a question for the atheists

[Openmind]

Do you deny that you believe the following???
- abortion is okay
- income redistribution is okay
- gun control is okay
- the Constitution should be flexible to fit the times
- the welfare state is okay
- liberalism/socialism works
- W was the worst president
- BO is a good president
- our debt is not a major problem

Well, let's try this again!
I started answering (reluctantly, as I know you will only take my answer as another way to spin my words and to prolong a discussion that you will NEVER open your mind to and reflect on) and I got interrupted by an oversea skype phone call and I lost it all. . .so I guess I'll try it again. . .although I know it will be a waste of my time!

- Abortion is okay: Not always. The current abortion laws, however are very fair, and I DO BELIEVE that women's choice is primordial.

- Income redistribution is okay: NO. . .the redistribution of income that has been going on for the last 30 years is NOT okay, as it has INCREASED the gap between the "poor and middle class and the wealthy." I do not believe this is sustainable (or moral, or good for our economy) and that trend needs to be stopped. To stop that trend, and to SHRINK the gap in wealth between the middle class and the wealthy, we need to have government assistance (through taxes that are progressive instead of regressive) for the wealthiest among us.

- Gun control is okay. Obviously it is okay, not only okay, but NECESSARY! And, by the way, SOME gun control laws have been in place at least until 1993 (Brady), without the Constitution having been voided! But I think those gun control laws have to be rethought, and reworked, and made more stringent and more efficient. I do NOT believe that our forefather EVER planned on EVER giving the right to any dummies or gun lovers in this country to free access to 20th, 21st or . . .(God forbid) 22nd century killing machines. . and if we don't do something about it, that's exactly what's going to happen! Face it, when people can turn in not one but TWO ROCKET LAUNCHERS in exchange for "credit cards," it is obvious that this "right to bear arms" has gone terribly wrong! And if you think that your semi-automatic and your high capacity mags will keep you safe from the mini probes, chemical carrying cartridge, and mini nuclear head weapons that are on their way. . .I feel sorry for you!

- The Constitution should be flexible to meet the time: DUH! Obviously! That is, if the Constitution is to remain meaningful over this century, and the next, and the next. . .it HAS to be a LIVING document! In fact, if you just look at my signature, you will see that THAT was the REAL intent of the founders. NO ONE with half a mind believes that we can be govern today on the LITERAL words of the Constitution. . .and our forefathers were no dummies. . . they were visionaries, and they already knew that in 1776, and they did everything they could to allow the Constitution to REMAIN A LIVING DOCUMENT.

- The welfare state is okay. Duh. . obviously it is okay! What else would you want? As a "wealthy country," a "developed" country, I bet you wouldn't like it if about 20 to 25% of our population lived under a bridge and saw their children die in infancy! The welfare state is even more necessary when the income gap is INCREASING. . .and the welfare state will become LESS necessary if we succeed in stopping, then shrinking the income/wealth gap! So. . .if you don't like the "welfare state," why don't you work in REDUCING THE NEED for a welfare state. OR. . .the other solution is to just accept that your home may become surrounded with children begging to get a few pennies from you to buy a loaf of bread! Or elderly people walking the street in their nightgowns and dying on a bench near a playground, where your children or grandchildren go to play. . .you may want to get rid of the "welfare state," but I hope you will include the "Corporate welfare!

- Liberalism/Socialism works: Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Liberalism," and if you insist in mislabeling "Socialism" with "Communism," we just can't find a way to discuss this logically! However, I am willing to give you what I see as a HEALTHY form of Socialism. . . Socialist democracy (or Democratic socialism, as some name, or even better "responsible social capitalism") Yes, I believe it works. In fact, it has been working for over 50 years in Europe and, although Europe is without a doubt experiencing growing pains (partially due to the huge recession provoked by our "run away capitalism" and the policies of GW Bush), they are STILL doing better than we are. . .and yet, they have had all those "programs" that you fear so much ("untitlement programs" and universal health care, child benefits, low cost higher education, labor laws, unions, MUCH lower income gap between the wealthy and the middle class, shorter work hours, better infrastructure, and higher taxes, including inheritance taxes) for a very long time! Still, in spite of their difficulties in coming together as an UNION, they are ahead of us in terms of just about everything, including GDP, and the value of the Euro, and life expectancy, lower crime rate, and quality of life. So. . .obviously I believe it works! Maybe if you had the chance of LIVING in one of those country, you may have a better idea of the reality of this!

