Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The label "liberal" was highjacked by the socialists/communists/Marxists in the 1960s. "Liberal" in its modern context has come to mean intolerant, oppressive, totalitarian, fascist, and certainly socialist. In other words, "liberal" today has become the antithesis of what "liberal" use to mean prior to 1960. Which is why the socialists/communists/Marxists dumped the label in the 1990s and suddenly became "progressives." Highjacking yet another label in a vain attempt to disguise their true ideology.
Intolerant of what? Of racist a-h_l_s? Of those who want to kick the already downtrodden? Of authoritarians? Of fascists? Of Bible-bangers who want to use govt. paid buildings to proselytize their religions to everyone, through displays? Then you're right, baby, I am most definitely intolerant of all those! Count me in!
Oppressive of what? Of not allowing you right wingers to oppress us by refusing to allow you to shove religion down our throats? By refusing to allow you access to our bodies and organs? By refusing to allow you to discriminate? By refusing to allow you to bolster American royalty (the rich and wealthy corporations)?
Socialist? Some of us might be socialist. So what? You're not going to give me the speech about how godawful it is, are you? Are you now going to pull out some right wing fascist little tract and type from it? Hopefully not, in light of what right wing ideology has done to this country TWICE now. TWO depressions, though this one is being called differently, I suppose to disassociate it from the first.
As for Communist, that's the extreme of the spectrum. The opposite extreme of the spectrum from Communist, is fascist, which is what right wing governments like Hitler's, Franco's, Mussolini's, etc. were, and it's what right wingers seek to emulate, and recreate in the U.S. through the perversion of the Constitution through right wing "interpretation."
Quote:
Not this right-winger. However, in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson was referring to the government establishing a national religion, not the government prohibiting all religion from public events.
I agree with both the First Amendment and Jefferson's letter, there should never be a law that either favors nor discriminates against an established religious belief. Government must remain separate from all religions, while being all inclusive.
If a Valedictorian with a strong religious belief wants to include references to their beliefs in their speech, it should be allowed. Regardless of whether others are offended or not, it does not establish a government religion, and it is not a government endorsement of any religion. It is merely a Valedictorian speech, nothing more.
I don't care what letter was sent by whom to whom, when, and where. The separation of church and state exists to be respected and followed. There's no discrimination in following the separation of church and state. How could there be? There's also no discrimination in refusing to allow proselytizing to others on any govt grounds, or govt funded.
As an aside, I resent being proselytized to. I have my own faith, and I don't shove it down anyone else's throat. I expect everyone else to do the same and not insult me by insisting that I have to listen to them try to convince me that I should follow their religion. I don't find it the proselytizing religions amusing. Proselytizing is a form of brainwash, and an insult. Further, religion is like underwear. Sure, you might be wearing it, but I don't want to see it. Keep it to yourself.
Quote:
Completely and utter nonsense. The left, who preach about equality yet have no concept of what it means, have chosen to forget that all laws are to be applied equally to everyone. They want to punish the successful for being successful with punitive laws and increased taxes. While those of us on the right want the same laws for the rich as we have for the poor. One law applied to everyone, rich and poor alike. Contrary to popular belief by the left, there are no castes in the US. Class and castes are not the same. Class is transitory, a caste is not.
You're speaking bs. Even if you don't allow lobbying, even if you don't allow the wealthy to pass legislation that benefits only them, even if you don't provide special benefits to higher earners and wealthy corporations, they are still ahead, and behave as the bigger fish in the ocean do, swallowing the smaller fish. Right wingers are all about removing all regulations on them, and leaving the wealthy free to swallow up all the power, and wield it as they see fit, but even that is not enough for right wingers. They must actually BENEFIT the rich further through legislation passed only to benefit the rich, all a result of some kind of perverse pseudo-evolution right wing rule of survival of the wealthiest.
Quote:
The Supreme Court already "dispensed" with that phrase in 1936. The phrase "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" describes the purpose of the power, not a power unto itself.
