Tuesday, July 27, 2010

What the fuque, Jon?

The tell here is the phrase "you lefties":  because it's a generalization, it sets up the following phrase about vitriol as invalid, in an attempt to invalidate the emotional truth of what people are feeling.  Jon's initial comment is fake reasonableness.   When he says "perfectly nice" in re: Tucker Carlson, most of us instinctively know that he's talking out of his ass, because Carlson is in fact the farthest thing from "perfectly nice".  Carlson might not have the vehemence of some other right-wing assholes (not-so-Breitbart), but he's something even worse than most of those; a wannabe,  much like Michelle Malkin is an Ann Coulter wannabe.  Further, Carlson is the douche-iest of all wannabes....with his ham-handed stylistic cues (the bow tie, the limp hairlock) he signifies Richie Rich, the Berries-and-Cream Starburst guy, and a soupcon of antiEstablishment hippie longhair.  The cross-purpose-dressing is supposed to let us know that there's an intellectual heavyweight under all that pampered neotony.  But Jon Stewart pulled the curtain back for us on that- all Carlson could do, when Stewart handed him his ass on live TV, was grin stupidly.  

Laura McLean Also too, Andrew Breitbart, Tucker Carlson, and Tom Vilsack are dicks. Horrble, shameful, tiny dicks.

July 20 at 7:53pm ·  · 
  • You and 4 others like this.
    • Jon Frugoli Tucker Carlson?...Why?...He strikes me as a perfectly nice person, and a respectful and moderate debater. Why the hate?
      July 20 at 8:00pm · 
    • Jon Frugoli Who's Tom Valsack?....never heard of him.
      July 20 at 8:02pm · 
    • Laura McLean Well, in fairness, Tucker's more of a douche.
      July 20 at 8:35pm · 
    • Richard Beres he's a mothertucker!
      July 20 at 9:16pm · 
    • Jon Frugoli What did he say that's got you all so upset?
      July 20 at 9:20pm · 
    • Ob Askin http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/15/884657/-Tucker-Carlson-vs.-Keith-Olbermann:-Master-Of-Your-Domain

      Not nice, not respectful, not moderate.
      Just as much bile as others like Beck, just doesn't drool.
      July 20 at 10:08pm · 
    • Jon Frugoli 
      Gee, you lefties can dish out the vitriol like nobody's business, but you can't handle even the slightest speck criticism - or even a joke - without crying like babies.

      So Tucker Carlson owns KeithOlbermann.com?...I think that's pretty damn...See More
      July 20 at 10:20pm · 
    • Jess Winfield 
      I don't see any lefties crying like babies in this debate. But heeere's a rightie crying like baby when he realizes he's been wrong about gay marriage.


      Just proves that "crying like a baby" is a val...See More
      July 21 at 2:02am ·  ·  1 person
    • Laura McLean 
      I was referring to the gleeful slandering and firing of a woman who not only had done nothing wrong, but whose life's work has been to move beyond racial bounderies and aid poor farmers.

      Breitbart apparently loves to call innocent people of ...See More
      July 21 at 8:25am ·  ·  1 person
    • Rand Stoller John just has a man crush on Carson. Live and let live.
      July 22 at 1:28am · 

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Lemme lay it out for you- if your revolution doesn't hurt or kill anyone, then you haven't committed any crimes.  If your revolution is bloody, then obeying the law is the last thing on your mind.  Either way, there's no need for a "Right to Revolution", and little chance that The Founders had one in mind when crafting the 2nd amendment.

Not that it matters what The Founders had in mind.  Great recent opinion by Justice Stevens on why "strict constructivism" is a sham, y'all have probably read it.  Nonetheless, I think we can infer that what they were talking about was maintaining the legality of a way of life (huntin', collectin'), and maintaining readiness for national defense (vs. Redcoats).  Preserving a right to delegitimize The State probably wasn't on the table, especially since they had just gone to so much trouble to create It...and since they had already included so many paths for legitimate dissent.

