The Wisdom of the Public

posted by Eyal Press on 09/25/2009 @ 6:00pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (143)

Subscribe Now

It's been a rough week for those of us who believe that only a tiny minority of Americans hold ludicrous and outrageous views. As this distressing survey by Public Policy Polling revealed, the belief that Barack Obama was born outside the United States is inching toward becoming a majority view among Republicans (43 percent are on board). The belief that George W. Bush let 9/11 happen to justify marching the US into war is espoused by one-in-four Democrats.

So it's true: a lot of Americans in both parties are willing to believe wacky and irrational things about their opponents. It's apparently not enough to judge someone misguided or erroneous. One has to see either Bush or Obama as the Anti-Christ (a view that curries favor among roughly ten percent of voters).

But before too much despair sets in among people who consider themselves rational-minded, take a look at the CBS NEWS/New York Times poll on health care and Afghanistan published today. According to the poll, 76 percent of Americans believe Republicans have not explained their plans to overhaul the health care system. And 59 percent believe Obama has not clearly explained his plans.

Most people, in other words, rightly sense that nobody is giving them straight answers. Obama hasn't clearly explained why his plan won't simply force people to fork out billions of dollars to health insurance companies. Republicans haven't explained their plans because they don't have any.

Meanwhile, the effort to scare voters into believing a "public option" would mark the death of freedom and onset of Soviet-style socialism has utterly failed. 26 percent of Americans oppose allowing a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare to compete with private plans. 65 percent favor this. The problem is not that too many Americans are deluded and misinformed. It's that nobody in Washington appears to be listening to them.

Comments (143)

"It's been a rough week for those of us who believe that only a tiny minority of Americans hold ludicrous and outrageous views"

i think it's been a rough week for everyone.

i just saw that baader-meinhof film. sublime!

every member of the house and senate should have to see this. especially republicans, but you might have to strap them to their seats!

Posted by darladoon at 09/25/2009 @ 7:34pm
Nice post. The % of idiots is less a problem than how corporate media and corporate politicians exploit this. Just compare our alphabet trash soup du jour to the daily fare across Europe and Canada. Not quite as driven by fear/flag/80 IQ drivel. For ex., the whole thing about Obama addressing school kids - make believe stories was echoed ad pukium by the MSM fake-liberals super pundits for days. Then lo and behold, he doesn't turn Mao on them, tells them to do their homework, set goals, and nothing more happens. On to echoing of the next bs hokum.

Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 8:10pm
It's called setting the narrative -- happens all day over there at NBC*

*Lynn Cheney was on Board of this megacorp's war profiteering division (Lockheed). She served on Lockheed Corporation's board of directors from 1994 to 2001 when her husband assumed the presidency.

Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 8:18pm
PRESS: "26 percent of Americans oppose allowing a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare to compete with private plans. 65 percent favor this. The problem is not that too many Americans are deluded and misinformed. It's that nobody in Washington appears to be listening to them."

Most everybody knows that MediCare is a financial black hole and that lots of doctors heavily limit their patient load coming in via MediCare. So, if 65% favor "a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare to compete with private plans", shouldn't an inquiring mind wants to know who was being polled?

Do most folks know that in most polls today, the composition of Dems is something like 35~40% as vs. 20~25% for Repubs, with the rest being `Indies'? Yet, there are more conservatives than liberals.....

Keep on citing polls like the one from CBS/NYT cited by PRESS.....and keep the Far Left shaken, but not stirred!

Posted by Happy at 09/25/2009 @ 8:22pm
public is better and more efficient.

BAUCUS - HOW "SOLD OUT" ARE YOU?

Posted by dexter666 at 09/25/2009 @ 8:58pm
Rebublicans are liars.... They offer nothing to this country. VOTE them OUT!!!

Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/25/2009 @ 9:03pm
Yes Grassley and Baucus - - and all the millionnaire corporate stars whose acting role in the military-industrial-complex newer edition - the corporatocracy - is "public servant". At least we're a little more into the age of Jon Stewart, where Palin's are slightly more hilarious than dangerous. Even Letterman came around in the last couple years, and Leno and Conan were a little more pointed - and even the likes of Couric, willing to ask 'bold' questions, like what have you read lately? We take what we can get. The only reason they're a bit loose on the leash at all is A - because the low hanging fruit - the Bush Scandal O'Rama - was more than low. It was throwing itself into bushel barrels on to trucks onto shelves into carts and then directly into and down the throats of even the most backwoods John Q Public. They tried, forever taking Palin seriously, forever echoing the lies as some sort of serious allegations - Obama the celebrity, Obama the Messiah, Obama the racist, redistributionist, racist - that's my favorite. And B - because Letterman, Conan, Couric - are brands in themselves. There's still a little competition thankfully. Still nothing like the Foxaganda heinous poison, and nothing like the hidden owners assocated with Bush's early years and Mitt Romney and their puppets in Limbaugh and OReilly etc. If you ever stop to think about it, there's nothing close to this sort of bludgeon at all in terms of wide open, massive time spans of unchecked propaganda day after day. Meanwhile, reality squeaks through with persistence and constancy. The sun breaks through the clouds with ever more regularity. Case in point, Obama's restoration of sane fundamentals vis a vis the UN.

Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 10:03pm
Excuse me, Eyal, but I think there is considerable evidence that either Bush was totally incompetent, along with the FBI, in the handling of pre-9/11/warnings or he was aware of them and decided it'd be advantageous to chance an attack. Given the mileage he got from the attacks, I'm surprised that only 25 percent of Democrats supposedly believe this. Certainly, every Democrat I know thinks Bush knew an attack might come and let it happen for his own benefit. And, indeed, what happened benefitted him enormously. What did he care that 3,000 people died and many rescuers couldn't get medical care later?

Posted by mimsky at 09/25/2009 @ 10:06pm
'So it's true: a lot of Americans in both parties are willing to believe wacky and irrational things about their opponents. It's apparently not enough to judge someone misguided or erroneous. One has to see either Bush or Obama as the Anti-Christ (a view that curries favor among roughly ten percent of voters),' said Eyal Press.

The tendency to see every battle between Democrats and Republicans as one of Good versus Evil would be greatly reduced if we had more than two viable political parties to choose from.

Proportional electoral systems, such as Instant Runoff Voting, would likely give us three or more parties to choose from. Then the loonies would have a much harder time identifying an Anti-Christ. Which of the two or more opposing party leaders would he be?

Posted by JakobFabian at 09/25/2009 @ 10:09pm
Eyal, don't fret. While Nero's fiddling, Rome is burning. There are world leaders who think that the holocaust never happened and plenty of the world's delegations at the U.N. who would sit and listen to the case being made. Poor Israel.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/25/2009 @ 10:59pm
How many bean counters does Medicare employ to deny testing & procedures to patients?

The millions with half assed/mediocre private sector health insurance will rue the day they didn't demand the "public option."

Oh, I'm sure doctors enjoy having the desk jockeys in the private sector tampering with their ability to treat patients & limiting their income.

Posted by Sorelish at 09/25/2009 @ 11:07pm
"Republicans haven't explained their plans because they don't have any."

The usual flat out LIE from leftist! There have been at least 3 of them. But, there are NONE that the Demoncrats will let in their committees or even discuss and NO republicans were allowed input in the house plan under Pelosis rule change. So keep LIEING as usual!

Posted by BigPasture at 09/25/2009 @ 11:46pm
Rebublicans are liars.... They offer nothing to this country. VOTE them OUT!!!

Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/25/2009 @ 9:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Oh no, not another 80 I.Q. leftist! What cave did you just exit? It is 2009 you know....uh Demoncrat Pres....Demoncrat congress in both houses...duh!

Posted by BigPasture at 09/25/2009 @ 11:50pm
"It's been a rough week for those of us who believe that only a tiny minority of Americans hold ludicrous and outrageous views."

I know what you mean! I have read the nation, huffposts, and Kos all week and the general stupidity is stifling! They do provide a sufficient quantity of data to actual prove devolvement of the human species is factual!!!

Posted by BigPasture at 09/25/2009 @ 11:55pm
Posted by BigPasture at 09/25/2009 @ 11:55pm |

Anuther priseless relik frum the cowpie department.

Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 05:41am
The usual flat out LIE from leftist! There have been at least 3 of them. Posted by BigPasture at 09/25/2009 @ 11:46pm |

Okay there's Coburn's...a non-starter...the 4-page wishlist the Boner and the boys put up with no explanation of how they were going to pay for anything...and?!

What's the 3rd one, Rio?

And why do they need Pelosi's permission to show the PUBLIC their plans?!

Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 05:43am
Posted by winyahn at 09/25/2009 @ 10:03pm |

Nice post!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dfnEjKWTo4

Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 06:40am
How many bean counters does Medicare employ to deny testing & procedures to patients?

The millions with half assed/mediocre private sector health insurance will rue the day they didn't demand the "public option."

Oh, I'm sure doctors enjoy having the desk jockeys in the private sector tampering with their ability to treat patients & limiting their income.

Posted by Sorelish at 09/25/2009 @ 11:07pm

This may shock libs, but none.