-W was the worse president. . .Are you talking about GW Bush? Well, I don't know if he was THE WORST, but he sure was bad enough! But I don't think it was all his fault, I believe he may even be a pretty nice guy, just not very smart, and very easily manipulated by his evil vice president, Cheney. But I do credit him (or at least his weakness to resist Cheney's push) for the horrible Iraq war, the unecessary and very damaging Bush tax cuts which were Very progressive and benefited the wealthy a lot more than the middle class, and for just giving in to the lobbyists and handing our nation to Wall Street. Whether that makes him the worst President ever. . .I don't know, as I haven't studied the Presidency of all our presidents. . .but it sure makes him the worse of the last 4 or 5 Presidents!

-Obama is a good President: ABSOLUTELY! He has been handed down a terrible deal, and in addition he has NEVER been given a chance by the right (and the racists, which is not necessarely the same, but certainly has some cross over). And yet, President Obama has managed to pull this country, slowly but steadily, out of the total MESS left by Bush. . .in spite of all the hatred he has had to face, in spite of the stated goal (first priority) of the GOP to "make him fail, and make him a one term President), and. . .HE WON HIS SECOND TERM by a very convincing edge, both in popular and in electoral votes. And with all that, he has been able to accomplish a LOT of his original agenda, and has moved this country forward into the 21st century. . .not bad for a "Kenyan, Muslim, AntiChrist, puppet!" And with all that, he manages to STAY HUMAN and have a heart and a social conscience! Kudos for President Obama. I don't know if he will be known as one of the best President (only time will tell,) but he sure will be known as the FIRST BLACK AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHO SERVED TWO TERMS! I love it!

- Our debt is not a major problem: Our debt is a problem. . .a major one. . .I'm not convinced of it! After all, although our debts is higher than those "socialist countries" in Europe (85% of GDP versus 103% of GDP), our debt is MUCH lower than Japan has been in years (230% of GDP). . .and we are still getting VERY advantageous credit rates from just about all over the world. . .so that may mean that WE (or rather the GOP . . .who by the way never bothered to look at our debt in the past. . .even when GW BUSH BORROWED all the money for his ridiculous war in Iraq from China) seem to be a lot more worried about it than the rest of the world! In fact, it seems that it is OUR WORRY about the debt, and the silly politics being played around it that worries the world the most! If we did get off the cliff, it would have pretty much crashed the world economy. . .and if we renege on our debt by not raising the debt ceiling. . .that is what will conclude our demise in the financial world!
I do believe we need to work in REDUCING the trend of increasing our debt . . .but we have been doing that in the last 3 years at least. . .and, no matter what, we will not get rid of our deficit in 5 or even 10 years. . .and we don't need to! In fact, what we need to do is stop the INCREASE in spending. . .and assure that we keep getting low interest rate to repay our debt. . .because, face it, sometime it is a LOT BETTER (actually, some investor are working on that philosophy) to BORROW money at a low rate and then use it to make profits (like investing in infrastructure, which would boost our economic growth, lower unemployment, and bring our country back from behind in this area) then to use our cash which can be "more costly" than the interest rate we are currently paying to other nations.

Okay. . .I answered all your questions. And I know you will try to bash everyone of my answers. . .and that's okay.

I have nothing to hide and, although I totally realize that my opinions on all (or some) of those issues is diametrically opposed to most of you guys in this forum. . .I do not care, as I am very comfortable with my stand on these issues.

Have fun! And don't be surprise if I don't even read or answer to your (surely to come) criticisms. . .I think I pretty much know everyone of your "arguments" against my positions. . .and I really don't give a damn!

 

[Openmind]

It amazes me when liberals try to use our founders’ words in attempts to justify leftist positions. As I said before, liberals are wrong virtually 100% of the time. I suppose I must choose my words carefully in this post, for we Conservatives seem to be held to higher standards of civility here than those on the left; as evidenced by my recently deleted post in response to a religious bigot! Therefore, I’ll attempt to discuss the liberals’ wrongness in a manner that doesn’t offend their tender sensibilities. Hopefully, just pointing-out that they’re wrong, and providing justification for my claim won’t be seen as “incivility”???

In her post #231, openmind states:



Yes I've noticed your "signature". I understand it too! Since you apparently don't understand it, allow me to explain. Read on, try to comprehend, and then we can discuss it further if you wish?