So why do we need this brand-new right, regardless of its provenance?  I mean, revolution is something that people do, without referent to the Constitution or code or anything else...when The People have had enough, they tend to rise up and overthrow, and they usually don't stop to consult the local law library.  The only thing that comes to mind is, its a way for the desperate contrarians among us to justify their paranoia about the gummint takin' away their guns.  Don't let this happen to you!  If you're a proud American gun-nut, console yourself with the fact that a lot of legislation has been passed regarding guns, and our glorious 2nd is still here.  If you're a shrinking American violet when it comes to guns, take comfort in the fact that despite our glorious 2nd amendment, we still have the legal ability to make some places gun-free.  In either case, don't be fooled- those who yammer about a "right of revolution" are making stuff up.  These yammerers (!) are of a type- they fashion themselves "shit-disturbers", and will attach themselves to a number of causes that are diametrically opposed.  All arguments made in bad faith; a hallmark of your typical Randian/Objectivist.

And it's no accident that Objectivism rears its ugly head here.  Only those who subscribe to something as shockingly immoral as Ayn Rand's "philosophy" would feel the need to gin up a "right of revolution".

my first, and last, dailykos diary

So, I've been banned- I admit it, I broke the rules.


Thursday, July 08, 2010

here's a little tete-a-tete

So, Kaili is running her mouth over at DailyKos, and here are two or three of my cents:

 I really wanted to let this one go. (4+ / 0-)

I even started writing a comment, got up, walked away, and got pulled back because there was just too much idiocy in this post to let stand without objecting.
First, you have a really facile interpretation of the Constitution if you think the plural term "the people" is always going to convey an individual right, or that liberals shouldn't vociferously defend collective rights.  Not only is it facile, but it's illogical. Look at the example you picked: the right of assembly.  When one person assembles,there is no assembly, there's just one person exercising his or her right to express a view, which is freedom of speech.  For the right of assembly to be an individual right means that you've compressed it into the right of speech--in other words, you've actually taken away one distinct, collective right and folded it into another one.  That turns the right of assembly into a dead-letter, and that's simply foolish.
Second, restrictive gun laws aren't inherently anti-Second Amendment.  The 2nd is a narrow right, protecting very limited ranges of conduct, and not everything that touches on gun ownership, possession, sales, or transportation is a constitutional issue.  The RKBA folks were nice enough to let me borrow their platform a few months ago to elaborate this point--feel free to read it.
Third, and this is the most important in my book, THERE IS NO RIGHT OF REVOLUTIONin the Constitution (unless you read it into the guarantee of the Ninth Amendment).  There's a grant to Congress of the unchecked authority to punish treason, which pretty well flies in the face of the idea that the document enshrines our right to commit it.  The 2nd may facilitate treason (I'm sure it made life easier for many in the Confederacy, for example), but to say that it's a right is asinine. And from a logical perspective, have you considered that at the point when a group is waging war on the United States it is no longer bound by the Constitution?  If we wanted to raise an army to challenge the US military (which is fucking suicidal--the Iraqi insurgency fought a small proportion of our troops away from our homeland, which bears about as much resemblance to a home-grown revolution as a large turd does to the Sistine Chapel), why the bloody hell would we give two shits about the 2nd Amendment, if we're in a position where we don't recognize the authority of the state?
Your premises don't hold, your argument requires a type of constitutional textualism that's anathema to actual liberal goals, and your entire argument ignores the real harm that befalls our society because of unchecked weapons proliferation.
[And because this is somehow obligatory for me to note: I'm willing to bet that I'm one of the very few people on this goddamn thread who spent any part of today firing a weapon at a shooting range. For those in or near western Maryland, the Savage River State Forest's outdoor range is quite nice, though it does tend to get crowded on holidays.]
"Speaking for me only." -Armando

  •  Hear, Hear! (0 / 0)

