SOCIALIST Sen. Bernie Saunders wants a Dem. CHALLENGER to Pres. Obama

[blu]

more proof that obama is a centrist at best

 

[Woyzeck]

Wrong nutshell, wrong conclusion. Since Conservatives today are staining to get the government to live within the BOUNDS set by the Constitution, they are showing more fidelity to the "liberal" precepts of the Founders and Framers than today's "liberals" are even trying to show.

There is nothing wrong with caring about THAT "tradition."

And it may be change, but is far from "progress" to seek to deviate from those Constitutional bounds and limits.

Fidelity to the Constitution? The Constitution is a very liberal document.

And it's been the same argument for quite some time. Conservatives didn't want to pay for warships to battle pirates shortly after the revolution either.

Sometimes..you just got to pony up.

The Constitution is a very CONSERVATIVE document. This is why guys like the President want to constantly "reinterpret" it to get around the restrictions it puts on the tendency of liberals to make the Government the nanny of all.

And whether somebody doesn't want to pay for war supplies and costs is not relevant to the topic.

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I really do pity people who depend on the government for everything.

I only have scorn for them, the professional pols who make a career of campaigning and never governing, and particularly those who distrust government and have been an integral part of the government they don't trust.

Of course I don't pity or scorn 'lifers', those who make a career our of the armed forces. Or agents in the FBI, ATF, US Marshall service and other LE agencies; or career diplomats in the State Department, meat and poultry inspectors or forest service personnel, firefighters, Coast Guard and secret service personal. Those who actually service a function and do so with dignity and diligence.

Of course I find insurance sales personel annoying, bankers creepy and account executives boring as well as preditory, lawyers too and they can be arrogant and rather disgusting.

I save my pity for those who put fatih in demagogues and charlitans and snake oil salesmen; those who profit from the faithful's ignorance are to be scorned, IMHO.

 

[Liability]

Fidelity to the Constitution? The Constitution is a very liberal document.

And it's been the same argument for quite some time. Conservatives didn't want to pay for warships to battle pirates shortly after the revolution either.

Sometimes..you just got to pony up.

The Constitution is a very CONSERVATIVE document. This is why guys like the President want to constantly "reinterpret" it to get around the restrictions it puts on the tendency of liberals to make the Government the nanny of all.

And whether somebody doesn't want to pay for war supplies and costs is not relevant to the topic.

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

Irrelevant, even if true.

TODAY'S conservatives cherish the LIMITED Government crafted by the Founders and Framers.

Today's liberals don't.

 

[Woyzeck]

The Constitution is a very CONSERVATIVE document. This is why guys like the President want to constantly "reinterpret" it to get around the restrictions it puts on the tendency of liberals to make the Government the nanny of all.

And whether somebody doesn't want to pay for war supplies and costs is not relevant to the topic.

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

Irrelevant, even if true.

TODAY'S conservatives cherish the LIMITED Government crafted by the Founders and Framers.

Today's liberals don't.

That's not the case if you look on who you've been electing for decades.

 

[Liability]

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

Irrelevant, even if true.

TODAY'S conservatives cherish the LIMITED Government crafted by the Founders and Framers.

Today's liberals don't.

That's not the case if you look on who you've been electing for decades.

It is the case. Period.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

El Presidente before he got elected, back in 2001.

"There ain't nothing wrong with the Constitution that ignoring it and changing it wouldn't fix." -- Typical liberal thinking.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hillary Clinton would definitely destroy the Hopey Changey One if she decided to run against him next time. He's just lucky she accepted that Secretary of State pay-off. That deal will prevent her from running in 2012. So i think he'll be safe. I can't see any other Democrats out there who could seriously challenge him in 2012. Hopefully he'll get ousted in the General Election though. Time for real change.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Fidelity to the Constitution? The Constitution is a very liberal document.

And it's been the same argument for quite some time. Conservatives didn't want to pay for warships to battle pirates shortly after the revolution either.

Sometimes..you just got to pony up.

The Constitution is a very CONSERVATIVE document. This is why guys like the President want to constantly "reinterpret" it to get around the restrictions it puts on the tendency of liberals to make the Government the nanny of all.

And whether somebody doesn't want to pay for war supplies and costs is not relevant to the topic.

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

Our Constitution was born on the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a document written as a result of the Declaration of Independence. Suggesting any of these documents were conservative belies history.

How would LIEability characterize the central political theory of James I of England? Uber-conservative? Characterizing our Constitution in 21st C. terms as conservative is silly, though it clearly gave more authority to the central government (vis a vis the AofC) it provided for the first time in human history a document with checks and balances, checking the authority of nobles and and elites (money changers) successfully until 1981.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

more proof that obama is a centrist at best

Clearly. Like Jake Starkey and Rightwinger are Centrist Republicans.

There must be someone who you can run that fully endorses your values, can you mention a name or two?

 

[Liability]

The Constitution is a very CONSERVATIVE document. This is why guys like the President want to constantly "reinterpret" it to get around the restrictions it puts on the tendency of liberals to make the Government the nanny of all.

And whether somebody doesn't want to pay for war supplies and costs is not relevant to the topic.