<Medicare contracts with regional insurance companies who process over one billion fee-for-service claims per year. In 2008, medicare accounted for 13% (386 billion) of the federal budget. In 2010 it is projected to account for 12.5% (452 billion) of the total expenditures. For the decade 2010-2019 medicare is projected to cost 6.4 trillion dollars or 14.8% of the federal budget for the period.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 07:06am
For the decade 2010-2019 medicare is projected to COST 6.4 trillion dollars

Posted by anticapitalist at 09/26/2009 @ 07:06am

For the decade 2010-2019 medicare is projected to GENERATE 6.4 trillion dollars

in economy stabilizing salaries for Registered Nurses, Licensed Practical Nurses, Medical Assistants, Phlebotomists, X-ray Technicians, Medical Lab Technicians, Medical Secretaries and Receptionists, Internists, a slough of specialists -

- who spend the trillions in a real non trickle down way on gas, food, montages, rent, cars, house repair and improvement, hotels, restaurants, life insurance from Larry, supporting/generating jobs across the economy.

Posted by winyahn at 09/26/2009 @ 08:17am
Posted by winyahn at 09/26/2009 @ 08:17am

Richard W. Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has remarked that in order to "cover the unfunded liability" for the Medicare program today over an infinite time horizon, "you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill" which is "more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy", and noted that "Medicare was a pay-as-you-go program from the very beginning." The present value of unfunded obligations under all parts of Medicare during FY 2007 over a 75-year forecast horizon is approximately $34.0 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall over the next 75 years.

The fundamental problem is that the ratio of workers paying Medicare taxes to retirees drawing benefits is shrinking, and at the same time, the price of health care services per person is increasing. Currently there are 3.9 workers paying taxes into Medicare for every older American receiving services. By 2030, as the baby boom generation retires, that is projected to drop to 2.4 workers for each beneficiary. Medicare spending is expected to grow by about 7 percent per year for the next 10 years. As a result, the financing of the program is out of actuarial balance, presenting serious challenges in both the short-term and long-term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 08:33am
For the decade 2010-2019 medicare is projected to COST 6.4 trillion dollars Posted by anticapitalist at 09/26/2009 @ 07:06am +++

Hey, how about the cost of the immoral war in Iraq? Billion$ per month. Why aren't you concerned about that?

At least Americans get something in return for the cost of Medicare.

Idiocracy.

Posted by Citizen54 at 09/26/2009 @ 09:11am
For the decade 2010-2019 medicare is projected to COST 6.4 trillion dollars Posted by anticapitalist at 09/26/2009 @ 07:06am +++

Hey, how about the cost of the immoral war in Iraq? Billion$ per month. Why aren't you concerned about that?

At least Americans get something in return for the cost of Medicare.

Idiocracy.

Posted by Citizen54 at 09/26/2009 @ 09:11am

The war is constitutional, medicare isn't.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 09:16am
Well there you go Anti, whats wrong with this picture, "war is constitutional", so thats why we don't get HC.

Posted by Denise29 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:18am
Really, quote of the day "War is constitutional medicare isn't".

Posted by Denise29 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:24am
I can't get over that sentence Anti, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran, but screw the people of this country, G-d Anti do you ever look at and think about what you write? That is really the rights answer to everything, "war is constitutional", blah, blah, blah. Unf@#king believable.

Posted by Denise29 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:30am
Poor Israel.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/25/2009 @ 10:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person

at least they have good, single payer health care (and a load of nukes).

-------------------------------------------------------

what the hell are baucus and company thinking? oh yeah, of course! they are thinking about saving their favorite donors and "constituents", the health insurance companies!

the health insurance industry that has spent buzillions over the last 3-4 decades to save their profitable business, the profitability of which is dependent on the unneeded death and suffering of millions.

not only are they evil and death dealing, these parasites represent the most inefficiently run health system in the world. so the parasitism drains productivity and siphons off resources that could be used for something productive.

so baucus wants to force me to further enrich these parasitic criminals?

as my old drill sarge used to say, "NOT NO - HELL NO!!!"

Posted by dexter666 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:36am
these parasites represent the most inefficiently run health system in the world.

oops - hyperbole alert! in the developed world is more like it, though little old costa rica has a lifespan about the same as we do and affordable public health care...

Posted by dexter666 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:47am
fight this out. fight it out in public. keep fighting. the more peple hear, the more disgusted they will become at how their elected reps are so eager to...

force them to do business with the greedy, murderous parasites who have enriched themselves on the misery of others. so now what? we go to jail for not further enriching them???

REALLY????

that's their punishment? that's it?

beware the great new silent majority. they want AT LEAST a public option. they do not get out at the biding of insurance companies to spout their ignorant, paranoid pack of lies and bumper sticker slogans.

dems...find viable dem challengers for primaries...light a fire under the asses of the dem traitors...either bot them or remind them that their constituents are people, not murderously greedy parasitic corporations who suck the lifeblood from them.

Posted by dexter666 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:55am
The fundamental problem is that the ratio of workers paying Medicare taxes to retirees drawing benefits is shrinking, and at the same time, the price of health care services per person is increasing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States) Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 08:33am

There will always being just as many people dying as were born.

Want more contributed to Social Security, Medicare, create a better educated middle class, tax 250K and up back to Eisenhower's time, close big corporate tax loopholes, close lobby for all for-profit corporations, up minimum wage,... viola-- more revenue.

Oh yeah, stop making war that mainly the military industrial complex/ war contractors, profiteer from, and our sons and daughters die and suffer.

Oh yeah, create a single payer healthcare system, starting with a public option in order for the insurance corporate profiteers to transition to other more appropriate areas less susceptible to manipulation.

Oh yeah, do what the congress is constitutionally mandated to do-- regulate commerce.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 11:18am
er, ha: There will always be just as many people dying as were born.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 11:20am
Richard W. Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has remarked that in order to "cover the unfunded liability" for the Medicare program today over an infinite time horizon, "you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill" which is "more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy", and noted that "Medicare was a pay-as-you-go program from the very beginning." The present value of unfunded obligations under all parts of Medicare during FY 2007 over a 75-year forecast horizon is approximately $34.0 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall over the next 75 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 08:33am

That piece is very deceptive. It says you are stuck with an 85.6 trillion dollar bill and then compares that to the annual output of the US economy. However it's obvious that the 85.6 trillion is not the annual cost because it then ties that to an infinite timeline. So it is not an 85.6 trillion dollar annual bill. Which means you don't know how much it would actually cost annually.

Then the piece about the 35 billion dollar shortfall is also deceptive. It says you would have to set it aside today so it could cover over the next 75 years. But why not just adjust the payment and pay the extra so there is no shortfall. Or how about setting a little aside each year?

This piece is basically an exercise in BS and subtleties. He's subtly guiding you to believe one he is saying one thing while being subtle enough to say something completely different.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/26/2009 @ 12:22pm
I can't get over that sentence Anti, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran, but screw the people of this country, G-d Anti do you ever look at and think about what you write? That is really the rights answer to everything, "war is constitutional", blah, blah, blah. Unf@#king believable.

Posted by Denise29 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:30am

I have made no statement calling for the bombing of Iran in this thread. Nor have I said that war with Iran is necessary.

This is a figment of liberal imagination.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 12:37pm
This piece is basically an exercise in BS and subtleties.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/26/2009 @ 12:22pm

Do you understand how Medicare and Social Security are funded to pay for future requirements?

These are not pay as you go programs.

Secondly, I find it amusing that you dismiss the Federal Reserve figures and I suppose also the Comptroller General (the US Accountant), and the US Senate? All say the same thing. They're all lying or being deceptive but CCC has the real truth?

Few have listened to this interview by the Comptroller General on 60 Minutes 2 years ago where he states that even if we eliminated the military, Medicare costs will bankrupt the nation beginning in 2011.

http://tinyurl.com/d79du4

<Senator Kent Conrad (D)

"The growing costs of Medicare and Medicaid is simply staggering. By 2050, if nothing changes, more than 20 percent of gross domestic product will be spent on Medicare and Medicaid alone. That is about what all of government costs us now.">

<The latest increase raises federal obligations to a record $546,668 per household in 2008, according to the USA TODAY analysis. That's quadruple what the average U.S. household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt combined.

USA TODAY used federal data to compute all government liabilities, from Treasury bonds to Medicare to military pensions.

Bottom line: The government took on $6.8 trillion in new obligations in 2008, pushing the total owed to a record $63.8 trillion.

The numbers measure what's needed today -- set aside in a lump sum, earning interest -- to pay benefits that won't be coveredby future taxes.

Congress can reduce or increase the burden by changing laws that determine taxes and benefits for programs such as Medicare and SSDI>

Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 12:55pm
He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you." My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you with hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed. And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And "The One" said " We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!" And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!"

Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people said "Sock it to them!" "And redistribute their wealth." And the people said, "Show us the money!" And the he said, " redistribution of wealth is good for everybody."

And Joe the plumber asked, " Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized. One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was banished from the kingdom!

Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will deal with radical terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons

Posted by BigPasture at 09/26/2009 @ 1:04pm
Posted by Denise29 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:30am:

Uh, war is constitutional - it is covered in the Constitution. While Medicare is desirable and is in great demand and I will soon be thankfully covered by it, it is not in the Constitution.

Posted by pyeatte at 09/26/2009 @ 1:42pm
into free cars for the people!"

Then "The One" said "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!" And the people said, "Hallelujah! Show us the money!" Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed. And He said. "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!" Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas." And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"

Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with the ACORN and you troubles are over!"

Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!" and they made him king!

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff.

Posted by BigPasture at 09/26/2009 @ 1:45pm
The bank banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.

Then "The One" said, "I am the "the One"- The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said unto Him. "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more... And "The One" said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"

And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed then and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built.

And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.

You may think this a fairy tale, but it's not. It's happening RIGHT NOW

Posted by BigPasture at 09/26/2009 @ 1:47pm
You miss the point pyeatte, sigh... .

Posted by Denise29 at 09/26/2009 @ 2:12pm
You may think this a fairy tale, but it's not. It's happening RIGHT NOW Posted by BigPasture at 09/26/2009 @ 1:47pm

So you're coming out? Like RIGHT NOW!

CONGRATS!

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 2:36pm
Alas, mimsky has it right ... the GWBush admin was warned at least 6 weeks before of an attack & its method ... the whole nation was warned years before of the target ... measures taken? None, other then to derail the careers of those few who dared to object to the govt's doing nothing.

And then there's that itty bitty Q, still there, of why the nation's multi-billion dollar air defense system (annual spend) did nothing, zip on 9/11 but watch.

And why the Bush govt, in the midst of a freeze on all civilian air traffic, let the multimillionaire nationals of the same country as the perps, several hundred of them, leave the US unhindered, unquestioned, unsearched, on their private chartered jets.

So many Q's, so few A's.

Posted by sloper at 09/26/2009 @ 4:23pm
So little P we should have elected John Mccain. Here is a guy that managed to screw up and get shot down over Vietnam. He took a tremendous beating from the Vietcong. They wanted to use him as a bargaining chip because of his father. To his credit he finally accepted responsibility for his actions and did not leave Vietnam early. He went home and screwed around on his wife. He met the daughter of a beer distributor with a shady past. He helped one of the crooks of the savings and loan mess. He got off easy because he did his crooked stuff when he was in the House. As a Senator he was a minor player in that game. He "helped" Native Americans in their quest for casinos. He was a pal of Jack Abramoff but had learned in his previous shady deals how to hide himself. He was the guy we wanted to run the ship because of this previous success. Please come up with something credible reasons for not liking Obama besides your racist thoughts.

Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 4:38pm
Posted by sloper at 09/26/2009 @ 4:23pm:

They were allowed to leave for their own safety. They were all known by US officials and were not UBL supporters. UBL was the "black sheep" of the family who was screwing up the family construction business by all the bad publicity.

Posted by pyeatte at 09/26/2009 @ 5:08pm
Posted by sloper at 09/26/2009 @ 4:23pm

And then a California financial disaster, getting suckered dry by a Texas based energy manipulation funding fraud with GOP ties, forces the Dem governor Gray Davis recalled per federal funds denied by hsuB. Yet Rudy 9/11 Giuliani becomes an instant hero. And Pataki, having moved his offices out of the WTC just months before, gets billions. As did Jeb in Florida. New Orleans, not so much.

http://tinyurl.com/5eue6h

For the GOP to win, the USA must loose.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 5:35pm
There was no way planners could come up with a scenario for the tremendous run up in medical costs.These costs have gone up with the costs of coverage. I think the business community has been looked upon as an easy target by the health care industry. Now this is coming to an end and thus a disaster has loomed.Individuals now are footing the bill.With the huge rise in costs a single payer system would bring all age groups into the system. I think it would be cheaper than what is now available.When enough conservatives get shocked by their health care costs than a change will come.

Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 5:41pm
Please come up with something credible reasons for not liking Obama besides your racist thoughts.

Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 4:38pm

geithner.......

heliben......

summers.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2009 @ 6:01pm
In other words Hank,Dick, and Karl are your buddies in your battle against liberalism. That's fine ,wish you would worry about the thieves stealing money from every American citizen in our health care mess. Of course maybe you support our friend Kent Conrad. Supposedly a numbers guy,how could he come up with numbers to support health care co-ops.I have to wonder where competition is coming from in the health insurance field. How do big companies take business from other big companies?They are offering the same product. Are we to believe they will make better moral choices than the other providers. Lets ask someone like Franklin Graham. Has he weighed in on this important subject. I feel he should,if he thinks it is more prayer to take of your health problems so be it. I just want to know how he can come across people that are destitute after a family illness. Perhaps he gave them money or help,I hope so.

Posted by whatozz at 09/26/2009 @ 6:33pm
While Medicare is desirable and is in great demand and I will soon be thankfully covered by it, it is not in the Constitution. Posted by pyeatte at 09/26/2009 @ 1:42pm

Oh it most certainly is in the constitution.

"So is medical care "commerce"? Given the decades of precedent, it's silly to suggest it is not. You go to the doctor and pay him for his services – that's the simplest form of commerce. And if it's not commerce then what are we spending $2 trillion each year on?"

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 6:34pm
Or was the argument concerning congress' authority to collect taxes for it?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 6:36pm
And if it's not commerce then what are we spending $2 trillion each year on?"

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 6:34pm

smoky mirrors.

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2009 @ 6:38pm
smoky mirrors | srorrim ykoms

sorry mom risk

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 7:19pm
http://tinyurl.com/yaulmjp

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 8:04pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 7:19pm |

kiss my roor, mr

Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 8:06pm
http://www.celebstoner.com/200902031410/ reviews/products/michael-phelps-ice-bong.html

Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 8:09pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/sets/72157622225596987/show/

Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2009 @ 8:20pm
kiss my roor, mr Posted by snowball777 at 09/26/2009 @ 8:06pm

mr sky, room sir

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 9:06pm
Posted by pyeatte at 09/26/2009 @ 1:42pm

A standing army is not in the Constitution either. So, if you are going to take this route you have to:

1. Explain why the unconstitutional army is somehow necessary to the republic. Then -

2. Explain why the unconstitutional Medicare system is different than the army.

In the process of doing that, you'll have to tackle the necessary and proper clause and use it to make your case for 1 and then explain why it doesn't apply to 2.

However, like most people that buy originalism, I bet you haven't thought too hard about this problem - or the fact that originalism doesn't describe the way the US legal system actually works. It is just another case of fundamentalism - except this is Constitutional fundamentalism. It's just as bad as every other kind.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 10:25am
A standing army is not in the Constitution either. So, if you are going to take this route you have to:

1. Explain why the unconstitutional army is somehow necessary to the republic. Then -

2. Explain why the unconstitutional Medicare system is different than the army.

In the process of doing that, you'll have to tackle the necessary and proper clause and use it to make your case for 1 and then explain why it doesn't apply to 2.

However, like most people that buy originalism, I bet you haven't thought too hard about this problem - or the fact that originalism doesn't describe the way the US legal system actually works. It is just another case of fundamentalism - except this is Constitutional fundamentalism. It's just as bad as every other kind.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 10:25am

We haven't had to think too hard about a problem that doesn't exist.

There is no prohibition against a standing army in the Constitution.

We have had a standing army since 1791.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army

Your premises against the US military simply have no basis in fact. They exist solely with those who despise our military.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/27/2009 @ 12:43pm
However, like most people that buy originalism, I bet you haven't thought too hard about this problem - or the fact that originalism doesn't describe the way the US legal system actually works. It is just another case of fundamentalism - except this is Constitutional fundamentalism. It's just as bad as every other kind. Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 10:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

a very fine point.

Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:49pm
this shows thinking and a penetrating insight.

Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:52pm
However, like most people that buy originalism, I bet you haven't thought too hard about this problem - or the fact that originalism doesn't describe the way the US legal system actually works. It is just another case of fundamentalism - except this is Constitutional fundamentalism. It's just as bad as every other kind. Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 10:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

a very fine point.

Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person this shows thinking and a penetrating insight.

Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:52pm

And thus just as faulty as I noted in my last posting.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/27/2009 @ 12:43pm

Posted by antisocialist at 09/27/2009 @ 1:02pm
We haven't had to think too hard about a problem that doesn't exist.

There is no prohibition against a standing army in the Constitution.

We have had a standing army since 1791.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army

Your premises against the US military simply have no basis in fact. They exist solely with those who despise our military.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/27/2009 @ 12:43pm

Actually no. I think the military are incredibly important but SRJ is right. There is no excuse for a standing army in the Constitution. They make sure to mention that the army is to be called up in need and that whenever we call them up their need is supposed to be reviewed on a constant basis. The Constitution only provides for a standing Navy. With good reason because they didn't trust standing armies.

"A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen"

James Madison

"Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army."