    I know Kaili pretty well- her recently deceased ex-husband was my best friend of 32 years.  He shot himself a couple of months ago, just after Kaili served him with divorce papers.  One thing I know about Kaili is that she desperately wants to be taken for an intellectual- thus her attraction to ideas that are guaranteed to be provocative (pro-gun, pro-Ayn Rand, etc.).  Thanks, JR, for explicating and exposing her simplistic analysis of the 2nd amendment.  I'm a former Marine, I've been in combat, I've used guns and actually (legally!) SHOT PEOPLE- and I think gun restrictions  should be made a lot tighter.  It makes me physically ill when I think of all the young people in this country that have been killed by guns, chief among them my best friend Scott.  I think this overwhelming amount of violence is definitely facilitated by the fast and loose attitude we have with guns.  I don't know if the laws about gun possession should be changed- I'm not a lawyer and never will be- but I do think that we should close whatever loopholes exist that allow most gun crimes to be anonymous.  This, to me, is the core of the problem: there are so many guns available, and so cheaply, and with so few legal means to track their provenance, that prosecuting crimes becomes impossible.  I don't think most of us are worried about "gun nuts", because with rare exceptions they aren't committing crimes.  Gun nuts are having accidents, but it's gang violence that kills the poor, and the innocent bystanders who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I think that arming ourselves with guns to combat gang violence is the wrong approach- as a Liberal, I support social solutions to social problems, so I would rather see programs that lift gang members out of poverty.  I also think that arming ourselves against theoretical or possible tyranny, rather than actual tyranny, is completely nuts: thanks for making the point that revolution is not a right- it may be necessary from time to time, but the State is under no obligation to legitimize its own dissolution. Kaili's desire to voice new and original ideas has run up against her insufficient parsing of the real world, so she ends up as a de facto teabagger....too bad.  

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The Trap of Nihilism

Scott is dead, by his own hand, and I've been struggling to make sense of it (against the impulse of my intellect, which knows there's no sense to be made...we have a natural, irrevocable tendency to search for meaning, even in an absurd universe.  Now, why?).  Scott once said to me (complaining), "But Steiny, you always see the good in every person."  I guess that's true- I'm of a much sunnier disposition than he, don't know why, even though I've felt depression as black and absolute as his...I think I know something about the roots of his despair.  Most of it was from unwarranted self-loathing, but there was a portion that happened like this: when you are a teenager, you are in a fight to establish your identity.  This is existentially important, and if you grow up in a politically charged atmosphere your options will be limited.  Por ejemplo- most develop a political consciousness based on the position of their parents.  If you were in high school in the 1980s, you would find that nearly every rational position had been co-opted by some group or other with major negatives attached (once upon a time, the "left" was the exclusive domain of the Hippies, so if you didn't smoke pot or believe in new-age personal growth bullshit, or buy the whole raft of groupthink that went with it, you were suspect, your politics invalid).  "Third Way", "independent" parties aren't much help here, since politics depends on groupthink; even the most hardcore libertarian can find like-"minded" individuals to commiserate with.  That being the case, nihilism becomes very attractive to the teen aged mind; after all, if all the positions are bullshit, then the whole system must be bullshit as well.  I don't think Scott thought of himself as a nihilist (that would have required major insight)- but he did commit suicide, after all.  There was a tendency in him to be malevolent, which bothered me and for which I criticized him, and which I think was the result of an unconscious alignment with nihilism.  But it wasn't his nature, it was a pose he struck as a defense against the dearth of viable positions.  This is obvious to me because of the things he never abandoned- such as a commitment to human rights, and justice (his knee never failed to jerk violently against obviously evil people).

