Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[rdean]

Uh Oh. Imma gonna tattle on you. Telling tales out of school like that. Why, donca know we aren't supossed to think of any of the Supremes as having a political agenda EVER? We're supossed to pretend O'Connor was chosen for her "accomplishments".

I bet Clarence Thomas is gonna spank you!

LMAO.

Good old Clarence Thomas, possibly the least qualified Supreme Court Judge ever. Served as a "real" judge for a couple of months. Guess not long enough to ever actually sit for a case, not sure.
Then there were the unusual comments by Angela Wright, Sukari Hardnett, and Anita Hill.

Has he ever sided with the victim on a discrimination suit? Has the ruling ever been 8 to 1?

Curious questions. Very curious.

 

[rdean]

Hello,

As I stated I think the terms are outdated to the point that no one truly knows what they mean anymore. Collectivist and Individualist are simple terms that describe instantly what the person believes.

Well you would be right about that so far as the Liberal/Progressives are concerned. They resent any effort to define their ideology or methodology.

I disagree that Conservatives do not know what the term means in Modern America. And while there is a broad scope of opinion and concepts included, it all basically boils down to a concept that Conservatives want government to secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have.

As you have probably figured out by now I am an individualist. That being said I do believe that we as a society have a social contract wherein those who are unable to take care of themselves should be provided for by those who can. That is what makes us human.

That would make you a Conservative IF you hold the view that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, but believes that this is the individual's duty and responsibility. He believe that a government who confiscates wealth from one individual in order to give to another will invariably corrupt itself as well as those to whom it disbuses the benefits.



This is also a modern American conservative belief.



And they still do as well as hundreds of other private organizations who do yeomans' work to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, minister to the sick and those in prison. Most modern American Conservatives believe that is what we are supposed to do.

The collectivists try to destroy the churches (BTW I am an agnostic) by pointing out every instance of the Catholic child abuse cases (rightly so I might add) however they then through their collectivist teachers unions protect teachers who do the same. The collectivist judges do not imprison for life the convicted child rapists in our midst. Do you not see a problem here?

With a little softening of the edges on that, you would fall under the Liberal/Progressive umbrella who want government to be the dispenser of all wealth and benefits.

So no my defintions of collectivists and individualists are not a stretch. A simple survey through a few dozen history books (and of course the newspapers) will show you what I speak of.

You sir, so far are a solid modern American conservative by my definition, and I respect whatever term by which you prefer to refer to yourself.

And welcome to A2K. I hope you find happy home here.

Not "most", but "some". Keep it real.

Liberal/Progressive umbrella who want government to be the dispenser of all wealth and benefits. - Why do you guys say these bullshit lies? Lies, that what conservatives are best at. They lie and lie. It's what they know. What they do best. Does it come from being a conservative? Lack of good morals and values? Is lying a "conservative" value? I think that perhaps gays are better people than conservatives.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...empt-for-the-constitution-12.html#post2247220

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh Oh. Imma gonna tattle on you. Telling tales out of school like that. Why, donca know we aren't supossed to think of any of the Supremes as having a political agenda EVER? We're supossed to pretend O'Connor was chosen for her "accomplishments".

I bet Clarence Thomas is gonna spank you!

LMAO.

If the Supreme Court vacancy that Thomas filled had come up 2 years later than it did, all else being equal,

Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000, and 99.4% of conservatives who defended the actual SCOTUS decision would still be howling in protest.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uh Oh. Imma gonna tattle on you. Telling tales out of school like that. Why, donca know we aren't supossed to think of any of the Supremes as having a political agenda EVER? We're supossed to pretend O'Connor was chosen for her "accomplishments".

I bet Clarence Thomas is gonna spank you!

LMAO.

If the Supreme Court vacancy that Thomas filled had come up 2 years later than it did, all else being equal,

Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000, and 99.4% of conservatives who defended the actual SCOTUS decision would still be howling in protest.

“Gore won” or the equvlent "the Supremes gve Bush the election" is the equivalent of a political Stanford-Binet IQ Test. And this is a one-question test, so the stakes are high. The bad news, you failed. The good news? Your level of knowledge has attained its nadir, so you have no place to go, but up.


