A question for the 'freedom loving loons'

[moonman]

Must say I'm amused by kres, conspiracy freaks and others. So if you would indulge my amusement further and adovcate what it is you mean by freedom and limited gubment. Specifically, I'm interested in learning your views concerning the limits to federal gubment's rights under our constitution and laws.

I promise not to make any personal attacks on this thread but reserve the right to question you further.

[kres24GT]

Must say I'm amused by kres, conspiracy freaks and others. So if you would indulge my amusement further and adovcate what it is you mean by freedom and limited gubment. Specifically, I'm interested in learning your views concerning the limits to federal gubment's rights under our constitution and laws.

I promise not to make any personal attacks on this thread but reserve the right to question you further.

Ones freedoms are only limited to when they directly and unwillingly oppose on the freedom of another. Only the most extreme of circumstances should violate this rule. I should be free to put into my body what I see fit. I should be free to work for whatever wage I agree to work for. I should be start my own business without oppressive regulations designed to limit competition. And of course I should be free to fail.

This especially goes for our federal government, of which a huge majority violates the 10th amendment. If we are going to legislate away our freedoms let's at least do it constitutionally with a free market of states and local governments competing for citizens, tax dollars, and jobs. Let's end liberal interpretations of the constitution that allow programs like FDRs New Deal and Bush's wire taps.

The founding father would vomit if they saw what an oppressive, huge, bureaucratic federal government we have today.

[disrupter]

You sound strongly libertarian, kres24GT?

yes?

do you have any objections to the criminal spying of the NSA upon US citizen's domestic phone calls & emails?

[kres24GT]

You sound strongly libertarian, kresGT24?

yes?

do you have any objections to the criminal spying of the NSA upon US citizen's domestic phone calls & emails?


You must not read well, I have said I do a million times. If you could stop calling people neocons for 5 seconds you'd see that.

[moonman]

You must not read well, I have said I do a million times. If you could stop calling people neocons for 5 seconds you'd see that.

I only call people neocons who advocate neocon policy. That's all I have read from you kres. Looks like disrupter reads it as well.

If markets worked, people would save 5% of their income upon entering the workforce, Social Security would never have been necessary. Social Security was instituted due to the failure of the free market.

It isn't surprising that people wouldn't save because all the rpessure is to spend and consume.

Are you suggesting that Social Security is unconstitutional beause of the 10 th Amendment? Wrong again. Providing for the defense and general welfare is the stated purpose of the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment only reserves to the States or to the People, those things the Constitution prohibits the Federal gubment from undertaking.

Article 1 Section 8 clearly authorizes the House of Representatives to make such laws as it deems necessary. Nothing in our Constitution by way of the 10th Amendment or otherwise prohibits the Congress from delegating adminsitrative authority to agencies of any kind.

Your suggestion that our Founders would be appalled at what has become of the nation they founded is mere speculation. The alphabet soup of federal agencies has been put in place because People demanded it. I would think if our founders were upset about anything it would be the lack of integrity and sense of personal respnsibility that has made these administrative agencies necessary.

[kres24GT]

I only call people neocons who advocate neocon policy. That's all I have read from you kres. Looks like disrupter reads it as well.

If markets worked, people would save 5% of their income upon entering the workforce, Social Security would never have been necessary. Social Security was instituted due to the failure of the free market.

It isn't surprising that people wouldn't save because all the rpessure is to spend and consume.

Are you suggesting that Social Security is unconstitutional beause of the 10 th Amendment? Wrong again. Providing for the defense and general welfare is the stated purpose of the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment only reserves to the States or to the People, those things the Constitution prohibits the Federal gubment from undertaking.

Article 1 Section 8 clearly authorizes the House of Representatives to make such laws as it deems necessary. Nothing in our Constitution by way of the 10th Amendment or otherwise prohibits the Congress from delegating adminsitrative authority to agencies of any kind.

Your suggestion that our Founders would be appalled at what has become of the nation they founded is mere speculation. The alphabet soup of federal agencies has been put in place because People demanded it. I would think if our founders were upset about anything it would be the lack of integrity and sense of personal respnsibility that has made these administrative agencies necessary.


