Ok, I'll give you that I'm partisan about CaLiCo principles and proudly so, but you need to stop accusing me of cheerleading for Republicans when I point out the failures, lies, hypocrisy and corruption of the Democrats. I see it all on both sides and hold them to the same standard, you hold Democrats to a different standard than Republicans and don't seem to hold Democrats accountable for anything. Your only criticism of them so far has been "they didn't complain enough" but you don't see that as a double standard, or even a problem.
The two parties offer one path, statism, just two different speeds.
When Republicans took over the House in '96, they passed rules to protect the rights of the minority party (Democrats) and now that the Democrats have used those protections to their benefit and become the majority in Congress, they revoked the rules meant to protect the minority party... If you really gave a crap, you'd demand that the Democrats reinstate the rules that protect the rights of the minority party and hold them to account for abusing their power.
The "wants and needs" of the bottom 50% outstrip the ability of the top 50% to pay... Thats the reality. You're party is in power because they promise the bottom 50% goodies paid for by the top 50%. A flat tax or Fair tax is a better way, everyone pays because everyone gets huge benefits just for living in America.... and unlike a Progressive tax, the Flat Tax and Fair tax are actually fair (you may need that dictionary to see what the meaning of the word "fair" is before you try to apply that term to the Progressive tax).
First off, you're wrong... as usual. A flat tax, or fair tax, would LOWER the tax bill for all Americans. (one side effect of this is an explosion in GDP growth, which brings in more revenue on a lower percentage)
Secondly... You have lost any right to cry about raising taxes on the poor. You were the one wanting to raise the tax on cigarettes to $10 a pack with full knowledge that such a tax hits poor and minorities hardest.
It wasn't perfect because it limited government to being the protector of our rights rather than the provider of our every want and need... Isn't that what you mean?
That's why we have courts.
But in doing so they were violating someone elses rights. You do not have the right to violate my rights and vice versa.
Its a good thing for her that the human life inside her has no rights, huh?
Like compromise on Slavery? You're a big fan of hardliners taking a "moderate" position... well you got pro-slavery on one side and equal rights on the other... how would you compromise? What is the "moderate" position there? When it comes to the protection of our rights, I'll remain a "hardliner", whether its popular or not.
Obama is certainly intelligent enough to understand that pandering to the bottom 50% with emotional arguments, vague generalities and promises of goodies paid for by the top 50% is a winning combination... just also happens to be a recipe for disaster. What will you do when the people who foot the bill get tired of being your slaves and stop letting you leach off them? Its time Atlas Shrugged.
I already have... You must have missed my repeated references to CaLiCo.
The Progressives on the Right, call them moderates, Neocons or whatever, are your statist allies. I'll gladly continue peeling the non-statists out of both parties to join me.
What is the "opposite direction" of Capitalism?
What is the "opposite direction" of Individual Rights?
What is the "opposite direction" of our Constitution?
Whatever that "opposite direction" is, I want NO part of it.
The same source you copied and pasted that from has this to say:
You're the big fan of compromise... Well, they compromised on slavery... doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Now my statement was: Our Constitution has nothing in it that advocates, institutionalizes or otherwise promotes slavery.
So I was correct in my statement. Lets ignore for now that we have the 13th Amendment (which is part of our Constitution if you didn't know), and focus on what your source says the Constitution did do: recognized and protected slavery. Now I know you're definitionally challenged but recognizing/protecting slavery was not a promotion (encouragement) of slavery, it didn't institutionalize slavery (non slave states were not forced to adopt slavery as the law of the land) and it didn't advocate (speak in favor of) slavery.
Now your attack was over my wanting to return to our "constitutional roots"... which I've said repeatedly is a return to limited government with only one role in our lives: to protect our rights.