The above are indeed the real words of George Washington. The following are also the real words of George Washington, and these words describe the process that MUST be used if future generations believe a portion of our Constitution is imperfect: "If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

We Conservatives here have taken the exact position that Washington himself expressed in both of his above quotes! We Conservatives have never argued that the Constitution is “perfect”. We have argued, and rightfully so, that when any part of our Constitution is determined to be “imperfect”, the change MUST be implemented legally via the Amendment process. If you recall your history, you know that slavery was Constitutional at the time it was adopted. Future generations didn't appoint a Justice who RULED that slavery was un-Constitutional. We fought a Civil War, and in accordance with our Constitutional law, we then AMENDED the Constitution to prohibit slavery!

Washington’s words have once again supported our present-day Conservative position! I make this claim knowing that I may be called “arrogant” for stating the TRUTH! I’m prepared for the slings and arrows of disgruntled leftists.



The above words are indeed those of Thomas Jefferson, and the source is correct also. You just know there’s going to be a “However” coming, don’t you? “However”, Jefferson’s use of the phrase, “is a mere thing of wax”, is used in a derogatory manner. Jefferson was a critic of the Judiciary’s use of “Judicial Review” as established in the SCOTUS decision Marbury v. Madison! The above quote is Jefferson’s way of saying that the courts have too much power, power not given them in the Constitution, and as such, the courts have usurped the power that was to be equally shared by all three government branches. You can test the veracity of my conclusion by reading the entire letter to Judge Roane that you referenced, and following-up by reading the Enquirer article that’s referenced and being discussed in that letter. As additional support for my claim, I offer the following quote from Jefferson’s letter to William Jarvis one year after the one written to Roane. In this letter, Jefferson states his position more clearly and even more emphatically:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim isboni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Although we Conservatives seldom argue the practice of “Judicial Review” these days, like Jefferson, we do see Judicial power being misused by corrupt, leftwing Justices who possess more love for the Democrat Party than for the Constitution. Such judges create “Rights” and delete “Rights” on political whim rather than by Constitutional Amendment! Once again, however, Jefferson’s words support our Conservative positions and principles, not those of the leftwing-Democrat Party.



We Conservatives fully agree with Jefferson’s quote! We wish that the corrupt administration now in power WOULD execute the laws properly! We have a President and an Attorney General who enforce those laws they like (Gun Control and Environmental etc.), ignore those laws they don’t like (Immigration and Voter Fraud etc.), “selectively” apply other laws in accordance with WHO they feel deserves justice and who doesn’t (Civil Rights), all while ignoring the original intent of the Constitution.



I found this quote attributed to Jefferson, to Patrick Henry, and to anonymous. I’ve searched in vain for a copy of Jefferson’s letter to Adams of August 1, 1816. Regardless, I don’t see anything politically earthshaking in the quote, regardless of who said it. Most folks who see a future full of great things would prefer to dream of it rather than the past. One must ask oneself in today’s world, do we really see a prosperous and peaceful future?



Doesn’t seem to me that the quotes you posted detract from any political positions other than those embraced by the American left.

You are so hysterical! YOU "CONSERVATIVE" sound so very arrogant! So. . .you speak for EVERY CONSERVATIVE in this country?

Love it!

 

[TheJPRD]

You are so hysterical! YOU "CONSERVATIVE" sound so very arrogant! So. . .you speak for EVERY CONSERVATIVE in this country?

Love it!

I'm very pleased that you "love it". However, I don't recall saying anything that could be remotely considered "hysterical". I just posted facts along with my related commentary. Your response to those facts wasn't what I'd call "objective" nor "well-reasoned". I suspect that you'd agree with me about that? Your response wasn't very helpful to an objective discussion of the quotes you posted, now was it??

You made several posts that included quotes of the founders. You praised the intelligence and insight of those founders. You seemed to think that the founders believed what you believe. However, once I explained that their views represented exactly what most Conservatives believe and have been saying here........ you've suddenly lost your admiration for those founders???..... or are you just angry at me for pointing out the truth to you? I admit that I am 100% guilty of telling you the truth.

I don't claim to speak for every person who claims to be an American Conservative. I do think I can speak for most intelligent, principled, Constitutional Conservatives. I strongly encourage all Conservatives here to express any and all disagreement they have with what I stated in #238. Unlike most leftists, I don't fear differences of opinion. I simply make my case for my position, and hope that the opposition does the same. If the opposition doesn't change the subject, and doesn't continue to repeat claims that have already been proven wrong, I trust the objective folks here to determine for themselves who's right and who's wrong. I think that's fair, don't you?