Funny how you support big government, sacrifice of freedom, and upholding the constitution when it suits you, and crying unconstitutional and freedom when it doesn't. Classic partisanship.


Neocons hate freedom, to suggest they do shows you do not know what it is. Neocons like liberals, prefer fascist and socialist policies where corrupt politcians, not the free people, make the decisions.


Your lack of understanding of the 10th amendment is laughable, it couldn't be more clear. Even the politcians admit they ignore it.

[disrupter]

while i recognize that Social Security is certainly world history's biggest communist/socialist government program ever,

i also recognize that capitalism has no other virtue than single mindedness,
beyond that capitalism's other attributes are contemptible at best.

Capitalism is a work animal that must be controlled & kept clean & healthy to be constructively harnessed rather than let free to run destructively amok.

Communism is a mostly unnatural mirage that is completely dependent on our minor tendency to shelter & nurture other beings of our own species.

Capitalism should be relatively free to operate until it as always & instantly proves that some spare, elegant, regulation must be imposed to keep it clean & fair.

If we could lie to be instantly wealthy, 99% of us would. Only our skepticism about unbelievable claims prevents us from doing it at the expense of one another.

The real productive/creative power of capitalism is only realized when it operates with a clean boney structure upon which it can build.

Mindless, blind, capitalism is like bacterial release of energy from stored nutrients,
it can sustain beings such as ourselves, or it can be the very same decay that destroys us.

It tends to feast until it starves itself.

In short it is stupid.

It has no other purpose than to feed.

Form, structure & discipline are essential to utilize capitalism's energy for constructive, useful, sustainable purpose. This can arise naturally & organically through self interested sustainability or be imposed government artifice, each having attributes & problems.

Only then some potential splendor of possibilities can be realized.

[kres24GT]

while i recognize that Social Security is certainly world history's biggest communist/socialist government program ever,

i also recognize that capitalism has no other virtue than single mindedness,
beyond that capitalism's other attributes are contemptible at best.

Capitalism is a work animal that must be controlled & kept clean & healthy to be constructively harnessed rather than let free to run destructively amok.

Communism is a mostly unnatural mirage that is completely dependent on our minor tendency to shelter & nurture other beings of our own species.

Capitalism should be relatively free to operate until it as always & instantly proves that some spare, elegant, regulation must be imposed to keep it clean & fair.

If we could lie to be instantly wealthy, 99% of us would. Only our skepticism about unbelievable claims prevents us from doing it at the expense of one another.

The real productive/creative power of capitalism is only realized when it operates with a clean boney structure upon which it can build.

Mindless, blind, capitalism is like bacterial release of energy from stored nutrients,
it can sustain beings such as ourselves, or it can be the very same decay that destroys us.

It tends to feast until it starves itself.

In short it is stupid.

It has no other purpose than to feed.

Form, structure & discipline are essential to utilize capitalism's energy for constructive, useful, sustainable purpose. This can arise naturally & organically through self interested sustainability or be imposed government artifice, each having attributes & problems.

Only then some potential splendor of possibilities can be realized.


Whether or not freedom carries negatives or not is irrelevant to me. I only care about freedom over government controlling my life.

I am not willing to sacrifice my freedom for safety and comfort. You are, that puts you in the majority. I'm the minority.

I find it funny, the hypocrisy though.

[moonman]

The question kres24GT, What does freedom mean? Do you believe you should be free to pollute the water and air without being held to account? Does your freedom mean you should drive your car on either side of the road as it pleases you?

[disrupter]

Personal liberties should, short of a state/society/species emergency, be unlimited as long as they do not infringe on others.

Personal suicide, especially if terminally ill suffering humiliation &/or pain, should be legal,

suiciding everyone else by choking the planet violates other people's freedoms and THAT is why it must be contained.

Violating other people's freedom to operate in relatively clean & honest market also holds.

And personally i am quite sure a known crooked market scares money away, while a perceived honest one draws money to it.