Here is the correct response, you may use it to prepare for your next exam:

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won


The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....


New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com

An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
Newspaper Study Says Bush Won Florida Recount | News | English


Feel really dumb yet? Like the carpet has just been pulled out from under your most fondly held beliefs?

Now, wipe that spittle off your chin, and get back to imagining some more conspiracies.

 

[jillian]

If the Supreme Court vacancy that Thomas filled had come up 2 years later than it did, all else being equal,

Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000, and 99.4% of conservatives who defended the actual SCOTUS decision would still be howling in protest.

the only decision there would have been on the subject is that the law is that the highest court of every state is the ultimate arbiter of its election law so long as there isn't an overriding constitutional question... which was the law before bush v gore and is the law since bush v gore.

bush v gore is very specific that it doesn't apply to any other case ever in the history of recorded time.

 

[westwall]

Im sorry to tell you this but according to the FBI over the last 40 years the vast majority of domestic terrorism has been perpetrated by leftwing organisations. Approaching 90% over the time frame researched. You seem to ignore the Weather Underground, the SLA, the Panthers et all. Nowadays we have the ELF and a whole host of environmental terrorists who are responsible for over 80% of the domestic terrorism going on in the US today.

These descriptions of Liberals is so bizarre and outrageously weird.

I like to point out that only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% conservative for a reason. The fact that the vast majority of scientists are Democrats and Liberals proves that liberals are thoughtful and focused, dedicated and hard working people with a remarkable work ethic.

Then to suggest it's the liberals who are violent. When you look at this country for the last 50 years. The violence from the right far outweighs anything from the left. You have the southern lynchings and Jim Crow laws. Violence against gays. Keep women in the kitchen. Timothy McVeigh. The Branch Davidians. Jim Jones. The Mormon child brides. Anything that is extreme Bible makes it far right.

And these Republican administrations, Reagan, Bush, Bush, they are awful. They follow conservative principals and when they fail, instead of Republicans demonstrating an iota of "introspection", they rant that those administrations weren't "real" conservatives.

And the insistence that they have "morals and values" and they are patriotic. It's sickening. Kicking their own children out into the street? This fetish with the gays has got to stop. Katrina and 9/11 the fault of gays and feminists? That's crazy.

The conservative philosophy is violence, hate, judgement against others, accusations, and lies. Oh the lies. They are the lying-est bunch of people ever. They lie about everything. And not just "little white lies". Lies that dragged us into a war. Lies about other Americans. Lies about liberals. Just lies. And what's worse, the lies are crazy. Obama is the antichrist? Obama is a fascist?

Republicans have gone completely nuts. Totally crazy.

 

[rdean]

Uh Oh. Imma gonna tattle on you. Telling tales out of school like that. Why, donca know we aren't supossed to think of any of the Supremes as having a political agenda EVER? We're supossed to pretend O'Connor was chosen for her "accomplishments".

I bet Clarence Thomas is gonna spank you!

LMAO.

If the Supreme Court vacancy that Thomas filled had come up 2 years later than it did, all else being equal,

Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000, and 99.4% of conservatives who defended the actual SCOTUS decision would still be howling in protest.

Don't forget, thousands of Americans would be alive.

Tens of thousands of Americans wouldn't be crippled for life.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wouldn't be crippled or dead.

Iraq wouldn't be in ruins. We wouldn't be stuck with the bill rebuilding Iraq.

Then there are those Republican policies.

The most irresponsible bill in history, the Republican drug bill, would never have been passed.

A deregulated Wall Street would never had been allowed to bring down the US and world economy.

You can bet New Orleans would have been rebuilt.

And I can't imagine that Gore would have let Bin Laden go scott free.

I wonder if Republicans understand that when you build on shit and lies, then, shit and lies is what you end up with?