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

Our Constitution was born on the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a document written as a result of the Declaration of Independence. Suggesting any of these documents were conservative belies history.

How would LIEability characterize the central political theory of James I of England? Uber-conservative? Characterizing our Constitution in 21st C. terms as conservative is silly, though it clearly gave more authority to the central government (vis a vis the AofC) it provided for the first time in human history a document with checks and balances, checking the authority of nobles and and elites (money changers) successfully until 1981.

Since Fly Catcher still can't address the point, as he always does, he deflects.

Despite Fly Catcher's endless cowardice, the FACTS remain. Pretty stark, too.

The CONSTITUTION crafts a limited government of enumerated powers.

Conservatives value that; liberals don't.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

Our Constitution was born on the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a document written as a result of the Declaration of Independence. Suggesting any of these documents were conservative belies history.

How would LIEability characterize the central political theory of James I of England? Uber-conservative? Characterizing our Constitution in 21st C. terms as conservative is silly, though it clearly gave more authority to the central government (vis a vis the AofC) it provided for the first time in human history a document with checks and balances, checking the authority of nobles and and elites (money changers) successfully until 1981.

Since Fly Catcher still can't address the point, as he always does, he deflects.

Despite Fly Catcher's endless cowardice, the FACTS remain. Pretty stark, too.

The CONSTITUTION crafts a limited government of enumerated powers.

Conservatives value that; liberals don't.

Well said. Banning Light Bulbs?? Our Government is bloated and completely out of control at this point. Everyday it's a new over-reach from them. Time to scale back. The People have spoken.

 

[Vanquish]

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

Our Constitution was born on the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a document written as a result of the Declaration of Independence. Suggesting any of these documents were conservative belies history.

How would LIEability characterize the central political theory of James I of England? Uber-conservative? Characterizing our Constitution in 21st C. terms as conservative is silly, though it clearly gave more authority to the central government (vis a vis the AofC) it provided for the first time in human history a document with checks and balances, checking the authority of nobles and and elites (money changers) successfully until 1981.

Since Fly Catcher still can't address the point, as he always does, he deflects.

Despite Fly Catcher's endless cowardice, the FACTS remain. Pretty stark, too.

The CONSTITUTION crafts a limited government of enumerated powers.

Conservatives value that; liberals don't.

Bullshit. That's an assertion you can't prove, nor is it true.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The conservatives at the time of the writing of the Constitution were monarchists, y'know.

Our Constitution was born on the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a document written as a result of the Declaration of Independence. Suggesting any of these documents were conservative belies history.

How would LIEability characterize the central political theory of James I of England? Uber-conservative? Characterizing our Constitution in 21st C. terms as conservative is silly, though it clearly gave more authority to the central government (vis a vis the AofC) it provided for the first time in human history a document with checks and balances, checking the authority of nobles and and elites (money changers) successfully until 1981.

Since Fly Catcher still can't address the point, as he always does, he deflects.

Despite Fly Catcher's endless cowardice, the FACTS remain. Pretty stark, too.

The CONSTITUTION crafts a limited government of enumerated powers.

Conservatives value that; liberals don't.

The Constitution crafted a Republic, a radical idea in the age of kings. It is 'conservative' only in its limitation on the power of government by defusing it between three seperate but equal branches, the several states and the people. The founders feared the mob, hence Senators were initially elected by state legislators; and the smaller states feared the larger, hence our president was not elected by popular vote. So in all of those ways it is conservative, but not in the meaning attributed by LIEablity.

Conservative as in cautious, making change an onerous task the founders hope to prevent, "under the influence of temporary excitment or misguided opinions they may be mislead for a time by the suggestions of self-interest" as has the tea party movement in this time. Such is the primary force of the radical Republicans today.

{quote above taken from debate in Congress in 1830 attributed to Livingston in American Lion by Jon Meacham).

 

[Liability]

Our Constitution was born on the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a document written as a result of the Declaration of Independence. Suggesting any of these documents were conservative belies history.

How would LIEability characterize the central political theory of James I of England? Uber-conservative? Characterizing our Constitution in 21st C. terms as conservative is silly, though it clearly gave more authority to the central government (vis a vis the AofC) it provided for the first time in human history a document with checks and balances, checking the authority of nobles and and elites (money changers) successfully until 1981.

Since Fly Catcher still can't address the point, as he always does, he deflects.

Despite Fly Catcher's endless cowardice, the FACTS remain. Pretty stark, too.

The CONSTITUTION crafts a limited government of enumerated powers.

Conservatives value that; liberals don't.

The Constitution crafted a Republic, a radical idea in the age of kings. It is 'conservative' only in its limitation on the power of government by defusing it between three seperate but equal branches, the several states and the people. The founders feared the mob, hence Senators were initially elected by state legislators; and the smaller states feared the larger, hence our president was not elected by popular vote. So in all of those ways it is conservative, but not in the meaning attributed by LIEablity.

Conservative as in cautious, making change an onerous task the founders hope to prevent, "under the influence of temporary excitment or misguided opinions they may be mislead for a time by the suggestions of self-interest" as has the tea party movement in this time. Such is the primary force of the radical Republicans today.