 

[Openmind]

I'm very pleased that you "love it". However, I don't recall saying anything that could be remotely considered "hysterical". I just posted facts along with my related commentary. Your response to those facts wasn't what I'd call "objective" nor "well-reasoned". I suspect that you'd agree with me about that? Your response wasn't very helpful to an objective discussion of the quotes you posted, now was it??

You made several posts that included quotes of the founders. You praised the intelligence and insight of those founders. You seemed to think that the founders believed what you believe. However, once I explained that their views represented exactly what most Conservatives believe and have been saying here........ you've suddenly lost your admiration for those founders???..... or are you just angry at me for pointing out the truth to you? I admit that I am 100% guilty of telling you the truth.

I don't claim to speak for every person who claims to be an American Conservative. I do think I can speak for most intelligent, principled, Constitutional Conservatives. I strongly encourage all Conservatives here to express any and all disagreement they have with what I stated in #238. Unlike most leftists, I don't fear differences of opinion. I simply make my case for my position, and hope that the opposition does the same. If the opposition doesn't change the subject, and doesn't continue to repeat claims that have already been proven wrong, I trust the objective folks here to determine for themselves who's right and who's wrong. I think that's fair, don't you?

No dear, I am not angry because you stated your OPINION that the founders would agree with your ultra conservative view that tends to keep this Country in the past!

I am actually kind of amused by your confidence that YOUR interpretation (that requires "changing" the literal words of the founders) is more accurate than mine, and reflects the founders' intent better than their own words.

That's okay, dear, don't mind me! Go ahead with your ideas . . . I'll just observe quietly!

 

[Lagboltz]

You're wrong again, most-illustrious physicist! Please read my post #238. Use your typical objectivity, and you’ll see that the only folks having a rug pulled from under them are you, openmind, and the illustrious dawkinsrocks. No surpirse to me, yet I was very respectful and civil while PULLING it!!

I will take your word for the interpretations of Jefferson concerning the Supreme Court. However, it seems that even though Jefferson may not have liked the power of the Supreme Court, he acknowledged that the Supreme Court does have that power. Strict constitutionalists seem to lament that the Constitution is more fluid than they would like, but that was one of the founder's foresights -- fluidity, or Jefferson's "dreams of the future."

As far as Obama, people can belly-ache about what the executive branch is doing, but one purpose of the Supreme Court is to pass judgment on it if it comes down to that. Obamacare is one example of that judgement. The Supreme Court has disappointed both the left and right at times.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm very pleased that you "love it". However, I don't recall saying anything that could be remotely considered "hysterical". I just posted facts along with my related commentary. Your response to those facts wasn't what I'd call "objective" nor "well-reasoned". I suspect that you'd agree with me about that? Your response wasn't very helpful to an objective discussion of the quotes you posted, now was it??

You made several posts that included quotes of the founders. You praised the intelligence and insight of those founders. You seemed to think that the founders believed what you believe. However, once I explained that their views represented exactly what most Conservatives believe and have been saying here........ you've suddenly lost your admiration for those founders???..... or are you just angry at me for pointing out the truth to you? I admit that I am 100% guilty of telling you the truth.

I don't claim to speak for every person who claims to be an American Conservative. I do think I can speak for most intelligent, principled, Constitutional Conservatives. I strongly encourage all Conservatives here to express any and all disagreement they have with what I stated in #238. Unlike most leftists, I don't fear differences of opinion. I simply make my case for my position, and hope that the opposition does the same. If the opposition doesn't change the subject, and doesn't continue to repeat claims that have already been proven wrong, I trust the objective folks here to determine for themselves who's right and who's wrong. I think that's fair, don't you?

OK I'll take a crack

Regarding the Constitution and changing it, exactly. They didn't go to the trouble of developing the amendment process in a way that did its best to weed out silly ideas that has generally worked (prohibition being a noteworthy failure) for fun, The disagreement is where Congress/Judiciry sidestep the amendment process to satisfy political goals.

Regarding TJ's reservations regarding the Judiciary, well he was smart enough to know that politics would work their evil and so they did immediately but you make it as good s you can and depend on the citizens to hold the feet of politicians to the fire. We've failed him there.

Regarding execution/making. To the extent that the minutia of it is less important I'd agree but as the making has been corrupted to the extent that executing them is becomes a fuzzy mess (can you say Obamacare ? thousands of pages with tens of thousands more being ginned up by bureaucrats) I'd argue that he failed to foresee a future of legislative deceit such as we have. But yes, right on the money regarding a faithful execution of the laws passed is the job of the executive and this is a sad and tyranical failure.