Edward Everett Hale

You think that anyone who doesn't trust the military hates the military but the founding fathers we the most distrustful people of a standing army. The reason they wanted to keep the nation armed and to keep militias around was to make sure that if a standing army should arise that the militias and the people could defend against them if they ever tried to take over. The founding fathers were ever fearful of a standing army being used to destroy this country.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/27/2009 @ 2:01pm
Anti-solution at 09/27/2009 @ 1:02pm,

You are a molecule in the party of no, humming with the same incessant negativity as Palin, O'Reilly and all the rest: Medicare is "unconstitutional", Cheney's war is "constitutional" -

Yes, and even if one tolerates your immature babbling it leads to no debatable reality-based assertion. This is your niche: 'negative idealism'. Non-pragmatic, non-solution abstraction. For example, try and enter reality and state who in DC is aligned with which your views, exactly what actual proposals do you back? Try and step out of your narcissistic abstract archaic Randian biblic bakeshop with some real-world, constructive specifics unless you prefer to continue to believe you are just too unique, too special to comport.

Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/27/2009 @ 12:43pm

The last state to ratify the Constitution was Rhode Island on May 29, 1790. According to your Wikipedia link:

"After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791."

You see the problem in the timeline, reverend? As a hypothetical, want to guess if there would have been any problems ratifying the Constitution if the states ratifying it would have thought that their new federal government would have a standing army to impose its will upon them? I don't think it would have passed if that were the understanding.

You're going to have to think a little harder about this problem.

Posted by emile duBois at 09/27/2009 @ 12:52pm

Thank you.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/27/2009 @ 2:37pm
And Ike was right about the military industrial complex. Just as destructive as perpetual war for profiteers. There is a category of commerce that should never be for-profit; much less excessive profit. And that would be anything that is life and death related. War/military contracts and healthcare.

Just like there should never be a corporation too large to fail.

The undue influence that a single corporation or trust can sway/bribe our government was too great that originally the framers did not include them as individuals/ persons able to petition our legislature.

I think they had that part right way back when. Perhaps only non-profits should be able to lobby?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/27/2009 @ 5:36pm
And why the Bush govt, in the midst of a freeze on all civilian air traffic, let the multimillionaire nationals of the same country as the perps, several hundred of them, leave the US unhindered, unquestioned, unsearched, on their private chartered jets.

Posted by sloper at 09/26/2009 @ 4:23pm

What is the official explanation for this?

Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2009 @ 7:49pm
"Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access, The Washington Times reported on Monday.

The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements."

Wilson WAS right! You LIE Pres. Obamanation!

Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 05:05am
Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 05:05am

Rio, do YOU even read your own stuff?

It says "illegal immigrants who PAY THEIR OWN WAY"...and other line is "LEGAL immigrants shouldn't be barred."

Now, what problem could you have with illegal immigrants PAYING themselves for health care...or LEGAL immigrants being treated civilly???

Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 07:17am
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/26/2009 @ 8:20pm |

I think my favs were the sign with "prostitation" and the old dude with the war paint and fake mohawk (hard to rebel when you've got no hair to shave that way I guess).

Posted by snowball777 at 09/28/2009 @ 07:56am
Yes, and even if one tolerates your immature babbling it leads to no debatable reality-based assertion. This is your niche: 'negative idealism'. Non-pragmatic, non-solution abstraction. For example, try and enter reality and state who in DC is aligned with which your views, exactly what actual proposals do you back? Try and step out of your narcissistic abstract archaic Randian biblic bakeshop with some real-world, constructive specifics unless you prefer to continue to believe you are just too unique, too special to comport.

Posted by winyahn at 09/27/2009 @ 2:07pm

No, mine is positive idealism and pragmatism. Stating you want the govt to follow the constitution is both pragmatic and idealistic at the same time.

And the question of aligning my views with DC? Do you apply the same standard to the far left here who equally believe that Washington doesn't represent their views? The answer of course is no.

When I read American history, I find that there have always been those with a range of views that differ from the two primary parties (whatever their name at the time). The Republican Party replaced the Whigs because their views were no longer representative of enough of the populace. I encourage 3rd parties like the Greens, the Libertarians, The Constitution Party, etc. I have stated that I often vote 3rd party which is in keeping with the true spirit of this country.

Lastly, and probably for the 300th time (at least), I am not a Randian. I've never read Rand, and do not follow any of her teachings.

I fall somewhere between Minarchism and Classical Liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 09:38am
I realize you didn't come to the same philosophy through Rand and yes I know you haven't read her, but you're completely aligned with this high school philosophy nonetheless.

By the way, you can no more claim you are not aligned with her views than you can claim you are aligned with her views if you don't know her views.

Same for minarchism, etc., there are potentially authors who've written about this that you have not read whom by inference, heard of that?, that you are aligned with.

My point Anti is your Anti. You live in an Anti bubble. Shooting down ducks in your mind. Back in the real world there is a government. Even if you think there should be almost no federal government, who best represents this back to the 90's (1890's) Randian garbage? No one? What actual proposals or bills are you in favor of? Not anti - but for?

Does anyone in government today come anywhere close to representing your views on what to do about Medicare being unconstitutional?

These are the obvious questions that you leave in one form or another unanswered. You don't engage in this Discussion in a mature manner when you constrain yourself to negativity and opposition, and so rarely articulate your solution.

Start with Medicare being unconstitional - what's your suggested solution?

By the way, ever thought about how some of your personal salary is interconnected with things like Medicare? Clients who can afford Life Insurance because they or someone they inherited money from benefited from Medicare?

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 10:20am
'It's apparently not enough to judge someone misguided or erroneous. One has to see either Bush or Obama as the Anti-Christ (a view that curries favor among roughly ten percent of voters).' -- Eyal Press -- The Nation 25 September, 2009

'Three years ago, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez caused a stir when, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he called then-US President George W. Bush a "devil." "I can still smell the sulfur," he said, standing at the same podium where, a day earlier, Bush had given his own address.' -- Greg Grandin -- The Nation -- 27 September, 2009 -- http://www.thenation. com/doc/20091012/ grandin

Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/28/2009 @ 10:21am
Posted by Denise29 at 09/26/2009 @ 10:30am: Uh, war is constitutional - it is covered in the Constitution. While Medicare is desirable and is in great demand and I will soon be thankfully covered by it, it is not in the Constitution. Posted by pyeatte at 09/26/2009 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

And this includes, of course, going to war by citing the violation of U.N. Resolutions as the mandate. This will continue to be an interesting conundrum for so-called conservatives, even as some of you, right on this blog, have called the U.N. a "half-circle jerk".

LOL

Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 10:32am
HEADLINE OF THE DAY: Democrats assemble the circular firing-squad on the Public Option

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 10:34am
"I can still smell the sulfur," he said, standing at the same podium where, a day earlier, Bush had given his own address.'

Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/28/2009 @ 10:21am

Goooooood one! Lil' bit of difference in redneceocons and this - Chavez was probably using devil / sulpher as a polemic.

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 10:36am
"I can still smell the sulfur," he said, standing at the same podium where, a day earlier, Bush had given his own address.' Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/28/2009 @ 10:21am Goooooood one! Lil' bit of difference in redneceocons and this - Chavez was probably using devil / sulpher as a polemic. Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 10:36am | ignore this person | warn this person

Maybe he just farted.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 10:41am
Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/28/2009 @ 10:21am

Yeah, sorry, HL....Chavez was using it as a humorous put-down....

that nutty 10% on YOUR side of the aisle actually believe Obama is the Anti-Christ.

Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 09:38am

Don't worry LVL. I'm sure if I spelled out my politics in detail, he would find them equally a "[n]on-pragmatic, non-solution abstraction." There's certainly no one in Washington DC that is interested in relinquishing federal government power in ways the facilitate democratic home rule, cooperatives taking over many of the functions of government and other changes I'd like to see implemented - from the "far left" as you would describe them.

I think the problem with your position is that you claim to be for minimal government, yet you want to continue spending enormous sums maintaining more than 1,000 foreign bases, our legions of troops and contractors and the defense industry that makes the projection of US power abroad possible - and this is not congruent with your stated object of minimalist government. There are other issues, such as the contradictions involved in supporting an unconstitutional standing army while rejecting the same rationale for other government programs (yes, I notice you haven't responded to this point - must present a bit of a puzzler for you) - but we can leave that aside for the moment.

I have the same problem because I'm willing to admit local or state government involvement on providing a basic level of preventative health care - even though I'd, ideally, would like to get rid of the state entirely. Few things in this world lend themselves to clean theorizing becoming actual in the real world.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 11:08am
Does anyone in government today come anywhere close to representing your views on what to do about Medicare being unconstitutional?

Start with Medicare being unconstitional - what's your suggested solution?

By the way, ever thought about how some of your personal salary is interconnected with things like Medicare? Clients who can afford Life Insurance because they or someone they inherited money from benefited from Medicare?

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 10:20am

Ron Paul would be one who shares my views on many issues like Medicare.

I have repeatedly posted positive recommendations during the 5 years I've posted here.

Just read any topic on green technology and you will find me providing numerous suggestions and links to ways we can innovate change.

I believe my views on taxation and small central govt are positive for Americans. I have this crazy notion (crazy to leftists) that Freedom and Liberty are best realized when you actually have freedom and liberty to make choices.