"If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, …"
"... sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns." --- United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936)
The power granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is the power to tax, not to do whatever they please to "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." [/quote]
What relation does any of the above have to do with what I already said, that the framers mentioned taxation as permissible, 4 times in total? The ruling you refer to struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which had nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.
Quote:
One again you are latching on to the purpose, not the right itself. The people have an individual right to bear arms, for the purpose of establishing a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."
The framers intended for the regulated militia to have access to guns, not any tom, dick or harry that wanted to playact at being a movie star hero shooting "bad guys." Right wingers are very good at attempting to pervert the meaning of the Constitution, but not very good at explaining their efforts at perverting its meaning.
Quote:
The State already have more power than the federal government. The States can, at any time 34 of the State legislatures choose, hold a State Constitutional Convention and propose new amendments to the US Constitution, which 37 State legislatures must ratify.
And the likelihood of that being successful is what? Not very. The intention of the framers was NOT to have the states usurp the power of the federal government, unlike right wingers wish to happen.
Quote:
The purpose of the US Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government
BS.
Quote:
Funny how they always manage to vote multiple times for being supposedly "suppressed."
Oh! And that is your reason for giving the GOP carte blanche to suppress the black vote in every election, as they have been doing?
A right wingers' true corrupt nature always comes out, no matter how hard they try to hide it.
Go bait somebody else. Or maybe you could just use your own brain and think about it. I made my statement and I will leave it at that. But I am right. Any person with a logical brain would have no problem figuring it out.
You just could have said. "I just made it up". Same thing.
The purpose of the US Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government
BS.
You do realize this is the entire purpose of the US Constitution and it is consistently verified by numerous statements by the founders, through numerous writings and is the underpinning of the entire point of its creation?
I mean by calling BS on that quote, you show that you are enormously ignorant about the this country, about its founding, about its purpose and all the documents to which clearly state such.
I don't mean to be insulting, but are you joking? Are you just being facetious? Certainly you can not be this ignorant? I can understand arguing over detailed interpretations, but to state as you did? Wow... I am sorry, but that has to be the dumbest response I have seen on the internet, and that is.. well.. saying a hell of a lot.
Having read a bit of Glitch's responses, I think you are arguing with someone way out of your league.
You do realize this is the entire purpose of the US Constitution and it is consistently verified by numerous statements by the founders, through numerous writings and is the underpinning of the entire point of its creation?
I mean by calling BS on that quote, you show that you are enormously ignorant about the this country, about its founding, about its purpose and all the documents to which clearly state such.
I don't mean to be insulting, but are you joking? Are you just being facetious? Certainly you can not be this ignorant? I can understand arguing over detailed interpretations, but to state as you did? Wow... I am sorry, but that has to be the dumbest response I have seen on the internet, and that is.. well.. saying a hell of a lot.
Having read a bit of Glitches responses, I think you are arguing with someone way out of your league.
The Constitution is a set of instructions by which the federal govt functions. It is NOT an instrument to limit the power of govt to the states. That right wingers would wish that, I agree. It's the basic purpose of right wingers, to leave a country powerless and in the hands of whoever has power and money enough to control the rest.
The Constitution is a set of instructions by which the federal govt functions. It is NOT an instrument to limit the power of govt to the states. That right wingers would wish that, I agree. It's the basic purpose of right wingers, to leave a country powerless and in the hands of whoever has power and money enough to control the rest.
You are wrong and frankly, I am not going to waste my time telling you water is wet and fire burns. If you are so ignorant as to this point, well... live with it. I have no desire to educate your ignorant arrogant arse. /boggle
You are wrong and frankly, I am not going to waste my time telling you water is wet and fire burns. If you are so ignorant as to this point, well... live with it. I have no desire to educate your ignorant arrogant arse. /boggle
Then why did you type this, if you're not going to "waste your time?" And to be perfectly honest, NO, I don't want to hear your right wing version about how the entirety of the Constitution is to strip the federal govt of power. It's right wing delusional BS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