Regarding past/future all I can say is 'he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it'. Sure think ahead but don't ever fail to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Regarding the last bit, well its clear that she doesnt get it so its expected.

 

[TheJPRD]

I will take your word for the interpretations of Jefferson concerning the Supreme Court. However, it seems that even though Jefferson may not have liked the power of the Supreme Court, he acknowledged that the Supreme Court does have that power. Strict constitutionalists seem to lament that the Constitution is more fluid than they would like, but that was one of the founder's foresights -- fluidity, or Jefferson's "dreams of the future."

As far as Obama, people can belly-ache about what the executive branch is doing, but one purpose of the Supreme Court is to pass judgment on it if it comes down to that. Obamacare is one example of that judgement. The Supreme Court has disappointed both the left and right at times.

Jefferson tended to obey the law. As he'd not yet seen any Republic-threatening abuse in the practice of Judicial Review before his death, he didn't raise troops in revolt because of it. Remember that there were only 18 SCOTUS rulings following the Marbury v. Madison (1803) decision and prior to Jefferson's death in 1826. As you will note from the two posted Jefferson quotes, he was still very angry about and suspicious of Judicial Review in 1819 and 1820, more than 16 years after Marbury. Jefferson accepted Judicial Review, but with great misgivings, ones that he expressed emphatically and frequently. As a Conservative, I can nevertheless see a justifiable need for Judicial Review. Such review, however, MUST be done on one basis only, and that basis is the "Original Intent" of the founders.

Jefferson's fears and misgivings have proved valid, as we now see in those who argue that the Constitution is "fluid". IF the Constitution is "fluid", then Americans have NO rights, and the Federal government has NO limits to its power over the citizenry! We're at the mercy of political hacks and opportunists who are appointed to the SCOTUS. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. A Constitution that's considered "fluid" is worthless in the perceived protections and rights it expresses. As a physicist, you may prefer the word "chaos" to define a "fluid Constitution"? IF the Constitution is "fluid", would you feel safe and secure with 9 facists sitting on the bench? Wouldn't you prefer to point-out to those facists that the Constitution meant what the founders intended it to mean, and they cannot make "fluid" rulings? When we Conservatives praise "Original Intent" as the sole basis for Constitutional interpretation, we have a damned good reason for making that claim! We've never claimed that the Constitution is perfect, nor have we said that it cannot be changed. What we've said is that it means what it says in the terms our founders used and understood those terms when they wrote it. When our nation decides that a change is warranted, Amend it as it prescribes. Don't do it surreptitiously through Judicial activism and a usurpation of power that the Court has NEVER been granted!

This Conservative position should be embraced wholeheartedly by the left, as it makes our Rights clear, and it clearly states the limits on the power of the Government. Without such a concrete base to which Amendments can be made, both left and right are susceptable to the dangers of law-making by unelected officials sitting on Court benches.

 

[TheJPRD]

OK I'll take a crack

Regarding the Constitution and changing it, exactly. They didn't go to the trouble of developing the amendment process in a way that did its best to weed out silly ideas that has generally worked (prohibition being a noteworthy failure) for fun, The disagreement is where Congress/Judiciry sidestep the amendment process to satisfy political goals.

Regarding TJ's reservations regarding the Judiciary, well he was smart enough to know that politics would work their evil and so they did immediately but you make it as good s you can and depend on the citizens to hold the feet of politicians to the fire. We've failed him there.

Regarding execution/making. To the extent that the minutia of it is less important I'd agree but as the making has been corrupted to the extent that executing them is becomes a fuzzy mess (can you say Obamacare ? thousands of pages with tens of thousands more being ginned up by bureaucrats) I'd argue that he failed to foresee a future of legislative deceit such as we have. But yes, right on the money regarding a faithful execution of the laws passed is the job of the executive and this is a sad and tyranical failure.

Regarding past/future all I can say is 'he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it'. Sure think ahead but don't ever fail to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Regarding the last bit, well its clear that she doesnt get it so its expected.

DT: I agree that a more-detailed and restrictive Amendment process may be wise to keep the implementation of "silly" Amendments to a minimum. However, the existing Amendment process allows for changing itself.

With regard to the enforcement of laws, the oath of Office taken by the President, most all other Government officials, and most of the military swears that they'll preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that they'll faithfully execute our laws. There were dishonorable politicians in 1789-1820 just as there are today. However, there were generally-accepted standards of "honor" in those early years which are hard to find in any politicians or Judges these days. "Doing the Right thing" actually meant something in those years, and dishonor was a fast road to social ostracization. Based upon their total disregard for their oaths of office, most politicians today would be considered no better than uneducated and unprincipled trash by the founders.