I believe my views also posted here on eliminating most of our health issues (and subsequent healthcare costs) through a return to healthy living choices are a positive contribution. I guess Obama shares this view in part, because he has been trumpeting the same position in some of his speeches.

I believe that having a self sustaining lifestyle as I posit here is positive for Americans.

I believe my view of taking the national security steps necessary to protect American lives and our nation is a positive approach.

I think it depends on your viewpoint of the role of govt, whether you find my views positive or negative.

Without exception, I am known by my family, friends, and coworkers as the most optimistic person they know. continued

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:22am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 11:08am

Don't forget the War Powers Act.

Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 11:22am
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 11:08am

Perhaps you've missed my posts where I have stated that I support closing more bases where possible. The reason we continue to need bases overseas is actually to the economic benefit of all of us. It is economically to our advantage to have these bases rather than bring everyone home for refueling, for supplies, for medical attention, and a host of other issues.

We need a military presence sufficient to protect and maintain our national security. All I have to do is read, watch, or listen to news every day to understand that this is still a very dangerous world.

As to not responding, perhaps I missed the question.

As I've previously stated, the Founders removed the language banning a standing army and instead incorporated safeguards (the 2nd amendment and the 2 year funding limitation).

Hamilton best summed up the problem with no standing army in Federalist #25

<If, to prevent this kind of intrigue, we should ban peacetime armies, the Constitution would incapacitate the United States to defend themselves – even before an invasion. For it would require us to wait until an enemy is inside our borders before the government could legally begin inducting men to protect the State. We must suffer the blow before we could even prepare to return it. And we must abstain from all the means nations have always used to prevent and ward off danger as conflicting with the principles of our "free government." We must expose our property and liberty to foreign invaders, and allow ourselves, through our weakness, to become naked, defenseless prey. Why? Because we are afraid that rulers we have created, serving with our consent, might endanger our liberty by abusing means necessary to to preserve it.>

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:50am
Maybe he just farted.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 10:41am

Scrambled eggs for breakfast: high sulfur content!

Posted by Mistral at 09/28/2009 @ 11:55am
Yeah, back in reality, for the 5th time, you actually wrote Medicare is unconstitutional and then nothing about any actual, reality based, pragmatic, positive solutions.

Ayn Rand neocons like you are forever claiming to be super optimistic while continuously buy derisive:

"I said to her, make sure the rug says 'optimistic person comes to work.'" -- on his instructions to First Lady Laura Bush in choosing a rug for the Oval Office, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007

By the way, you can no more claim you are not aligned with Rand's views than you can claim you are aligned with her views if you don't know her views. Case in point, same for minarchism or your brand of bible thumping, etc., there are likely authors who've written about these that you have not read whom by inference, heard of that?, that you are aligned with.

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 12:13pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:50am

Anti-intelligence or Anti-sincerity? I'm guessing more of the former. I know... everyone your know thinks you're the smartest guy and most optimistic.... More claims of optimism from your ilk:

PAT ROBERTSON, HOST, "700 CLUB": I don`t know whether it will be in the fall or September or later on, but it will be the second half somehow of 2007. There will be some very serious terrorist attacks. I`m not saying necessarily nuclear. The Lord didn`t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that, that will be mass killing, possibly millions of people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK. Pat Robertson`s been talking to God again and apparently, the news not so good this time.

Here is the point tonight. I find myself in unfamiliar territory. I really do. Here I am, Mr. Apocalypse, ** I might be the most optimistic man in America tonight.** While I think doomsday scenarios are possible, I don`t think they`re inevitable.

However, the one thing that I think we need to take into account is our collective gut. It`s got to be acknowledged. And what it`s telling us is to prepare for possibly the worst, and we`re not prepared.

Here`s how I got there. According to a new report that was released by the Department of Homeland Security, they announced with Secretary Chertoff today that 69 of 75 major cities in America lack the necessary equipment and skills to even communicate with each other during a crisis. ----------

1996: Rev Happy Anti Bradgelina starlet Bob Dole claimed the Republican presidential nomination, describing himself as "the most optimistic man in America."

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 12:22pm
Anti-intelligence or Anti-sincerity? I'm guessing more of the former. I know... everyone your know thinks you're the smartest guy and most optimistic.... More claims of optimism from your ilk:

PAT ROBERTSON, HOST, "700 CLUB": I don`t know whether it will be in the fall or September or later on, but it will be the second half somehow of 2007. There will be some very serious terrorist attacks. I`m not saying necessarily nuclear. The Lord didn`t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that, that will be mass killing, possibly millions of people.

BECK: OK. Pat Robertson`s been talking to God again and apparently, the news not so good this time.

However, the one thing that I think we need to take into account is our collective gut. It`s got to be acknowledged. And what it`s telling us is to prepare for possibly the worst, and we`re not prepared.

Here`s how I got there. According to a new report that was released by the Department of Homeland Security, they announced with Secretary Chertoff today that 69 of 75 major cities in America lack the necessary equipment and skills to even communicate with each other during a crisis. ----------

1996: Rev Happy Anti Bradgelina starlet Bob Dole claimed the Republican presidential nomination, describing himself as "the most optimistic man in America."

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 12:22pm

Do you ever make a point? This one seems to be that you are charging me with either being Pat Robertson, Glenn Beck, or Bob Dole. I am none of those gentleman. Beck I've never listened to, I voted 3rd party rather than vote for Dole, and Pat Robertson needs to retire.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 12:33pm
Interestingly, ludicrous end-timer, Anti-Christ and other Obama as Muslim, racist, socialist toxins neocons spew don't decrease with education.

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 12:36pm
Interestingly, ludicrous end-timer, Anti-Christ and other Obama as Muslim, racist, socialist toxins neocons spew don't decrease with education.

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 12:36pm

Your posts are becoming just about as nutty as some of the more obnoxious anti-semites and their own brand of nonsense.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 12:46pm
Without leftist spin;

Only 41 percent of voters now support President Barack Obama and the Democrats' healthcare reform proposal -- down from 44 percent two weeks ago and the lowest level of support yet measured by Rasmussen Reports.

Rasmussen's nationwide telephone survey also found that 56 percent of voters are now opposed to the plan.

Just 33 percent of senior citizens favor the plan, while 59 percent are opposed.

Other findings of the poll:

46 percent of respondents believe the reform plan will likely pass and become law this year, but 47 percent think it will likely not pass, including 15 percent who say it is not at all likely to pass.

While 23 percent of voters "strongly favor" the legislative effort to reform healthcare, 43 percent are "strongly opposed."

24 percent of respondents say the quality of healthcare will improve if the plan passes, and 55 percent say it will get worse.

54 percent say passage of the plan will increase the cost of healthcare, and 23 percent say it will lower the cost.

The overwhelming majority of voters -- 78 percent -- believe that every American should be able to buy the same health insurance plan that Congress has.

53 percent think tort reform will significantly lower the cost of healthcare.

48 percent of respondents want a prohibition on abortion in any government subsidized program, and 13 percent want a mandate requiring abortion coverage.

"The most important fundamental is that 68 percent of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate as good or excellent," Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal.

"Most of these voters approach the healthcare reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain."

Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:07pm
Maybe he just farted.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/28/2009 @ 10:41am

Well done!!!.....:)

Or he is suffering from N Americans revenge!!! (The runs, since the waters too clean up here!!)

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/28/2009 @ 1:08pm
Posted by BigPasture at 09/28/2009 @ 1:07pm

Hey, RIO....who does Scott Rasmussen say most Americans blame the recession on?

((One of the few that Scott didn't "fudge" for his audience....LOL))

Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 1:24pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:50am

There is a difference between a professional standing army and raising an army in peacetime, as your Hamilton quote discusses.

The question, since you missed it, is on what constitutional basis do you support an unconstitutional standing army? There is a time limit on appropriations to limit raising armies during peace time, and ongoing appropriations are clearly a violation of the intent of the Constitution to limit raising an army to only those times when it was necessary.

If you look at the ratification documentation, you'll see:

1. XII. As standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity, and as, at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power, that, therefore, no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace. Rhode Island.

2. "That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised, or kept up, in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the senators and representatives present in each house." New York

You can also go to speech in these conventions:

"If insurrections should arise, or invasions should take place, the people ought unquestionably to be employed, to suppress and repel them, rather than a standing army." James Madison, Virginia

"A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?" Patrick Henry, Virgina

And the next question is, if you justify the unconstitutional standing army on necessary and proper grounds, then why does this not also apply to Medicare?

Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 1:31pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:50am

What constitutional basis is there for foreign bases?

"It is economically to our advantage to have these bases rather than bring everyone home for refueling, for supplies, for medical attention, and a host of other issues."

How much more economical it would be not to have them there in the first place? Further, not having them there would mean smaller government. Your support of having them there is support for big government. You need to decide which you really support.

"We need a military presence sufficient to protect and maintain our national security. All I have to do is read, watch, or listen to news every day to understand that this is still a very dangerous world."

We only live in a small part of it. Focusing on that part would both reduce the size of our government and make us safer. Best of all possible worlds.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 1:37pm
Rasm is pretty off most of the time across the board and why the 'on the edge of the flat earth' users like it so much.