I mention this now because I want to warn anyone considering this position.  Sarte warned against bad faith; and nihilism is bad faith incarnate.  If you find yourself fed up, and everyone in the world is saying things that make you sick, then it is your obligation to create a position and articulate it.  Walter Sobchek: "Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it's an ethos."  Art (which to me includes all the human creative endeavors, language, music, politics, law) is our best defense against the abyss, our birthright as Homo Sapiens, but most importantly a requirement of continued membership in life.  Nihilism adds no comfort, makes no statements, shines no light and offers no solutions.  There's a difference between that and art with the flavor of nihilism, which can be downright exhilarating: the Sex Pistols pump you up, and it's fun to give the finger to The Man, but all these "movements" that have annihilation as their core value (teabaggismobjectivism, end-times-ism) appeal mainly to those who are losing it all and want everyone else to lose it all too.  Stay away from that shit!  It's mind poison!  Be creative!  "Go not gentle into that good night" means not just to hang on to life, but also to battle death, the abyss that stares into us.

Which is a somewhat pollyannaish position, I know.  I react, because I've lost someone that I love.  I would do almost anything to have him back, alive.  But my options are limited, even philosophically, because my emotions are a more accurate indicator of truth.  I hate the thing that depressed him, whatever it is, so I can't have sympathy for a position that killed my best friend.  We had a thing- what he called our "twins language"- which was a cipher that grew out of our mutual status as outcasts.  But in later years, he started to pervert it so that communication was minimized; he wanted simply to parrot the phrases, to repeat the memes without referent.  We got mad at each other over this- he because I wouldn't "run my lines", I because he sucked all the joy and meaning out of it.  Tellingly, we would argue about this very issue in our twins language (meta-meta-meta-meta).  And now it is a dead twins language ha ha ha.  Fucking bleak, eh?  The point is, I understand the attraction of giving in to death.  When your strength is gone nothing is more sweet than going limp and letting Lethe carry you, drifting, towards Hades.  And by the way fuck you world.  Sadly, I'm still alive and I can't abandon hope (not an option for me, father of two, husband of one, son of many).  The only way for me is to give myself over to the small consolations of creation, like the things that gave Scott joy (music and words and food).  And to find a target- in this case the immorality of giving up.  It's odd for me to align myself with Aquinas, considering my recent feelings about religion, but perhaps not: the Saint represents a time before the bad faith of the postmodern era.  His argument is pure, and made from first principles.  I only wish it would have worked on Scott.  

Friday, March 26, 2010

what is the purpose of federalism?  To provide the courts a rationale for making excessively narrow judgements. Under federalism, twisted logic is acceptable.  That's why federalism is a tool for those who wish to reduce civil rights, by discrimination.  A liberal court is just the opposite- it will seek at every turn to extend rights to every class, as it is defined into existence.  That's why liberalism is capable of dealing with the future; whereas federalism attempts to hold back the tide.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Facebook Fight!

Colby Codner Can we secede yet? I don't want my kids growing up under a Socialist/Facscist/Statist government.

March 21 at 7:16pm ·  · 
Ed Boyce
Ed Boyce 
I'm in man, it is time to either clean house or move out!
March 21 at 9:16pm
Loraine Marks Hirth
Loraine Marks Hirth 
Well, considering the other side's dream is to sit around and let someone take care of them from cradle to grave, I'd say we have a pretty good chance of winning. I would rather die than live without liberty. I'M IN!
March 22 at 11:31am
Eric Steinberg
Eric Steinberg 
Gimme a break. Stop hating the President because he's black, go back to your PoliSci text, and see if you can figure out what all those "isms" really are about.
March 23 at 9:01pm · 
Colby Codner
Colby Codner 
Eric, Please.

The President is also half white, and I happen to dislike that part of him too. Stop grasping at straws...
March 24 at 3:59am
Eric Steinberg
Eric Steinberg 
No, the fact that you've conflated socialism and fascism only underscores that you don't understand either. And "statism", an Ayn Rand word, is a nearly meaningless concept (like the rest of Rand's 'philosophy'). This administration brought us back from the brink! But if you truly think selfishness and cruelty are virtues, then I guess you wouldn't mind being a tool of giant corporations.....listen, man- this Ayn Rand bullshit is second in stupidity only to Scientology.
March 24 at 6:13am · 
Colby Codner
Colby Codner 
OK Eric, I don't recall Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter or Ford ever taking over GM, the banking sector, etc. Government control over the private business sector have precedents in Fascism, Socialism and Communism. To me, the term "Statism" encompasses this idea that the government controls the market instead of the entrepreneur and investor and is thus, valid.