{quote above taken from debate in Congress in 1830 attributed to Livingston in American Lion by Jon Meacham).

A history lesson from a liberal drone who doesn't value the Constitution he's pontificating on is of no interest, Fly Catcher.

Again, you simple minded hack:

It remains you liberals who deface the most basic precept of our Constitutional Republic.

You idiots place amazing (albeit unjustifiable) faith in Government. Accordingly, it is you liberal statist tools who try to bend the Constitution to YOUR will instead of bending your actions to the mandates and restrictions imposed on government.

Like a whole legion of your fellow libs, you aren't even honest enough to admit what you do and what you seek.

You come up with fanciful bullshit "readings" of the Constitution to justify your power grabs. Thus you make the Constitution a rubber band like thing: it takes a distorted and dishonest liberal mind to cobble an "elastic clause" on to a document DESIGNED to limit government power and authority. It takes similarly deceptive and distorted "interpretations" of the Commerce Clause to "justify" doing what is plainly not an enumerated power.

Conservatives embrace the fact that the Constitution LIMITS the power and scope of government. You libs chafe at those very restrictions. Or to use this dumb-ass President's words, you still "Suffer" from it.

 

[Liability]

Our Constitution was born on the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a document written as a result of the Declaration of Independence. Suggesting any of these documents were conservative belies history.

How would LIEability characterize the central political theory of James I of England? Uber-conservative? Characterizing our Constitution in 21st C. terms as conservative is silly, though it clearly gave more authority to the central government (vis a vis the AofC) it provided for the first time in human history a document with checks and balances, checking the authority of nobles and and elites (money changers) successfully until 1981.

Since Fly Catcher still can't address the point, as he always does, he deflects.

Despite Fly Catcher's endless cowardice, the FACTS remain. Pretty stark, too.

The CONSTITUTION crafts a limited government of enumerated powers.

Conservatives value that; liberals don't.

Bullshit. That's an assertion you can't prove, nor is it true.

It is true and it has already been proved time and time and time again.

As you know.

 

[Antiderivative]

Look who opened his mouth and diarrhea spewed forth. Obama is not a "ultra liberal". He has continued many of the same policies as his predecessor. Only a fucking idiot would believe that we have experienced significant change from the Bush years. However, since the OP is an idiot, it is not surprising.

I love how the most "ultra liberal" is to the right of Nixon.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Look who opened his mouth and diarrhea spewed forth. Obama is not a "ultra liberal". He has continued many of the same policies as his predecessor. Only a fucking idiot would believe that we have experienced significant change from the Bush years. However, since the OP is an idiot, it is not surprising.

I love how the most "ultra liberal" is to the right of Nixon.

We are in agreement. Clearly, Obama is the fiscal Conservative and political Moderate he told us he was when he was campaigning. That's as clear as Jake Starkey's Moderate Republican credentials

Who will represent the Far Left?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Socialists squabbling & sniping at each other. Gotta love it. Deliciously entertaining. Hopefully they'll all get the boot in 2012. Come on America! Make it happen!

 

[Antiderivative]

We are in agreement. Clearly, Obama is the fiscal Conservative and political Moderate he told us he was when he was campaigning. That's as clear as Jake Starkey's Moderate Republican credentials

Who will represent the Far Left?

Obama ran on a lot of things. Did you believe them all? I surely didn't. I was easy to see through that pompous and empty rhetoric.

In fact, I walked down to my local Obama campaign office and asked them for details on what Obama was going to cut when he went through the budget, line by line. I told them that if they provided me details that I would vote for Obama and help out their campaign. They scurried around and couldn't find any "details" which this President lacks. So, I walked out and voted 3rd party.

As for who will represent the Far Left? I have no idea. Why don't you stroll over to Democratic Underground and ask them. I keep getting banned over there for calling them out on their warmongering, police state policies, the war on the poor, war on transparency, etc.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We are in agreement. Clearly, Obama is the fiscal Conservative and political Moderate he told us he was when he was campaigning. That's as clear as Jake Starkey's Moderate Republican credentials

Who will represent the Far Left?

Obama ran on a lot of things. Did you believe them all? I surely didn't. I was easy to see through that pompous and empty rhetoric.

In fact, I walked down to my local Obama campaign office and asked them for details on what Obama was going to cut when he went through the budget, line by line. I told them that if they provided me details that I would vote for Obama and help out their campaign. They scurried around and couldn't find any "details" which this President lacks. So, I walked out and voted 3rd party.

As for who will represent the Far Left? I have no idea. Why don't you stroll over to Democratic Underground and ask them. I keep getting banned over there for calling them out on their warmongering, police state policies, the war on the poor, war on transparency, etc.

Watching the DU is like having a ringside seat at a mental hospital, but funnier.

My brother used to own a "right wing"website and DU'ers would come over and abuse him and threaten him and say nasty things about him and his family. He asked them very nicely to stop and when they wouldn't he had his tech guy pull down the DU for a few hours.

Good times.

Anywho.

Will the Left, because there's no such thing as the FarLeft, set forth what they want from a candidate or it this like asking for the Global Warming Theory?