Even the right wing Real Clear Politics, show the discrepancy as they stack up to the other they use:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 1:51pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 11:50am

What constitutional basis is there for foreign bases?

Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 1:37pm

Manifest destiny and aren't there savage indians over there?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 1:55pm
Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 1:31pm

Again, if you look at the arguments at the Constitutional convention, the compromise they reached was that by 1) having the two year limitation on funding agreemments they did not have a standing army in the strict terms that Europe defined their standing armies, and b) the 2nd amendment served as a buffer to the worries about the executive utilizing a European style standing army to control the country.

Our standing army in place since 1791 is fully constitutional.

Next on the foreign bases. Your premise only works if we have no national security concerns spread throughout the world.

You may try, but there would be few but the most hardcore anti-military types and pacifists who would support your contention that the US has no global security threats. Thus, foreign bases are a cheaper alternative.

I did not raise the Necessary and Proper argument. We have the collective agreement of the Executive and Legislative Branches for 218 years that our standing army meets the Constitutional test.

As to Medicare, it clearly falls into the authorities granted to the states. It has no national bearing constitutionally. There is no legitimate argument that even if necessary, it requires the Federal govt to assume a role the founders envisioned and codified as being the function of the states respectively or the people themselves.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:03pm
"So is medical care "commerce"? Given the decades of precedent, it's silly to suggest it is not. You go to the doctor and pay him for his services – that's the simplest form of commerce. And if it's not commerce then what are we spending $2 trillion each year on?" Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 6:34pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 2:30pm
SRJ,

BTW, here's what SCOTUS said in McCulloch v Maryland about the Necesary and Proper Clause and potential abuse.

<"Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.">

Unfortunately, the many leftist rulings by the FDR New Deal Courts all but rendered these controls moot until and unless we get a SCOTUS that is willing to return the US govt to it's Constitutional limitations.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:33pm
"So is medical care "commerce"? Given the decades of precedent, it's silly to suggest it is not. You go to the doctor and pay him for his services – that's the simplest form of commerce. And if it's not commerce then what are we spending $2 trillion each year on?" Posted by hsuBfools at 09/26/2009 @ 6:34pm

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 2:30pm

Liberals have a different definition of the Commerce Clause.

It was placed there first of all to establish that foreign trade was to be controlled not by each state, but by the Federal govt. It was also to ensure the ability of people, goods, and services to be moved across the various states. It was not for the Federal govt to determine what, how, when, and why.

This is clearly delineated in Federalist 42.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:43pm
"You may try, but there would be few but the most hardcore anti-military types and pacifists who would support your contention that the US has no global security threats."-----Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:03pm

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

---George Washington "hardcore anti-military type and pacifist"

Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 2:53pm
"You may try, but there would be few but the most hardcore anti-military types and pacifists who would support your contention that the US has no global security threats."-----Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:03pm

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have as little political connection as possible... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalships, interest, humor, or caprice?... It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world."

---George Washington "hardcore anti-military type and pacifist"

Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 2:53pm

Unfortunately for George, he was proven wrong by some historical events like the War of 1812, the Barbary Wars, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, and Korea.

Do you also agree with George that the US should be an isolationist country and have little if anything to do with the rest of the world?

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 3:05pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 3:05pm

Did you just say that one of the Founding Fathers...

was wrong??!???!?!??

Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 3:07pm
Did you just say that one of the Founding Fathers...

was wrong??!???!?!??

Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 3:07pm

Sure, just as I've said that no one is perfect except Christ. I believe I've said to you that we have never had a perfect president or one I completely agree with. That would not be a rational expectation.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 3:12pm
Liberals have a different definition of the Commerce Clause.

It was placed there first of all to establish that foreign trade was to be controlled not by each state, but by the Federal govt. It was also to ensure the ability of people, goods, and services to be moved across the various states. It was not for the Federal govt to determine what, how, when, and why.

This is clearly delineated in Federalist 42.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:43pm 

Maybe I'm missing something...but isn't "determining what, how, when and why"...the DEFINITION of regulation?

Posted by Thrawn at 09/28/2009 @ 4:46pm
This is clearly delineated in Federalist 42. Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:43pm

Did you just say that one of the Founding Fathers... was wrong??!???!?!?? Posted by Mask at 09/28/2009 @ 3:07pm Sure, just as I've said that no one is perfect ... Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 3:12pm

So too then the federalist papers are just mere anti-infallible opinion susceptible to error, and as the progeny, we're the only true interpreters endowed with the power of current action!

However, in Federalist 42, there is reference to: "Nothing which tends to facilitate the intercourse between the States can be deemed unworthy of the public care."

Plus I do believe that the SCOTUS pushed back on FDR plenty way back then not to buy your court rolling over of anything fed revision.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 5:01pm
Maybe I'm missing something...but isn't "determining what, how, when and why"...the DEFINITION of regulation?

Posted by Thrawn at 09/28/2009 @ 4:46pm

Which is why there is no constitutional basis for the Fed regulating commerce. That is precisely my point.

The overarching concern of the Founders is clearly stated. They did not want the states to each be negotiating trade policy with other nations.

Commerce between the states was really a given and only is incidental to the primary purpose relating to international trade.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 5:02pm
So too then the federalist papers are just mere anti-infallible opinion susceptible to error, and as the progeny, we're the only true interpreters endowed with the power of current action!

However, in Federalist 42, there is reference to: "Nothing which tends to facilitate the intercourse between the States can be deemed unworthy of the public care."

Plus I do believe that the SCOTUS pushed back on FDR plenty way back then not to buy your court rolling over of anything fed revision.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 5:01pm

Washington neither contributed to the Federalist Papers nor wrote any of the constitution.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 5:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 2:03pm

"Our standing army in place since 1791 is fully constitutional."

The fact that the standing army did not come into being until after the ratification of the Constitution and the discussion about standing armies in the state legislatures during ratification, if anything, suggests that it is not constitutional. Why talk about "raising armies" when it specifically talks of a providing and maintaining a navy?

"You may try, but there would be few but the most hardcore anti-military types and pacifists who would support your contention that the US has no global security threats. Thus, foreign bases are a cheaper alternative."

The question is whether it is Constitutional, not whether it is necessary - unless you are using the Necessary and Proper clause to justify it. Are you? Also, whether it is less expensive or not also only makes sense if you are advancing a Necessary and Proper interpretation. If you aren't using the N&P clause, then you need to point to where, under an originalist interpretation and not relying on common law, the Constitution says a standing army is a power of the federal government.

The simple fact is it's not there. You need to go the necessary and proper route, and if you can go the necessary and proper route for a standing army, then you can go there for Medicare too. The only way out of this problem is to make some kind of argument that a standing army was necessary and proper and related to an explicit power in the Constitution and health care is not. But, then you leave yourself open to some of the other approaches offered up hear around the Commerce clause and so forth and so on.

For me, I just want to make sure your argument is clear. I think the whole Constitution argument is bogus.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 5:11pm
Plus from Fed 42: "A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain."

Apart from the obvious question of: were they really predicting that new con repubs would one day control our gov for 8-12 years!(ha) But more importantly, they were emphasizing the need to regulate states to protect one from the other. In other references state the need for equity via uniformed observance. Isn't that a far cry from the states supremacy over the fed to regulate themselves?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 5:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 5:10pm

Are you saying that the Federalists are infallible?

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 5:27pm
Maybe I'm missing something...but isn't "determining what, how, when and why"...the DEFINITION of regulation? Posted by Thrawn at 09/28/2009 @ 4:46pm

New con repubs have a different definition for 'regulation'.

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 5:29pm
This is constitutional, but is it right:

http://tinyurl.com/yd469yu

http://tinyurl.com/ycqph4b

http://tinyurl.com/yd7vtye

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 5:50pm
I can't believe that anyone who has taken the barest glance around the internet for the past few years would think that "only a tiny minority of Americans hold ludicrous and outrageous views".

Extremism is not only on the rise, it is here and being fostered by the unregulated internet and hate radio.

What is being ignored is the source (these media outlets) that its coming from and being not only produced, but spread and taught.

Posted by Virginia888 at 09/28/2009 @ 6:24pm
Extremism is not only on the rise, it is here and being fostered by the unregulated internet and hate radio.

What is being ignored is the source (these media outlets) that its coming from and being not only produced, but spread and taught.

Posted by Virginia888 at 09/28/2009 @ 6:24pm

I agree...

MSNBC,CNN,ABC,CBS,MOVEON.ORG,AIRAMERICA,PBS....

How ever..you seem to be another regulater addict... freedom, lady, freedom...freedom to turn off the radio or the TV...

wanna regulate something? Try the worthless public schools...they seem to be doing everything EXCEPT educating students in useful tools like the 3 Rs...

You are more dangerous than a room full of Limbaughs....simply because you don't get it...

Posted by YourJomamma at 09/28/2009 @ 6:51pm
Rev, I know you are not interested but that doesn't make the messenger "nutty":

Rachel Maddow: 1/3 of New Jersey Conservatives Think Obama Might Be the Anti-Christ

http://tinyurl.com/y8mr4cm

Moreover, other data I won't bother to waste anymore time to demonstrate indicate that some of this biblic paranoia gets worse, not better with education.