Do you honestly believe that this administration pulled us "back from the brink"? Seriously? HAHAHAHAHA. Sorry man, but Obama has spent in one year what it took Bush 5 years to spend, and Obama is ramping up spending (and further taking the economy down with him). I didn't like Bush because he wasn't a fiscal conservative. But for Obama, and his supporters, to keep blaming Bush for any given problem is disingenuous and childish.
March 24 at 6:30am
Eric Steinberg
Eric Steinberg 
Who is being disingenuous? If you really thought all gummint spending was bad, wouldn't you quit your city job? Obama has brought us back from so much more than a depression (how 'bout America's global image? Habeas Corpus? Torture as foreign policy? the gutting of EPA?)- but don't believe me, listen to the CBO. They say HCR will relieve debt, not add to it. And they say the stimulus worked.

You speak as if you wanted nothing less than complete lassez-faire. But regulation is part of any economic system. I for one don't like getting raped by big corporations. In point of actual fact, every time markets are deregulated our economy slides toward depression. Even if you truly are out for nobody but yourself (which I don't believe), you'd choose a regulated market over an unregulated one because it performs better.

All this talk about "tyrrany", "socialism", etc. is heat without light, bad analogies; in other words, fear talking. Old Ayn had the same problem- she did not present analysis, only empty hyperbole.
March 24 at 3:06pm · 
Loraine Marks Hirth
Loraine Marks Hirth 
I would guess that Colby would very much like for the US Constitution to again be the supreme law of the land. But, hey, why talk of law and order when you can simply call someone a racist, and hide behind sophistry?
March 24 at 8:51pm
Colby Codner
Colby Codner 
Eric, I don't have a city job. We get contract work from various municipalities, but those are backed by local taxes that the citizens vote for.

As for Obama's ability to manage our global image, his track record would indicate that he's doing a less than stellar job. He's often derided by his peers (France, Russia, etc.), and the Europeans are finally beginning to wake up to the fact that Obama is just an empty suit. I can provide articles if you's like from foreign sources.

The Stimulus didn't work. I'll begin sending you economic articles that can detail this if you'd like. The HAMP thing is also another colossal government failure..

Eric, you are right that some minimum amount of regulation is needed. We need some simple rules that investment bankers can't easily circumvent. We don't need more back-door taxation however.

My tax money should be spent only on the enumerated powers given to the government in the founding documents, and not on some social welfare issue. I shouldn't be punished through increased taxation for someone else's poor life style decisions. People here, even extremely poor people here, have opportunities that an average person in India would die for. Honestly, I have no sympathy, or tolerance for people here that say that they are being oppressed somehow, and that they simply can't work. They need to starve.

I am not afraid of change, but I will fight against what I perceive to be diminishing personal freedoms at the mandate of some elitist oligarch. Or, in our former military parlance, "Obama can go eat a bag of dicks". But, I do appreciate the sentiment that you somehow know better for me.