 

[jillian]

Im sorry to tell you this but according to the FBI over the last 40 years the vast majority of domestic terrorism has been perpetrated by leftwing organisations. Approaching 90% over the time frame researched. You seem to ignore the Weather Underground, the SLA, the Panthers et all. Nowadays we have the ELF and a whole host of environmental terrorists who are responsible for over 80% of the domestic terrorism going on in the US today.

there might be some truth in that because it would include the leftovers of the more radical groups of the late '60's.

but over the last 20 years, it's clear that most terrorism is right wing....... ELF and your 'host of environmental terrorists' aren't particularly relevant and aren't co-opted by any major political party.

i promise you, though, that the first time the democrats support environmental terrorists or the loons at PETA, I'll say something really, really mean about them.

In the meantime, you might want to keep more of an eye on your rightwingnut domestic terrorists.

 

[rdean]

Im sorry to tell you this but according to the FBI over the last 40 years the vast majority of domestic terrorism has been perpetrated by leftwing organisations. Approaching 90% over the time frame researched. You seem to ignore the Weather Underground, the SLA, the Panthers et all. Nowadays we have the ELF and a whole host of environmental terrorists who are responsible for over 80% of the domestic terrorism going on in the US today.

These descriptions of Liberals is so bizarre and outrageously weird.

I like to point out that only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% conservative for a reason. The fact that the vast majority of scientists are Democrats and Liberals proves that liberals are thoughtful and focused, dedicated and hard working people with a remarkable work ethic.

Then to suggest it's the liberals who are violent. When you look at this country for the last 50 years. The violence from the right far outweighs anything from the left. You have the southern lynchings and Jim Crow laws. Violence against gays. Keep women in the kitchen. Timothy McVeigh. The Branch Davidians. Jim Jones. The Mormon child brides. Anything that is extreme Bible makes it far right.

And these Republican administrations, Reagan, Bush, Bush, they are awful. They follow conservative principals and when they fail, instead of Republicans demonstrating an iota of "introspection", they rant that those administrations weren't "real" conservatives.

And the insistence that they have "morals and values" and they are patriotic. It's sickening. Kicking their own children out into the street? This fetish with the gays has got to stop. Katrina and 9/11 the fault of gays and feminists? That's crazy.

The conservative philosophy is violence, hate, judgement against others, accusations, and lies. Oh the lies. They are the lying-est bunch of people ever. They lie about everything. And not just "little white lies". Lies that dragged us into a war. Lies about other Americans. Lies about liberals. Just lies. And what's worse, the lies are crazy. Obama is the antichrist? Obama is a fascist?

Republicans have gone completely nuts. Totally crazy.

You are right. You are sorry. Sorry that you didn't put up a link. Republican Timothy McVeigh took out 168 American Citizens. Who on the left even approaches that - put together?

Add in the Jim Crow laws, violence against gays, lynchings, what was done to civil rights protesters in the south. You can't even BEGIN to make a comparison.

 

[westwall]

What are you having trouble understanding? The collectivist governments tax people who produce wealth and give it to those who don't. To tax those people they threaten them with violence and imprisonment (I bet you didn't even know that the IRS has a SWAT team).

The collectivist government then proceeds to take your hard earned money and give it to people who choose not to work. They in effect bribe them with your money so that they will continue to vote the collectivist government into power. Sounds like a sweet deal to me. The non workers have to cast a vote every couple of years, takes oh... an hour or so. Then they get to pull in 13 bucks an hour to do nothing but promise to vote for the collectivist government next election!

Please do not think that the people unable to help themselves should be abandoned to their fate. If you bothered to read an earlier post of mine those who need help should get it. That is what makes us human beings. We have a social contract to help those who can't help themselves. However government has proven itself woefully incompetant to that
job. Secular and religious organisations do a far better job helping those who need it and for much less money.

Hello,

As I stated I think the terms are outdated to the point that no one truly knows what they mean anymore. Collectivist and Individualist are simple terms that describe instantly what the person believes.

Well you would be right about that so far as the Liberal/Progressives are concerned. They resent any effort to define their ideology or methodology.

I disagree that Conservatives do not know what the term means in Modern America. And while there is a broad scope of opinion and concepts included, it all basically boils down to a concept that Conservatives want government to secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have.



That would make you a Conservative IF you hold the view that a moral society takes care of the truly helpless, but believes that this is the individual's duty and responsibility. He believe that a government who confiscates wealth from one individual in order to give to another will invariably corrupt itself as well as those to whom it disbuses the benefits.