Posted by winyahn at 09/28/2009 @ 7:06pm
Posted by Virginia888 at 09/28/2009 @ 6:24pm

"What is being ignored is the source (these media outlets) that its coming from and being not only produced, but spread and taught."

It sounds like you are advocating censorship. That's a bad idea. Nothing spreads a bad idea better than an attempt to censor it. One example of this fact is called the Streisand effect.

The best way to counter bad ideas is to put them in the open where people can discuss them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Another point, extremism isn't necessarily bad. Monasticism is a form of extremism, but it's not hurting anyone. In fact, some good beer is a byproduct of monastic traditions. You could say the same of many other groups - running the gambit from alpine skiing to zombie fans.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 7:08pm
wanna regulate something? Try the worthless public schools...they seem to be doing everything EXCEPT educating students in useful tools like the 3 Rs... Posted by YourJomamma at 09/28/2009 @ 6:51pm

So you're saying you do want the feds to take over public schools?

But consider using the same logic, what if we were to close all those worthless hospitals because people are still getting sick and dying...

And then again on the other hand isn't fair competition dictating that some coming out of public schools would have to be losers; with a few winners? Oh sorry...

Still making our schools better via fully funding them and increasing teacher pay, would be most helpful.

http://tinyurl.com/y8wbr4d

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 7:54pm
For me, I just want to make sure your argument is clear. I think the whole Constitution argument is bogus.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/28/2009 @ 5:11pm

Again, you are making an argument that is specious. The constitution does provide for a standing army and the Founders stated that at the Convention. The arguments are throughly documented and I'm happy to provide them.

Madison, Federalist 41

<A standing force therefore is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary provision.>

Madison adds (as I stated earlier) the safeguard on the standing army is the pursestring. Not prohibiting them, but financial limitations.

<Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies, is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support.>

Joseph Story commenting on the debate over standing armies

<In respect to times of peace, it was suggested, that there is no necessity for having a standing army, which had always been held, under such circumstances, to be fatal to the public rights and political freedom.

§ 1178. To these suggestions it was replied with equal force and truth, that to be of any value, the power must be unlimited. It is impossible to foresee, or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, and the correspondent extent and variety of the national means necessary to satisfy them.

http://tinyurl.com/y9ab9h7

more to follow.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 8:05pm
More to SRJ on the Founders agreement to allow standing armies in the constitution

Here is James Wilson on that subject

<This constitution, it has been further urged, is of a pernicious tendency, because it tolerates a standing army in the time of peace. This has always been a popular topic of declamation: and yet I do not know a nation in the world, which has not found it necessary and useful to maintain the appearance of strength in a season of the most profound tranquility. Nor is it a novelty with us; for under the present articles of confederation, congress certainly possesses this reprobated power: and the exercise of it is proved at this moment by the cantonments along the banks of the Ohio. But what would be our national situation, were it otherwise? Every principle of policy must be subverted, and the government must declare war before they are prepared to carry it on. Whatever may be the provocation, however important the object in view, and however necessary dispatch and secrecy may be, still the declaration must precede the preparation, and the enemy will be informed of your intention, not only before you are equipped for an attack, but even before you are fortified for a defence. The consequence is too obvious to require any further delineation; and no man, who regards the dignity and safety of his country, can deny the necessity of a military force, under the controul, and with the restrictions which the new constitution provides.>

http://tinyurl.com/yclho5g

This was the same argument made by Hamilton. You cannot wait until war is thrust upon you to defend the country. It simply is not only impractical, it is suicidal.

more to follow

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 8:07pm
More on the Constitutional arguments that granted the US the power for a standing army

In Federalist 26 Hamilton deals with the apprehension of some against a standing army, and states that their fears are unrealistic.

http://tinyurl.com/ydurk5w

Here is the record during the convention when a motion was considered to formally ban standing armies. It was rejected.

http://tinyurl.com/y865lvo

James Iredell (an original member of US Supreme Court) addressing the objection of James Mason to the constitution allowing standing armies

<What sort of a government would that be which, upon the most certain intelligence that hostilities were meditated against it, could take no method for its defence till after a formal declaration of war, or the enemy's standard was actually fixed upon the shore?

The absurdity of our being prohibited from preparing to resist an invasion till after it had actually taken place is so glaring, that no man can consider it for a moment without being struck with astonishment to see how rashly, and with how little consideration gentlemen, whose characters are certainly respectable, have suffered themselves to be led away by so delusive an idea

A powerful militia may make fewer regulars necessary, but will not make it safe to dispense with them altogether.>

http://tinyurl.com/yb9v5mh

As I've repeatedly stated, this notion that the constitution banned standing armies does not hold up to the historical record. One draft contained that provision but was changed to the current wording based primarily on the very sound arguments put forth (thankfully) by the Founders who understood that you cannot raise the militia sufficiently against all wars and invasions.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 8:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 5:02pm 

Ehh, wrong again. Here's the Clause:

<<[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes>>

It is explicitly stated that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states. Regulation means all the things you described (i.e. how, where, when, etc). Whether or not this was the primary purpose of the Clause, seeking to will it out of existence is hardly a legitimate means of constitutional interpretation.

Posted by Thrawn at 09/28/2009 @ 8:34pm
Ehh, wrong again. Here's the Clause:

<<[The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes>>

It is explicitly stated that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states. Regulation means all the things you described (i.e. how, where, when, etc). Whether or not this was the primary purpose of the Clause, seeking to will it out of existence is hardly a legitimate means of constitutional interpretation.

Posted by Thrawn at 09/28/2009 @ 8:34pm

of course it does because their statements indicated a meaning that has no relationship to the one you have attempted to ascribe to it. Frankly, on this issue, you are as much to the radical left as any of the leftist bloggers.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 8:37pm
Whether or not this was the primary purpose of the Clause, seeking to will it out of existence is hardly a legitimate means of constitutional interpretation.

Posted by Thrawn at 09/28/2009 @ 8:34pm

I would think that a person with reasonable intelligence would at the very least investigate what writers had to say about documents they have initiated.

Madison letter to Joseph Cabell

<That the encouragement of Manufactures, was an object of the power, to regulate trade, is proved by the use made of the power for that object, in the first session of the first Congress under the Constitution; when among the members present were so many who had been members of the federal Convention which framed the Constitution, and of the State Conventions which ratified it...

To say nothing of the clear indications in the Journal of the Convention of 1787, that the clause was intended merely to provide for expences incurred by particular States in their inspection laws, and in such improvements as they might chuse to make in their Harbours & rivers with the sanction of Congs., objects to which the reserved power has been applied in several instances, at the request of Virginia & of Georgia, how could it ever be imagined that any State would wish to tax its own trade for the encouragement of manufactures, if possessed of the authority, or could in fact do so, if wishing it?>

http://tinyurl.com/ycduj8d

more to follow

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 8:58pm
Joseph Story comments on Constitutional Convention-Commerce Clause

<Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other?

It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.

Now it is well known, that in commercial and manufacturing nations, the power to regulate commerce has embraced practically the encouragement of manufactures. It is believed, that not a single exception can be named. So, in an especial manner, the power has always been understood in Great-Britain, from which we derive our parentage, our laws, our language, and our notions upon commercial subjects.>

continued

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 9:00pm
Joseph Story on Commerce Clause in Constitution continued

<In fact the concession, that the power to regulate commerce may embrace other objects, than revenue, or even than commerce itself, is irreconcilable with the foundation of the argument on the other side.

§ 1084. Besides; the power is to regulate commerce. And in what manner regulate it? Why does the power involve the right to lay duties? Simply, because it is a common means of executing the power. If so, why does not the same right exist as to all other means equally common and appropriate? Why does the power involve a right, not only to lay duties, but to lay duties for revenue, and not merely for the regulation and restriction of commerce, considered per se? No other answer can be given, but that revenue is an incident to such an exercise of the power.>

http://tinyurl.com/yb42bmd

Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 9:01pm
And so our constitution, like our nation, has 'evolved' into now forming a more perfect complex social discourse involving justice, our common welfare and to insure our domestic tranquility:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 19-23, 2009. N=1,042 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?"

Date_______Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

9/19-23/09____47_______45_______8

8/27-31/09____40_______47______ 13

"Regardless of how you usually vote, who do you think has better ideas about reforming the health care system: Barack Obama, or the Republicans in Congress?"

Date____Barack Obama__Republicans in Congress

9/19-23/09____52_________27

8/27-31/09____50_________23

"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

Date_________Favor__Oppose__Unsure

9/19-23/09_____65_____26_____9

8/27-31/09_____60_____34_____6

_+_+_+_+_+_+

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Sept. 17-20, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).

"Do you generally approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing in handling the issue of health care reform?"

Date_________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

9/17-20/09______45_______46_______9

8/15-17/09______ 41_______ 47______ 12

"Do you generally approve or disapprove of the way that Republicans in Congress are handling the issue of health care reform?"