An honest market expands the economy, dishonesty shrinks it.

It isn't pie in the sky, there are pragmatic considerations behind these things.

There is the freedom to be dead or unhealthy, but i think i will not avail myself of either of those freedoms anytime soon, at least by choice.

Freedom only sounds/is good when contrasted against various negative confinements, freedom in a banal & empty void is a kind of hell.

Capitalism is innately more corrupting than constructive
Freedom from everything would be a brain torture hell.

[Southern Man]

.....what it is you mean by freedom and limited gubment. ...... Freedom is life, liberty, and the pursut of happiness. Respectful of the laws of the state and traditions of others. Limited guv'mint on the fed level is as specificall enumerated in the Constitution and nothing more.

[moonman]

Southern Man, have you read the Constitution of the USA? Specifically, Article 1, Section 8 and the caselaw supporting it? Factually and lawfully the federal gubment can do whatever it pleases.

You say marijuanna prohibition is a violation of the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th & 10th Amendments? On its face I quite agree until say a pesticide is used to grow the crop and part of the pesticide or even the wrapping or container it comes in, was manufactured in another State. You say the federal gubment has no authority to regulate Coca-Cola because it is bottled locally? Not if the straw you use to drink it comes from out of State.

Guys like kres and Southernman advocate freedom because they don't understand that under our Constitution the gubment has rights as well. The gubment's rights are not limited but rather unlimited. Read it and learn.

but but you whine, the brochure said something about liberty about freedom. Yeah like this is the first time you failed to read the fine print?

Actually, one area of law I've been studying for years is the possibility of bringing a 5th Amendment taking action for the loss of our rights. Our rights are our property and the gubment supposedly can't take our property without compensating us. Just one problem. The gubment has public policy imunity. IF any of you 'freedom loving loons' has some viable legal strategy for getting around public policy immunity, I'd welcome your thoughts.

[Southern Man]

Southern Man, have you read the Constitution of the USA? Specifically, Article 1, Section 8 and the caselaw supporting it? Factually and lawfully the federal gubment can do whatever it pleases.

You say marijuanna prohibition is a violation of the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th & 10th Amendments? On its face I quite agree until say a pesticide is used to grow the crop and part of the pesticide or even the wrapping or container it comes in, was manufactured in another State. You say the federal gubment has no authority to regulate Coca-Cola because it is bottled locally? Not if the straw you use to drink it comes from out of State.

Guys like kres and Southernman advocate freedom because they don't understand that under our Constitution the gubment has rights as well. The gubment's rights are not limited but rather unlimited. Read it and learn.

but but you whine, the brochure said something about liberty about freedom. Yeah like this is the first time you failed to read the fine print?

Actually, one area of law I've been studying for years is the possibility of bringing a 5th Amendment taking action for the loss of our rights. Our rights are our property and the gubment supposedly can't take our property without compensating us. Just one problem. The gubment has public policy imunity. IF any of you 'freedom loving loons' has some viable legal strategy for getting around public policy immunity, I'd welcome your thoughts.

1. The only potential ambiguity to Article 1 section 8 is the definition of “Welfare” in the first paragraph. But it’s only ambiguous to liberals, since conservatives read the entire phase, which reads “Welfare of the United States”, not “Welfare of the People”.
2. I don’t see how you attribute marijuana law comments to me. I don’t remember commenting that specifically anywhere.
3. The federal guv’mint’s power is limited by the Constitution. Politicians and bureaucrats, many republicans but nearly all democrats, have worked tirelessly to tear it down and reinterpret it to suit their short-sighted goals. It will take a revolution, either political but more likely violent, to undo the machinations of the last 80 or so years.
4. The 5th amendment is violated routinely by the federal government by using environmental legislation to restrict land use, and in effect taking it from the landowner.

[kres24GT]

The Constitution is violated constantly, unless you favor a liberal interpretation that allows "government to do whatever they want". At that point, there is no need for a constitution.

[moonman]

Kres & Sman's answer's don't pass the laugh test. Sman claims the 5th Amendment is violated routinely but fails to provide even one example.