This is also a modern American conservative belief.



And they still do as well as hundreds of other private organizations who do yeomans' work to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, minister to the sick and those in prison. Most modern American Conservatives believe that is what we are supposed to do.


With a little softening of the edges on that, you would fall under the Liberal/Progressive umbrella who want government to be the dispenser of all wealth and benefits.

So no my defintions of collectivists and individualists are not a stretch. A simple survey through a few dozen history books (and of course the newspapers) will show you what I speak of.

You sir, so far are a solid modern American conservative by my definition, and I respect whatever term by which you prefer to refer to yourself.

And welcome to A2K. I hope you find happy home here.

Not "most", but "some". Keep it real.

Liberal/Progressive umbrella who want government to be the dispenser of all wealth and benefits. - Why do you guys say these bullshit lies? Lies, that what conservatives are best at. They lie and lie. It's what they know. What they do best. Does it come from being a conservative? Lack of good morals and values? Is lying a "conservative" value? I think that perhaps gays are better people than conservatives.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...empt-for-the-constitution-12.html#post2247220

 

[westwall]

I am sorry that a POS like McVeigh ever existed. But the fact remains that over the last 40 years it is leftists commiting the most violence, the rightists just happen to be more effective at it. The Jim Crow laws predate the period we are talking about and they too were truly horrible but don't forget the Democrats tried to kill the Civil Rights legislation, it was REPUBLICANS that got it passed.

We can go on tit for tatting all week long if you wish but it is nothing more than mental masturbation.

Im sorry to tell you this but according to the FBI over the last 40 years the vast majority of domestic terrorism has been perpetrated by leftwing organisations. Approaching 90% over the time frame researched. You seem to ignore the Weather Underground, the SLA, the Panthers et all. Nowadays we have the ELF and a whole host of environmental terrorists who are responsible for over 80% of the domestic terrorism going on in the US today.

These descriptions of Liberals is so bizarre and outrageously weird.

I like to point out that only 6% of scientists are Republican and only 9% conservative for a reason. The fact that the vast majority of scientists are Democrats and Liberals proves that liberals are thoughtful and focused, dedicated and hard working people with a remarkable work ethic.

Then to suggest it's the liberals who are violent. When you look at this country for the last 50 years. The violence from the right far outweighs anything from the left. You have the southern lynchings and Jim Crow laws. Violence against gays. Keep women in the kitchen. Timothy McVeigh. The Branch Davidians. Jim Jones. The Mormon child brides. Anything that is extreme Bible makes it far right.

And these Republican administrations, Reagan, Bush, Bush, they are awful. They follow conservative principals and when they fail, instead of Republicans demonstrating an iota of "introspection", they rant that those administrations weren't "real" conservatives.

And the insistence that they have "morals and values" and they are patriotic. It's sickening. Kicking their own children out into the street? This fetish with the gays has got to stop. Katrina and 9/11 the fault of gays and feminists? That's crazy.

The conservative philosophy is violence, hate, judgement against others, accusations, and lies. Oh the lies. They are the lying-est bunch of people ever. They lie about everything. And not just "little white lies". Lies that dragged us into a war. Lies about other Americans. Lies about liberals. Just lies. And what's worse, the lies are crazy. Obama is the antichrist? Obama is a fascist?

Republicans have gone completely nuts. Totally crazy.

You are right. You are sorry. Sorry that you didn't put up a link. Republican Timothy McVeigh took out 168 American Citizens. Who on the left even approaches that - put together?

Add in the Jim Crow laws, violence against gays, lynchings, what was done to civil rights protesters in the south. You can't even BEGIN to make a comparison.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The framers did agree, however, during the Constitutional Convention. It wasn't until after the Constitution was ratified that we suddenly had all these different interpretations.

LOL. They agreed on what words to write, not how to properly interpret those words. Stop being an idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sorry that a POS like McVeigh ever existed. But the fact remains that over the last 40 years it is leftists commiting the most violence, the rightists just happen to be more effective at it. The Jim Crow laws predate the period we are talking about and they too were truly horrible but don't forget the Democrats tried to kill the Civil Rights legislation, it was REPUBLICANS that got it passed.