Date________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

9/17-20/09_____21_______65_______14

8/15-17/09_____ 21_______62_______17

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/28/2009 @ 11:44pm
CBS, NYT's, NBC? You've got to be kidding.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/29/2009 @ 12:22am
But the WSJ is ok? Talk about new con repub transparency.

And since you asked... Although the PEW poll is still w/in the margin of error, approval is gaining mo.

Pew Research Center Poll. Sept. 10-15, 2009. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.

"As of right now, do you generally favor or generally oppose the health care proposals being discussed in Congress?"

Date________ Favor__Oppose___Unsure

9/10-15/09____ 42_____44______14

8/20-27/09____39_____46______15

Posted by hsuBfools at 09/29/2009 @ 01:43am
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 8:05pm

The argument isn't specious. The argument is relatively simple.

1. There are two varieties of originalist interpretation: Original meaning (textualism) and original intent.

2. In the text of the Constitution, there is no basis for a standing army - the constitution says raise and maintain an army and it provides for a short period for appropriations.

3. If you look at the discussion during the ratification of the Constitution, then there are various arguments for or against standing armies but the bulk of the discussion is around the question of whether armies can be raised during peacetime - which makes clear that a permanent standing army was not intended.

****

C1. A standing army is unconstitutional on textualist grounds.

C2. The bulk of the evidence suggests that a permanent standing army (as opposed to one raised during peacetime for the purpose of preparing for an invasion) was not intended by the bulk of the Founding Fathers or the state legislatures that ratified the Constitution.

C3. Originalism is a bad interpretive model for the Constitution; it allows people to quote whatever random source that supports what they'd like the Constitution to mean.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 07:36am
The war is constitutional, medicare isn't.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/26/2009 @ 09:16am

Neither is the income tax, the Energy Dept, Dept of Education etc.

The "wisdom" of the public....BUWAHAHAHAH

cough...puke...

Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 08:11am
Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 08:11am

Ask Larry if he thinks the Department of Veteran's Affairs is Constitutional.

If he says "Yes", he'll contradict himself.

If he says "No", he'll have to explain why he loved Reagan so much....who created it.

Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 08:14am
Ask Larry if he thinks the Department of Veteran's Affairs is Constitutional.

If he says "Yes", he'll contradict himself.

If he says "No", he'll have to explain why he loved Reagan so much....who created it.

Posted by Mask at 09/29/2009 @ 08:14am

I think it should have been kept in the dept of Defense.

Again mask, you have such a bizarre since of logic. I've repeatedly stated that no president, not Reagan, not Lincoln was perfect. I know that I will never 100% agree with the decisions of any president, nor will you.

Your line of attack is why I put you on ignore for a while. You insert this type of inane questioning into any serious discussion.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 09:07am
Actually Larry, you are well known for "If it suits me I can find a way to justify it;

a: in my religion

b: in my politics."

that makes you like many people, but you throw in rank hypocrisy and....

For example, you were FOR the warrant less wiretapping of US citizens even thought that is plainly spelled out as verboten in Number 4, and clearly against "original intent."

All is fair in war, and fear based rules.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 10:39am
Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 08:11am

Well, to be fair to Larry, income tax is right there in the 16th amendment - that's about as Constitutional as it gets.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 10:43am
As it was not kept in DoD, how does that effect its constitutionality? I can find no mention of veterans in the Owners Manual. Am I missing something in plain sight?

How do you get paid for your services? Fiat money or precious metals?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 10:48am
Well, to be fair to Larry, income tax is right there in the 16th amendment - that's about as Constitutional as it gets.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 10:43am

Yes, but he has declared it to be unconstitutional and tyrannical.

As usual, it puts him in a difficult quandary as he picks and chooses which line of scripture to follow. Shall we stone/burn the witches or allow them to find their way to christ?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 10:55am
Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 10:55am

Agreed. It's hard to call something unconstitutional when it is the specific topic of a constitutional amendment.

Posted by srjenkins at 09/29/2009 @ 11:11am
Look, blame the media. They cover these nuts every day in the press, pissing off the rest of us and then the circle begins. At one time, nuts were not in the news! At one time, if something crazy was reported, then the fact, you remember, FACTS were then printed in the same story. We now have Congressmen laying in slime with the rest of the idiots and they continue to spread lies if it pays off for them. Next, lack of education on how the government works. Once, you were taught in school HOW to think for yourself. You are now taught in school how to RESEARCH but no one does it. People have become lazy and look for more garbage on emails, tv etc to back their idiotic thinking. LAZY. Hatred is running rampant and all manners have disappeared. I blame too many factors to name. Our government lied to us so everyone has become paranoid and believe no one except those that are outrageous so it must be true. I have never seen a time where there is so much hatred. Hatred for color, religion, sexual orientation, politicians, poor people, people without jobs and are loosing their homes. I see blame everywhere except for blaming ourselves. We need to point that finger at ourselves. It must stop and will if everyone takes personal responsibility for what comes out of their mouth.

Posted by greenriverkate at 09/29/2009 @ 1:10pm
For example, you were FOR the warrant less wiretapping of US citizens even thought that is plainly spelled out as verboten in Number 4, and clearly against "original intent."

All is fair in war, and fear based rules.

Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 10:39am

Wrong. The language of the 4th amendment barrs UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.

Warrantless wiretaps for potential criminal prosecution remain illegal except for 1)cell phones which SCOTUS ruled are not private.

Wiretaps for national security which may not be used for criminal prosecution and are legal and reasonable.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 2:33pm
Yes, but he has declared it to be unconstitutional and tyrannical.

As usual, it puts him in a difficult quandary as he picks and chooses which line of scripture to follow. Shall we stone/burn the witches or allow them to find their way to christ?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 10:55am | ignore this person | warn this person

You are misstating my position. I have stated that the income tax was ruled unconstitutional but was legitimized by the 16th amendment.

I have called for a repeal of the 16th amendment because of it's destructive nature.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 2:36pm
As it was not kept in DoD, how does that effect its constitutionality? I can find no mention of veterans in the Owners Manual. Am I missing something in plain sight?

How do you get paid for your services? Fiat money or precious metals?

Posted by crabwalk at 09/29/2009 @ 10:48am

I'm all for eliminating the Dept of VA affairs and putting it back into the DOD.

I also want to eliminate the depts of Education, Agriculture, and HHS to begin with.

Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 2:38pm
Yah sure - but try defining "irrational" in a way that doesn't mean - "whatever you decide is irrational". We know the govt. lied about 9/11, we know Whitman lied to New Yorkers, we know the Pentagon brass lied to the 9/11 commission. But *you* get to decide apriori what the boundaries are on possible rogue element govt. misdeeds, even in the light of known history like Reich-stag fire and Operation Northwoods. And you know this because why? Because of your *gut* feeling and nothing else. So just be honest and clear on what *irrational* means to you - it means precisely whatever you wish it to mean, no more and no less.

Posted by bigjoe at 09/29/2009 @ 4:57pm
Why not have a look at John Farmer's (Senior Counsel to 9/11 Commission) book "The Ground Truth" before deciding from your gut what is and is not rational about 9/11. About all a rational person can be certain of is that the official story is a lie.

Posted by bigjoe at 09/29/2009 @ 5:16pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/28/2009 @ 8:37pm 

The first thing that's crucial is that only public and generalized intent can reasonably matter here. That is, you can't say that because individual voting members really wanted X to be the result of a clause, that that's what the clause means. The standard I think most appropriate for originalism is how the words and terms used would have been understood at the time.

1) "Among"'s meaning is pretty straightforward. I think "commerce among the states" is easily and uncontroversially translatable into "interstate commerce."

2) The only real issue, it seems to me, is the meaning of "commerce," and that seems like the only way in which the sources you provide are actually relevant. Unfortunately, they don't seem to do much; they delineate between "commerce" and "manufacturing," for instance, without defining either one. A limited definition of commerce seems like the only clear limitation on the Commerce Clause that you've come close to articulating.

Posted by Thrawn at 09/29/2009 @ 8:11pm
It's true: everything changed on 9/11. Everything!

Steel that Underwriters Laboratory had guaranteed to withstand temperatures of 2000º F for several hours instead melted instantly at 1300º, the combustion point for jet fuel. (Jet fuel is glorified kerosene…)

And the Jumbo Jet that plowed into the Pentagon didn't even mess up the lawn.

And the Air Force violated their long-standing protocol and didn't shoot the huge jets on the NORAD screens down after they veered from their courses…

Tell me, in light of subsequent events, that Smilin' Dick Cheney was too kind and compassionate and upright to sacrifice 6000 lives in the Twin Towers, after seeing the thousands of US lives and the scores of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi and Pakistani lives he's sacrificed in his imperial wars…

Posted by Ted Voth Jr at 09/29/2009 @ 8:21pm

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)
Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)
D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)
Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)
Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)
Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)
Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)
Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)
Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)
Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)
Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

The Wisdom of the Public

posted by Eyal Press on 09/25/2009 @ 6:00pm

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

The Wisdom of the Public

posted by Eyal Press on 09/25/2009 @ 6:00pm

Share this article

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!