Article 1 Section 8 is not ambigous to our jurists. Courts have routinely, with only a few exceptions, allowed the feds to do what they want. There have been minor victories, achieved mostly by liberals and ACLU types who actually defend the Constitution, overall our march toward facism has been slowed rather than stopped.

For example, a civl rights lawyer I know is no longer taking wrongful death claims rising from police shootings. Recent SCOTUS decisions indicate that there is no such thing as a bad shoot.

[kres24GT]

Kres & Sman's answer's don't pass the laugh test. Sman claims the 5th Amendment is violated routinely but fails to provide even one example.

Article 1 Section 8 is not ambigous to our jurists. Courts have routinely, with only a few exceptions, allowed the feds to do what they want. There have been minor victories, achieved mostly by liberals and ACLU types who actually defend the Constitution, overall our march toward facism has been slowed rather than stopped.

For example, a civl rights lawyer I know is no longer taking wrongful death claims rising from police shootings. Recent SCOTUS decisions indicate that there is no such thing as a bad shoot.


Still ignoring the 10th amendment I see. Again if government can do what ever you want, there is no need to have a constitution.

not sure why you and Soutehrman are disagreeing, both of you agree with Bush in doing whatever you want, regardless of the constitution.


Thanks to you we are well on our way to a dictatorship.

[Southern Man]

Kres & Sman's answer's don't pass the laugh test. Sman claims the 5th Amendment is violated routinely but fails to provide even one example......

From my post 13, item 4: "The 5th amendment is violated routinely by the federal government by using environmental legislation to restrict land use, and in effect taking it from the landowner."

I've noticed that you liberals routinely "laugh" when you have no valid argument.

[Southern Man]

The Constitution is violated constantly, unless you favor a liberal interpretation that allows "government to do whatever they want". At that point, there is no need for a constitution. Well stated. That's why I have no need for liberalism. :D

[moonman]

From my post 13, item 4: "The 5th amendment is violated routinely by the federal government by using environmental legislation to restrict land use, and in effect taking it from the landowner."

I've noticed that you liberals routinely "laugh" when you have no valid argument.

cite a case.

[Southern Man]

cite a case.http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19481

[moonman]

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19481

Your problem Sman is that you can't even cite a case. You are getting your info filterred second hand. Fact is somebody else decided what the SCOTUS decision means and you merely suck it up like a fat sponge.

Google SCOTUS, in the search query type Rapanos v. United States and also Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There you will get the actual decision, possibly understand the issue that was before the Supreme Court and maybe, just maybe, you can make up your own mind as opposed to just goose stepping behind somebody else. Afterall, it is the freedom to make up one's mind that advocate, no? I merely suggest you practice what you preach.

Interesting that SCOTUS came down 4-1-4 on Rapano, vacated the judgment and remanded it back. Again the Court cited Article 1 Section 8 as the authority for Congress to enact the Clean Water Act of 1972.

Due to unfettered freedom people enjoyed prior to the Clean Water Act, people had polluted the Great Lakes so severely as to destroy the commercial fishing industry. Is that what you advocate Sman & kres, the freedom to destroy life on this planet with impunity? The freedom to take the livelyhood and pursuit of happiness away from others?

[Southern Man]

Your problem Sman is that you can't even cite a case. You are getting your info filterred second hand. Fact is somebody else decided what the SCOTUS decision means and you merely suck it up like a fat sponge.

Google SCOTUS, in the search query type Rapanos v. United States and also Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There you will get the actual decision, possibly understand the issue that was before the Supreme Court and maybe, just maybe, you can make up your own mind as opposed to just goose stepping behind somebody else. Afterall, it is the freedom to make up one's mind that advocate, no? I merely suggest you practice what you preach.

Interesting that SCOTUS came down 4-1-4 on Rapano, vacated the judgment and remanded it back. Again the Court cited Article 1 Section 8 as the authority for Congress to enact the Clean Water Act of 1972.