The government is far too large in my opinion, and could function with a quarter of its current employees, and a tenth of it's programs. Charity was once the function of the churches, and not the government. Sure, nobody could pay off their Escalade on church charity, but nobody starved too much either. In other words, the person seeking charity was confronted with the consequences of their situation very quickly, and then motivated to be proactive in making their situation better----usually through hard work. Our government just gives away money with absolutely no consequence, and we have multi-generational fiscal parasites to show for it. Time for that to stop...
March 24 at 9:25pm
Eric Steinberg
Eric Steinberg 
Where do you get your news? And how do you know so much about what Europeans think? Please send me anything you think will help my state of mind; but I can't guarantee I'll understand it (I get vapor lock when I hear the word 'economics'). But those are trifles....I guess we do have opposing views as regards the purpose of government. Even that is small potatoes, though- the most important thing in our discussion is fear. A lot of people (you?) think we are in a Constitutional Crisis. I submit that we are not- not legally, not financially, not morally. Forget for a moment (if you can) how you or I feel about the President personally. Ask yourself this: has procedure been maintained, in the operation of this government? Has power been usurped in any way? Please show your work.
March 25 at 3:23pm · 
Loraine Marks Hirth
Loraine Marks Hirth 
The enumerated powers doctrine holds that the federal government has no general powers and no unexpressed powers. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of Congress in eighteen clauses. Clauses 2 through 17 allow Congress, for example, to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to enact nationwide laws for bankruptcies, patents, copyrights, and naturalization; to establish post offices, post roads, federal courts, and a federal city; and to raise and support an army, navy, and militia.

Under the enumerated powers doctrine, the powers listed in these clauses are exhaustive.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined," Madison famously said in Federalist No. 45. "Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite." 
March 25 at 4:12pm
Colby Codner
Colby Codner 
Thanks Loraine, that is how I interpret the Federal government's limited scope of power as well.





The UK and France

and these articles really don't even encompass the Obama administrations disastrous economic polices, but instead focus on his character.

I will be pretty busy this weekend, but can continue to forward you dozens of articles, blogs, etc from various foreign and domestic sources that outline what a colossal failure this administration has been to date.

Both parties share the blame for the mess that we are currently in, but this administration has really screwed the pooch. He has pushed forth his spending agenda, and it has irrevocably damaged our economy. The best thing that states like mine could do would be to secede and return to the black letter law of the original founding documents. At least then, we could get back to a more free state.
March 25 at 7:36pm
Eric Steinberg
Eric Steinberg 
I'm glad to have a couple of constitutional scholars to help me out....but you still haven't answered the question. This "doctrine" of which you speak is not part of the Constitution, but only an interpretation of it. Please tell me how, when and where this administration has done anything unconstitutional.
March 25 at 7:51pm · 
Colby Codner
Colby Codner 
The government took over (backstopped) private enterprises. That is the point where I became alarmed. These were companies with stock (albeit lousy stock, but privately held stock all the same). This means that there were individual, private investors. When the government came in and took over, they overstepped their delineated powers set forth in the founding documents. What is even more worrisome, was the shear size of the market segment the government captured in doing so. The government is supposed to leave the businesses alone.

With AIG, Citi, and Goldman Sachs in tow, they had a clear advantage over the market, and used it to manipulate the market via high frequency trading (100's of trades per second, but no real volume) with the SEC's blessing. Not only ythat, but they also bailed out Fannie and Freddie, and now there is a strong liklihood the the holder of your mortgage is now the federal government.

The entire market is rigged right now, and all historical modeling algorithms and techniques that have worked in the past currently don't work because of this. However, this is unsustainable, and will, at some point be rendered useless, and the market will come back down. I watch the bond market everyday, and there have been some interesting things going on this week.