We can go on tit for tatting all week long if you wish but it is nothing more than mental masturbation.

Im sorry to tell you this but according to the FBI over the last 40 years the vast majority of domestic terrorism has been perpetrated by leftwing organisations. Approaching 90% over the time frame researched. You seem to ignore the Weather Underground, the SLA, the Panthers et all. Nowadays we have the ELF and a whole host of environmental terrorists who are responsible for over 80% of the domestic terrorism going on in the US today.

You are right. You are sorry. Sorry that you didn't put up a link. Republican Timothy McVeigh took out 168 American Citizens. Who on the left even approaches that - put together?

Add in the Jim Crow laws, violence against gays, lynchings, what was done to civil rights protesters in the south. You can't even BEGIN to make a comparison.

Then you are a happy camper. Give us the links, please, because you analyze as weakly as PolticalChic who is recognized as here for only the grins and chuckles.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The points of disagreement among the Framers as to what the Constitution meant were very minor and very limited.

No they weren't. Hamilton and Madison's differing views on the general welfare clause represent a huge difference.

And you have to look long and hard to find any such disagreements.

No you don't. The disagreements started before the ink was dry. The National Bank is an example. Marbury v Madison is another. Alien and Sedition Act another.

I can tell you've done absolutely no research on the subject and are instead are just pulling shit out your ass.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Both Madison and Hamilton agreed on the narrow construction, i.e. that the taxes should be related to other enumerated powers... until after ratification.

Do you have evidence of this or I am to take you at your word?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'll rephrase:


How can there only be one correct interpretation of the Constitution when the Framers themselves did not agree?

Straw man.

On what basis do you claim only "be one correct interpretation of the Constitution"


Under discussion is whether or not the concept of " living Constitution" is consistent with the views of the Founders.

Obviously any document subject to interpretation is a "living" document, unless you plan on resurrecting its framers.

 

[rikules]

Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

They can not like the consitituiton all they want. Fortunately for them one thing the founders, in their forsight, included were driections on how to change it if so desired.

The Constitution is the back stop against tyranny. If it is 'evolving' or just a 'guideline' then there is nothing to stop tyranny.

on the other hand

if we must be bound by outdated laws (many of which were unfair, irrational, overly punitive...) simply because some guys who died 200 years ago SAID so.... then..

that is TYRANNY.

we are naught but slaves to our tryannical founding fathers.

I know YOU need a nanny state and HAVE to have someone DICTATE to you your rights and acceptable morals

but many of us are living in the 21st century now

we are have MUCH MORE knowledge and experience to draw from

we can see where our founding fathers made some mistakes

we can see that the constitution had flaws

and we have no problem bringing our country and our constitution up to date to meet our more mature understandings and lifestyles.

unlike YOU
I would NEVER try to dictate to people who will come after us what laws they MUST obey
(else you turn over in your grave?)

I believe they should have the right t o decide for themselves...

I believe in freedom
freedom to grow
and to change

you, apparently, believe in FORCING PEOPLE to BEHAVE!

 

[Foxfyre]

And that is maybe the one glaring principle that separates modern American conservatives from the current progressive/liberals:

Conservatives more often identify and conserve and defend and fight for what has proved to be of value, what works, what has demonstrably been of benefit for the greater good, what has produced the most positive results, what has achieved the highest excellence including freedom, options, choices, and protection of unalienable rights with ability to correct any mistakes that might be made. The Founders provided us with a wonderful concept to make that possible.

Liberals more often want to be able to do whatever impulse strikes them at the moment or pops into their heads or fits the mantra of the day at any given time. Any unintended consequences of that can simply be ignored.

 

[JakeStarkey]

foxfyre, too many reactionaries here are posing as conservatives. The former do indeed intend to take us back to the bad old days if they can.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Liberals more often want to be able to do whatever impulse strikes them at the moment or pops into their heads or fits the mantra of the day at any given time. Any unintended consequences of that can simply be ignored.

Like invading Iraq?