Due to unfettered freedom people enjoyed prior to the Clean Water Act, people had polluted the Great Lakes so severely as to destroy the commercial fishing industry. Is that what you advocate Sman & kres, the freedom to destroy life on this planet with impunity? The freedom to take the livelyhood and pursuit of happiness away from others?
These cases involve four Michigan wetlands lying near ditches or man-made drains that eventually empty into traditional navigable waters. In No. 04–1034, the United States brought civil enforcement proceedings against the Rapanos petitioners, who had backfilled three of the areas without a permit. The District Court found federal jurisdiction over the wetlands because they were adjacent to “waters of the United States” and held petitioners liable for CWA violations. Affirming, the Sixth Circuit found federal jurisdiction based on the sites’ hydrologic connections to the nearby ditches or drains, or to more remote navigable waters. In No. 04–1384, the Carabell petitioners were denied a permit to deposit fill in a wetland that was separated from a drainage ditch by an impermeable berm. The Carabells sued, but the District Court found federal jurisdiction over the site. Affirming, the Sixth Circuit held that the wetland was adjacent to navigable waters.

This isn't about pollution, it is about filling in land that you own to suit your own needs. The CWA is used to take away the property rights of landowners per this example without just compensation, therefore against Ammendment V.

The goverment has over the last 20 years incrementally redefined "navigable waterway" to include creeks and streams that you couldn't float a rubber duck in, then expanded it to include wetlands, ditches and swales, then to wetlands that aren't wet. Along with this they've defined "discharge to waters of the United States" to include filling with dry dirt on privately owned dry land.

[moonman]

The Clean Water Act isn't about pollution? Ever read a legislative history of any law in your entire life Sman?

If we took your view of the Constitution women would still not have the right to vote, African-Americans would still be chattel, jury nullification would ensure that no white is ever convicted of a crime against non-whites, we'd have no National Parks, Eisenhower would never have built the highway system, Lincoln would never have signed the 14th Amendment, geez I could burn bandwidth with th elist and write for days on those freedoms natural persons would not enjoy, IF NOT FOR OUR CONSTITUTION and supporting caselaw.

Sadly it is very apparent Sman & kres have been victimized by a cult. Your ideas on a static constitution are traceable directly to the secession of the Southern States in the 1800's. You are not advocating freedom or antyhing close to it.

You fail to understand that our Constitution provides rights to the gubment, just it does to you & me. Those rights are found in Article 1 Section 8. Indeed Art. 1 Sec. 8 is the gubment's 'bill of rights.'

[Southern Man]

The Clean Water Act isn't about pollution?.... Nice attempt to deflect. Or your incredibe deficiency in reading comprehension. Take your pick.

The CWA is used, in this case, to regulate fill placed on dry land, which has nothing to do with pollution. Address the points raised or lose credibility.

[moonman]

You improperly cite the case and I'm atempting to deflect? Okay Cracker, whatever you say, lol.

[Southern Man]

You improperly cite the case and I'm atempting to deflect? Okay Cracker, whatever you say, lol. I've been at this site for two weeks and so far you liberals have ran from every debate. Pitiful.

[Betty Blowtorch]

I've been at this site for two weeks and so far you liberals
have ran from every debate.
Not true.



Pitiful.
True. You ARE pitiful.
It sounds like you're massaging your own ego. http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/493/whipitgoodnv6.gif
Or perhaps it's another part of your body that you're massaging.

[moonman]

I've been at this site for two weeks and so far you liberals have ran from every debate. Pitiful.

:p :p :p :p I decided to respond in manner that you might understand.

Obviously you know nothing about the Constitution, legislative history, and you lack the ability to even cite a case correctly.

[Betty Blowtorch]

To Kres and other libertarians:

I used to be a libertarian, but not anymore. I now believe
that libertarianism is just a theoretical fantasyland.

Years ago, I liked the libertarian ideals of less government,
lower taxes, free market capitalism, more individual freedom.
I voted for Harry Browne when he ran for President as a
libertarian.

I stopped being a libertarian when I realized that I most often
hear the libertarian ideals of "less government" being spouted
from the mouths of right-wing Repugs like Reagan and Bush.
And yet both of them are guilty of running up the biggest
budget deficits in history.