 

[Lagboltz]

Jefferson tended to obey the law. ....

Jefferson's fears and misgivings have proved valid, as we now see in those who argue that the Constitution is "fluid". IF the Constitution is "fluid", then Americans have NO rights, and the Federal government has NO limits to its power over the citizenry! We're at the mercy of political hacks and opportunists who are appointed to the SCOTUS. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. A Constitution that's considered "fluid" is worthless in the perceived protections and rights it expresses. As a physicist, you may prefer the word "chaos" to define a "fluid Constitution"? ....

This Conservative position should be embraced wholeheartedly by the left, as it makes our Rights clear, and it clearly states the limits on the power of the Government. Without such a concrete base to which Amendments can be made, both left and right are susceptable to the dangers of law-making by unelected officials sitting on Court benches.

You are mostly saying that you and Jefferson are not happy with the Supreme Court. I have already agreed to that point. Look, I understand your point of view. It's just that like many liberals I am much more of a realist than a constitutional idealist.

Chaos is not the right word. It has no goal. Fluidity to me means flexibility for changing with the times. Sure amendments are best if they can be done. Let's face it, the executive branch is always testing the boundaries. Nixon with his executive privilege, and Bush with his "signing statements." I understand why you want to belly ache about Obama, but we leftists have our own belly aches. Compromise can be defined where everyone is equally unhappy.

 

[Openmind]

Well, let's try this again!
I started answering (reluctantly, as I know you will only take my answer as another way to spin my words and to prolong a discussion that you will NEVER open your mind to and reflect on) and I got interrupted by an oversea skype phone call and I lost it all. . .so I guess I'll try it again. . .although I know it will be a waste of my time!

- Abortion is okay: Not always. The current abortion laws, however are very fair, and I DO BELIEVE that women's choice is primordial.

- Income redistribution is okay: NO. . .the redistribution of income that has been going on for the last 30 years is NOT okay, as it has INCREASED the gap between the "poor and middle class and the wealthy." I do not believe this is sustainable (or moral, or good for our economy) and that trend needs to be stopped. To stop that trend, and to SHRINK the gap in wealth between the middle class and the wealthy, we need to have government assistance (through taxes that are progressive instead of regressive) for the wealthiest among us.

- Gun control is okay. Obviously it is okay, not only okay, but NECESSARY! And, by the way, SOME gun control laws have been in place at least until 1993 (Brady), without the Constitution having been voided! But I think those gun control laws have to be rethought, and reworked, and made more stringent and more efficient. I do NOT believe that our forefather EVER planned on EVER giving the right to any dummies or gun lovers in this country to free access to 20th, 21st or . . .(God forbid) 22nd century killing machines. . and if we don't do something about it, that's exactly what's going to happen! Face it, when people can turn in not one but TWO ROCKET LAUNCHERS in exchange for "credit cards," it is obvious that this "right to bear arms" has gone terribly wrong! And if you think that your semi-automatic and your high capacity mags will keep you safe from the mini probes, chemical carrying cartridge, and mini nuclear head weapons that are on their way. . .I feel sorry for you!

- The Constitution should be flexible to meet the time: DUH! Obviously! That is, if the Constitution is to remain meaningful over this century, and the next, and the next. . .it HAS to be a LIVING document! In fact, if you just look at my signature, you will see that THAT was the REAL intent of the founders. NO ONE with half a mind believes that we can be govern today on the LITERAL words of the Constitution. . .and our forefathers were no dummies. . . they were visionaries, and they already knew that in 1776, and they did everything they could to allow the Constitution to REMAIN A LIVING DOCUMENT.

- The welfare state is okay. Duh. . obviously it is okay! What else would you want? As a "wealthy country," a "developed" country, I bet you wouldn't like it if about 20 to 25% of our population lived under a bridge and saw their children die in infancy! The welfare state is even more necessary when the income gap is INCREASING. . .and the welfare state will become LESS necessary if we succeed in stopping, then shrinking the income/wealth gap! So. . .if you don't like the "welfare state," why don't you work in REDUCING THE NEED for a welfare state. OR. . .the other solution is to just accept that your home may become surrounded with children begging to get a few pennies from you to buy a loaf of bread! Or elderly people walking the street in their nightgowns and dying on a bench near a playground, where your children or grandchildren go to play. . .you may want to get rid of the "welfare state," but I hope you will include the "Corporate welfare!

