Complaints About the Republican Party IV

[mikekerrIII]

What the hell are you talking about? No part of progressivism sees the Constitution as obsolete. Nor Supreme Court rulings. Occasional disagreements with that (while still accepting it as "no choice") doesn't mean it should be pitched.

Read this thread and especially the second amendment thread may progressive here consider the Buill of rights and the Constitution obsolete and too old to be revelvent.

[mikekerrIII]

You have to understand, there are two types of Supreme Court decisions which overturn prior case law or change the interpretation of Constitutional provisions.

The ones he personally approves of, which are sensible and necessary accommodations to keep the Constitution and US law workable.

Then there are the ones he personlaly disagrees with, which are monstrous perversions of the Constitution which rob Americans of their freedoms and will inevitably drag America down until it's just another hellish totalitarian state like Canada or the UK.

You get more pathetic every time you try this

The most recewnt Sc decison that I think posed a threat to the Constitution was Dred Scott, the rest is just dishonesty from you

You on the other hand have proposed gutting at leas the first and the second amendments, and have advocated for government control of political speech.

[Jeff Brady]

You on the other hand have proposed gutting at leas the first and the second amendments, and have advocated for government control of political speech.

Yes, god forbid politicians and news programs are forbidden from lying and fear-mongering to the populace to get votes.

[mikekerrIII]

Yes, god forbid politicians and news programs are forbidden from lying and fear-mongering to the populace to get votes.

He was talking about the rights of the public to state what they believe politically, Try again

And stopping politicians from saying what they chose to say is definably against the intent of the 1st.

[Jeff Brady]

He was talking about the rights of the public to state what they believe politically, Try again

And stopping politicians from saying what they chose to say is definably against the intent of the 1st.

And yet I don't have a problem with politicians, etc having to tell the truth.

[Paradox]

mikekerrIII correlates, but does not show causation:

Read this thread and especially the second amendment thread may progressive here consider the Buill of rights and the Constitution obsolete and too old to be revelvent.

And that's their personal opinion, not part of any progressive movement I've ever heard of.

[7thangel]

plus, most of those he is referring to aren't even part of the broad american progressive movement because they're foreigners

[Jeff Brady]

plus, most of those he is referring to aren't even part of the broad american progressive movement because they're foreigners

Yeah, people in those countries with those laws successfully enacted and yet their societies have not crumbled into the sea.

By the way, the idea of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Newt Ginrich, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner having to be honest makes my bowels quake with terror because it will surely destroy this nation, the Greatest Nation on Earth (TM).

I mean, what the fuck kind of paranoid delusional wuss thinks that such a law would be a threat to freedom? That we could not withstand what would obviously be a Slippery Slope (logical fallacy) to Fascism is ridiculous.

[Nick Soapdish]

It is funny to see someone so progressive arguing that a supreme court ruling means something. I that seams to shout "situational ethics" or hypocrisy. I agree with court that it was Constitutional but seeing folks who find the Constitution obsolete using that Constitution as justification hilarious

Do you feel the same about the Heller decision?

And how do you feel about Kelo vs. New London? I think that most Americans (except Sarah Palin) can think of a Supreme Court decision that they think completely dropped the ball. And they may even press for a constitutional amendment that would fix it, but that's not the same as saying that they would simply go directly against that decision.

Read this thread and especially the second amendment thread may progressive here consider the Buill of rights and the Constitution obsolete and too old to be revelvent.

Well, yes. If by "many", you mean a few and mostly non-Americans. Which isn't to say that they can't have a voice in the debate, but you've been confusing their positions for that of the Democrats in the past and I just wanted to take pre-emptive action.

[Winslow]

And how do you feel about Kelo vs. New London? I think that most Americans (except Sarah Palin) can think of a Supreme Court decision that they think completely dropped the ball. And they may even press for a constitutional amendment that would fix it, but that's not the same as saying that they would simply go directly against that decision.

That one and Citizens United suck eggs so badly I would support constitutional amendments over turning both. Fat chance that will happen with a dysfunctional congress.

[Gryphon]

Im hearing accusations that congress is trying to create a financial crisis to divert attention away from gun control discussions. That is a massive stretch.

[Winslow]

Let's get back to complaining about Republicans ...

Republicans Now 100 Percent AWOL From Fiscal Cliff Talks

John Boehner gave up on fiscal cliff negotiations after he was unable to get House Republicans to agree to any proposal at all, even one that he himself had crafted. The fate of the Republic, he said, was now in the Senate's hands. So how is Mitch McConnell handling things?

An aide said Wednesday that McConnell had not been in contact with any top Democrats, including Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the majority leader, during the holiday break....Always cautious, McConnell has kept a decidedly low profile during the last few weeks of political theater in the Capitol....Behind the scenes, he [] helped devise Boehner's Plan B maneuver, which failed to gain enough Republican votes to be brought up in the House. In the aftermath of that defeat, however, McConnell may be unwilling to take on the job of deal-maker. The reasons reflect the pressures that have buffeted his fellow Republicans.

"I cannot emphasize how little a constructive role he will play in this," Democratic strategist Jim Manley, a former top Reid aide, said of McConnell. "He's going to be very reluctant to get involved, and to the extent he does get involved, he's going to move very slowly."

[Iangould]

Im hearing accusations that congress is trying to create a financial crisis to divert attention away from gun control discussions. That is a massive stretch.

That's right.

They're trying to create a financial crisis so that come February or March they can vote for Obama's proposed tax rates and claim that they represent a tax cut from the new rates that kicked in January 1.

[Nick Soapdish]

That one and Citizens United suck eggs so badly I would support constitutional amendments over turning both. Fat chance that will happen with a dysfunctional congress.

I agree on both, but left out the other since it's one that progressives always complain about. Kelo might be the only non-unanimous Supreme Court decision that I'm siding with either Scalia or Thomas.

Im hearing accusations that congress is trying to create a financial crisis to divert attention away from gun control discussions. That is a massive stretch.

This is the first time that I've heard that claim, but it doesn't surprise me that somebody's making it. And yes, it's completely out of touch. It's not Congress was creating the fiscal crisis back in 2011 during the debt ceiling talks in order to avoid gun talks. That was just because it was fun to watch the stock market crash, our credit rating drop, interest rates go up and unemployment rise. In short, because Republicans hate America enough to even try screwing over rich people.

Let's get back to complaining about Republicans ...

Republicans Now 100 Percent AWOL From Fiscal Cliff Talks

So the Republicans can't even make a bad counter-offer (Plan B, use only when you've screwed the economy over) and are punting on talking with Democrats in the Senate for their next counter-offer to the House Republicans throwing their hands up and saying that they can't do anything.

I don't think that's how negotiations are supposed to work. Is this a shoot-the-hostage situation?

Then again, I think that the media have really over-blown the effects of the fiscal cliff. The biggest problems are that it signals to the markets that our government is completely dysfunctional and makes it difficult for most government agencies (including the military) to plan for the rest of the year and following years. But if taxes go up and they make a deal, they go right back down with your next paycheck.

[Iangould]

You get more pathetic every time you try this

You know, this forum has an ignore function.