When they promised to reduce government, they only meant
to reduce government benefits for low-income people, while
handing out billions to corporations and defense contractors.

The free market is a myth. Most industries are dominated by
a few extremely powerful, wealthy and politically-connected
corporate conglomerates who can squeeze out competition,
manipulate markets and buy off politicians.

I stopped being a libertarian because I came to the conclusion
that in the real world, libertarianism will always get corrupted
into the kind of ugly right-wing Republicanism we've seen with
Bush and Reagan: Corporate domination. Plenty of taxpayer
dollars for weapons. Screw the workers and the poor people.

You may hate the Dems and the Repugs, but they are reality,
the only real game in town. Libertarianism is a fantasy.

Anyone who claims there is no difference between the Dems
and Repugs must be blind to the huge differences between
the Clinton and Bush administrations.

[moonman]

So Betty, does that all mean yer a liberal-tarian now?

[Betty Blowtorch]

So Betty, does that all mean yer a liberal-tarian now?
I'm a liberal.

I see the obvious reality that most of the advanced democratic nations
(the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, etc.) use a balance of capitalism and
socialism. Some things are provided by the market, and other things
are handled by the government.

You can call it liberal, progressive, social democrat or whatever.

[kres24GT]

I'm a liberal.

I see the obvious reality that most of the advanced democratic nations
(the US, Canada, Europe, Japan, etc.) use a balance of capitalism and
socialism. Some things are provided by the market, and other things
are handled by the government.

You can call it liberal, progressive, social democrat or whatever.

Liberals and conservatives are both moving toward fascism where they use the police power of government to enforce their view of the world on everyone else, both economic and socially.

Like most people who vote Rep and Dem,, you fit that mold, along with most everyone on this board. Anyway, I'd call it that.

[Betty Blowtorch]

Liberals and conservatives are both moving toward fascism
where they use the police power of government to enforce
their view of the world on everyone else, both economic
and socially.
The "police power of government" is the fundamental basis
of every government in every nation on earth throughout
history. Police power backed up by military power.

Even libertarians believe that one of the most legitimate
powers of a national government is national defense.

Libertarians don't mind giving plenty of taxpayer money
to the people who build and use military weapons. They
just hate giving money to worthless old ladies sitting in
rocking chairs, who lack the common sense to know
when to die.

"C'mon, Granny, you're always tellin' us you wanna
meet Jesus. Stop procrastinating, goddammit."



Like most people who vote Rep and Dem, you fit that
mold, along with most everyone on this board.
Considering that Reps and Dems have dominated American
politics for 150 years, I'd say that people who vote Rep or
Dem are simply realists who realize that there is no other
real game in town.

You're in that idealistic phase of young adulthood where
you think you can change the world, and the revolution
will come and make the world conform to your libertarian
fantasies and yada yada yada, blah blah blah.

And you feel superior to people who are older than you,
who can see through your idealistic fantasies because
we've already been there, done that.

I wonder how you'll vote after you get a couple more
decades under your belt. There were a lot of hippies
in the 1960's who, like you, preached about freedom.

Now a lot of them are right-wing, Bush-licking Repugs.
I've got a sneaky suspicion you might turn out to be
one of them in 20 years.

What do you predict?

[kres24GT]

The "police power of government" is the fundamental basis
of every government in every nation on earth throughout
history. Police power backed up by military power.

Even libertarians believe that one of the most legitimate
powers of a national government is national defense.

Libertarians don't mind giving plenty of taxpayer money
to the people who build and use military weapons. They
just hate giving money to worthless old ladies sitting in
rocking chairs, who lack the common sense to know
when to die.

"C'mon, Granny, you're always tellin' us you wanna
meet Jesus. Stop procrastinating, goddammit."


Considering that Reps and Dems have dominated American
politics for 150 years, I'd say that people who vote Rep or
Dem are simply realists who realize that there is no other
real game in town.