- Liberalism/Socialism works: Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Liberalism," and if you insist in mislabeling "Socialism" with "Communism," we just can't find a way to discuss this logically! However, I am willing to give you what I see as a HEALTHY form of Socialism. . . Socialist democracy (or Democratic socialism, as some name, or even better "responsible social capitalism") Yes, I believe it works. In fact, it has been working for over 50 years in Europe and, although Europe is without a doubt experiencing growing pains (partially due to the huge recession provoked by our "run away capitalism" and the policies of GW Bush), they are STILL doing better than we are. . .and yet, they have had all those "programs" that you fear so much ("untitlement programs" and universal health care, child benefits, low cost higher education, labor laws, unions, MUCH lower income gap between the wealthy and the middle class, shorter work hours, better infrastructure, and higher taxes, including inheritance taxes) for a very long time! Still, in spite of their difficulties in coming together as an UNION, they are ahead of us in terms of just about everything, including GDP, and the value of the Euro, and life expectancy, lower crime rate, and quality of life. So. . .obviously I believe it works! Maybe if you had the chance of LIVING in one of those country, you may have a better idea of the reality of this!

-W was the worse president. . .Are you talking about GW Bush? Well, I don't know if he was THE WORST, but he sure was bad enough! But I don't think it was all his fault, I believe he may even be a pretty nice guy, just not very smart, and very easily manipulated by his evil vice president, Cheney. But I do credit him (or at least his weakness to resist Cheney's push) for the horrible Iraq war, the unecessary and very damaging Bush tax cuts which were Very progressive and benefited the wealthy a lot more than the middle class, and for just giving in to the lobbyists and handing our nation to Wall Street. Whether that makes him the worst President ever. . .I don't know, as I haven't studied the Presidency of all our presidents. . .but it sure makes him the worse of the last 4 or 5 Presidents!

-Obama is a good President: ABSOLUTELY! He has been handed down a terrible deal, and in addition he has NEVER been given a chance by the right (and the racists, which is not necessarely the same, but certainly has some cross over). And yet, President Obama has managed to pull this country, slowly but steadily, out of the total MESS left by Bush. . .in spite of all the hatred he has had to face, in spite of the stated goal (first priority) of the GOP to "make him fail, and make him a one term President), and. . .HE WON HIS SECOND TERM by a very convincing edge, both in popular and in electoral votes. And with all that, he has been able to accomplish a LOT of his original agenda, and has moved this country forward into the 21st century. . .not bad for a "Kenyan, Muslim, AntiChrist, puppet!" And with all that, he manages to STAY HUMAN and have a heart and a social conscience! Kudos for President Obama. I don't know if he will be known as one of the best President (only time will tell,) but he sure will be known as the FIRST BLACK AMERICAN PRESIDENT WHO SERVED TWO TERMS! I love it!

- Our debt is not a major problem: Our debt is a problem. . .a major one. . .I'm not convinced of it! After all, although our debts is higher than those "socialist countries" in Europe (85% of GDP versus 103% of GDP), our debt is MUCH lower than Japan has been in years (230% of GDP). . .and we are still getting VERY advantageous credit rates from just about all over the world. . .so that may mean that WE (or rather the GOP . . .who by the way never bothered to look at our debt in the past. . .even when GW BUSH BORROWED all the money for his ridiculous war in Iraq from China) seem to be a lot more worried about it than the rest of the world! In fact, it seems that it is OUR WORRY about the debt, and the silly politics being played around it that worries the world the most! If we did get off the cliff, it would have pretty much crashed the world economy. . .and if we renege on our debt by not raising the debt ceiling. . .that is what will conclude our demise in the financial world!
I do believe we need to work in REDUCING the trend of increasing our debt . . .but we have been doing that in the last 3 years at least. . .and, no matter what, we will not get rid of our deficit in 5 or even 10 years. . .and we don't need to! In fact, what we need to do is stop the INCREASE in spending. . .and assure that we keep getting low interest rate to repay our debt. . .because, face it, sometime it is a LOT BETTER (actually, some investor are working on that philosophy) to BORROW money at a low rate and then use it to make profits (like investing in infrastructure, which would boost our economic growth, lower unemployment, and bring our country back from behind in this area) then to use our cash which can be "more costly" than the interest rate we are currently paying to other nations.

Okay. . .I answered all your questions. And I know you will try to bash everyone of my answers. . .and that's okay.

I have nothing to hide and, although I totally realize that my opinions on all (or some) of those issues is diametrically opposed to most of you guys in this forum. . .I do not care, as I am very comfortable with my stand on these issues.