This administration has been like the anti-Midas economically. Everything they have touched has turned to shit. It's sort of incomprehensible that they could accidentally be so horrible at this, but they are. The only people profiting are the large banks...
March 25 at 8:48pm
Loraine Marks Hirth
Loraine Marks Hirth 
It is unconstitutional to make a law requiring citizens to purchase insurance. Anything not explicitly assigned to the federal government, by default, is left to the states. Don't even try to give me a list of things that the federal govt. is doing outside of the US Constitution. I already know, and I very much want them to stop.
March 26 at 2:12pm
Eric Steinberg
Eric Steinberg 
Loraine, maybe you can list them for me- but I doubt it. There is no law requiring any citizens to purchase anything. You've misinterpreted the HCR bill. Colby, lemme get this straight: you think we're in a constitutional crisis because of the way the market is going? And how do you square this with Paul Krugman? I mean, he's got a Nobel, and (forgive me) you don't.
March 26 at 3:34pm · 
Eric Steinberg
Eric Steinberg 
Look, I'm not trying to put you or anybody else down- but the fact remains that you are advocating SECESSION. You are supporting this position by repeating talking points from right-wing astroturf groups- in other words, LIES. This makes you, in effect, the TOOLS of the corporations behind these astroturf groups. I'll be honest- I hated W, andhis cabinet, about as much as I've ever hated anyone, and I'm a Socialist through and through (except for that mile-wide anarchist streak.....). BUT even though I hated that motherfucker, I never advocated seceding, or picking up a gun, or anything like that. Why? Because I believe in this country, I have a sense of ownership about it, and I'm not a goddamn crybaby.
March 26 at 3:55pm · 
Loraine Marks Hirth
Loraine Marks Hirth 
How, exactly, did I misinterpret it?
March 26 at 4:46pm
Colby Codner
Colby Codner 
HAHAHAHA, who is crying Eric? Not me.

Hate Bush all you like. Obama is just a little darker shade of W, and a whole lot more narcissistic. Perhaps you didn't quite understand what my point was, and you resort, yet again to how you feel instead of examining the facts. The government cannot control a private business. It not only owns several private businesses, it it in bed with them and manipulating entire markets (at the detriment of the citizenry). I am not sure that I can make it any more clear to you. That is unconstitutional.

You are the one that keeps insisting that I dislike Obama for personal reasons. I dislike big government, and the demagogues that advocate for, and lead it. You can rest assured that in the next election, he will be voted out of office, and we'll most likely get another career politician in---but one that will hopefully somehow drastically reduce the size of the government.

You think that I am a tool of some giant corporation? Please Eric. That is the same argument the SEIU used. They are advocating taking over private 401ks. Are you on board with that too?

What sort of surprises me, is that with your Jewish roots, that you can't (or refuse to) recognize the stark similarities between Obama and Hitler. Don't think that I am trying to goad you, but really, look at it objectively.

You fail to recognize something else. I have a strong and abiding love for my country. Given the political trajectory that we are on, we will soon be a socialist nation. Go read the Constitution again and please show me where the founding fathers instituted a socialist government. They set an extremely limited role for the central government, and left the rest to the states and to the citizens. This administration is clearly against that concept. So, who abandoned the Constitution? It wasn't me. I'd rather secede and use the Constitution as the black letter law of the land instead of living in some socialist cabal. But hey, if you want to live in a socialist regime, go right ahead----it's still a free country. At least for now.
March 26 at 8:38pm
Eric Steinberg
Eric Steinberg 
Sorry Loraine- your opinion doesn't count, because you're a girl. But I'll help you out anyway- Commerce Act, Militia Act of 1790, go look 'em up.

Colby, I only mentioned my feelings to acknowledge bias, so that I could then make the larger point that this administration has not overstepped its bounds vis a vis the constitution. This is an objective fact, regardless of whether you are for big gov't (like me) or small (like you). As far as fascism goes, the only people I see acting like brownshirts these days are the teabaggers who had their own little Kristallnacht, throwing bricks and epithets. To try to pin fascism on Obama is pure paranoid fantasy. As regards socialism, there's nothing in the constitution that precludes it- we could definitely follow the letter of the law and also have a socialist economy (if only....). 
Yesterday at 8:39am · 
Colby Codner
Colby Codner 
Eric, you are deflecting again. Please show where in the enumerated powers (sections 8 and 9) that the government can own a private enterprise. Also, QE was supposed to have ended, but is back up and running again (banks buying for the Fed). You are correct that this administration didn't "overstep", it steamrolled over its bounds.
Yesterday at 9:20am
Colby Codner
Colby Codner 
Eric, I know that you were trying to make a point with Loraine not being able to vote, but you seem to have forgotten the 19th Amendment. You're kind of showing your ass by trying to be snide....I expected more from you man.
Yesterday at 9:40am


Blog Archive