You're in that idealistic phase of young adulthood where
you think you can change the world, and the revolution
will come and make the world conform to your libertarian
fantasies and yada yada yada, blah blah blah.

And you feel superior to people who are older than you,
who can see through your idealistic fantasies because
we've already been there, done that.

I wonder how you'll vote after you get a couple more
decades under your belt. There were a lot of hippies
in the 1960's who, like you, preached about freedom.

Now a lot of them are right-wing, Bush-licking Repugs.
I've got a sneaky suspicion you might turn out to be
one of them in 20 years.

What do you predict?


Nah, when I was young I believed in that two part lesser of two evils crap. It wasn't until I got older, started my career, served in the military, bought my first house, started saving for retirement, paying taxes, etc. that I learned the differences between the two parties is only skin deep.

Most of the 60s hippies I know became "Repugs" because of Vietnam. I suspect many will move to the Dem side now during this war.

Sorry but you will never catch me wasting my vote on Reps or Dems. They are too corrupt and too indebted to special interest.



I am sick of forking over a huge portion of my earnings to serve the corporate interest that run the two parties. I'd vote for a socialist before I voted for either of them.

[moonman]

Liberals and conservatives are both moving toward fascism where they use the police power of government to enforce their view of the world on everyone else, both economic and socially.

Like most people who vote Rep and Dem,, you fit that mold, along with most everyone on this board. Anyway, I'd call it that.

You'd be wrong again kres. I vote Green if there is a viable Green candidate. by viable I don't mean having a chance of winning just somebody astute enough to advance the cause without embarrassing the Party. IF no Green is available then I look at the Dem's candidate.

[kres24GT]

You'd be wrong again kres. I vote Green if there is a viable Green candidate. by viable I don't mean having a chance of winning just somebody astute enough to advance the cause without embarrassing the Party. IF no Green is available then I look at the Dem's candidate.


How would I be wring, do you not understand the definition of "Most". Anyway, good for you. Any vote for someone who is not a Rep or a Dem is vote well spent.

[Southern Man]

Not true.


True. You ARE pitiful.
It sounds like you're massaging your own ego. ....
Or perhaps it's another part of your body that you're massaging.

:p :p :p :p I decided to respond in manner that you might understand.

Obviously you know nothing about the Constitution, legislative history, and you lack the ability to even cite a case correctly.

Thank you both for proving my earlier assertion.

[moonman]

I'm a liberal because upon studying the U.S. Constitution and law I realized that the USA is about, above all else, the pursuit of fairness. Yeah it's true you won't find the word fairness in the Constitution or Federalist Papers or the Iroquis Nation Constitution or the Magna Carta or most of the other ideas upon which our country was founded.

Yet when one examines the check and balances, our adversarial justice system, our liberty, one can only conclude that the goal of the founders and stakeholders is the pursuit of fairness.

When people talk about the scales of justice being tilted to the right or left I measure the tilt in terms of fairness. The left, IMHO err most often on the side of the little guy. It didn't used to be that way. The party of Lincoln for over a century stood for the little guy. Since the party of Lincoln was seized by the corpratist/religous right coaliton in about 1978-79, it no longer speaks for anything but corporate interests with only lip service paid to the religious right.

[kres24GT]

I'm a liberal because upon studying the U.S. Constitution and law I realized that the USA is about, above all else, the pursuit of fairness. Yeah it's true you won't find the word fairness in the Constitution or Federalist Papers or the Iroquis Nation Constitution or the Magna Carta or most of the other ideas upon which our country was founded.

Yet when one examines the check and balances, our adversarial justice system, our liberty, one can only conclude that the goal of the founders and stakeholders is the pursuit of fairness.

When people talk about the scales of justice being tilted to the right or left I measure the tilt in terms of fairness. The left, IMHO err most often on the side of the little guy. It didn't used to be that way. The party of Lincoln for over a century stood for the little guy. Since the party of Lincoln was seized by the corpratist/religous right coaliton in about 1978-79, it no longer speaks for anything but corporate interests with only lip service paid to the religious right.


LMAO @ fairness

I am for party that stands for freedom, not stands for this group or that group.