Have fun! And don't be surprise if I don't even read or answer to your (surely to come) criticisms. . .I think I pretty much know everyone of your "arguments" against my positions. . .and I really don't give a damn!

I guess I was correct! I spend all that time answering the questions that were REPEATEDLY asked of me, but NO ONE has anything constructive (or, in this case, even destructive) to say!

Okay. . .I think I'll keep this in a file some place so that, in three months, when you ask me the same questions AGAIN, or when you accuse me of "changing my mind," or of not being "truthful," I can pull that out and make you see the light!

 

[Lagboltz]

I guess I was correct! I spend all that time answering the questions that were REPEATEDLY asked of me, but NO ONE has anything constructive (or, in this case, even destructive) to say!

Okay. . .I think I'll keep this in a file some place so that, in three months, when you ask me the same questions AGAIN, or when you accuse me of "changing my mind," or of not being "truthful," I can pull that out and make you see the light!

I am one that has something constructive to say. I think you are right on about every point, but I guess I don't count because I'm a liberal and agree with you. Perhaps everyone else is still mulling it over and fell asleep in doing so. It is after midnight here.

 

[Openmind]

I am one that has something constructive to say. I think you are right on about every point, but I guess I don't count because I'm a liberal and agree with you. Perhaps everyone else is still mulling it over and fell asleep in doing so. It is after midnight here.

Thanks Lag. . .I always knew that my writing could put anyone to sleep! LOL!

 

[Lagboltz]

Thanks Lag. . .I always knew that my writing could put anyone to sleep! LOL!

I meant that their own thoughts are putting themselves to sleep, not your writings. But I think you know that and are practicing humility to impress me. I'm impressed.

 

[Openmind]

I meant that their own thoughts are putting themselves to sleep, not your writings. But I think you know that and are practicing humility to impress me. I'm impressed.

Well, not to impress you. . .but just to play on words! And it was a long post that usually discourages even people who are interested. . .and obviously few people are interested in hearing what they don't want to hear!
But thanks, just the same!

 

[TheJPRD]

You are mostly saying that you and Jefferson are not happy with the Supreme Court. I have already agreed to that point. Look, I understand your point of view. It's just that like many liberals I am much more of a realist than a constitutional idealist.

Your unhappiness with the Supreme Court isn't for the same reason as my unhappiness nor Jefferson's unhappiness with it. I suspect that your unhappiness with the Court has more to do with it's slightly-Conservative leaning in recent years. I'm unhappy with occasional decisions made by Conservative Justices, with the best example being CJ Roberts ruling that purchasing health insurance isn't really forcing citizens to buy something, it's just another tax. THAT was one amazing deviation from Original Intent! IF Jefferson would have accepted a need for Judicial Review as I have, he would have qualified his acceptance with the same qualification that I have; Judical Review is valid ONLY when done on the basis of "Original Intent"! Personal feelings and political leanings should have nothing to do with Judicial Review, period!

I'm surprised that you consider many liberals to be "realists". For the 10 years when I was a liberal (1969-1979), I was very much an "idealist". I saw things like racism, poverty, etc. as unacceptable, and I went out and tried to change things by word and deed. I became a Conservative in 1979, and the change was due to life-experience and education. On becoming a Conservative, I remained an "idealist", and I remain one to this day. I know that our nation's greatest problem these days is a lack of good-character in many of our citizens, leading to crime, immorality, and a culture of dependance. As a lifelong idealist, I am now doing what little I can do in words and deeds to correct the mistakes of the past 40 years that have so weakened our Republic. If "realism" means accepting the corruption of our Republic by those who'd destroy it through ignorance or purposeful intent, then I thank God I'm an idealistic Conservative.

Sure amendments are best if they can be done. Let's face it, the executive branch is always testing the boundaries. Nixon with his executive privilege, and Bush with his "signing statements." I understand why you want to belly ache about Obama, but we leftists have our own belly aches. Compromise can be defined where everyone is equally unhappy.

And if Amendments cannot get the necessary support to pass them, then Justices shouldn't pass them via Activism? If that's what you mean we are sympatico. Certainly the Executive and the Legislative will always try to exert powers they don't Constitutionally possess. Hence the need for a concrete Constitution, not a fluid one, and a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who rule solely on the basis of "Original Intent". You're correct that both the left and the right will be unhappy with some rulings made by such a Court. However, both sides will understand WHY the Court made the ruling it did, and the reason won't be politics!