, the truth is bribery for legislation they want passed, tax breaks, perhaps government contracts and on and on. Citigroup donated a ton to Obama, care to guess who has the government credit card account? Donating a few million, even up to a hundred million has it benefits to the corporations and wall street firms who do it. If it didn't benefit them, they wouldn't be doing it.

But people like you and me are in the minority, a very small minority at that.