Only the weak-minded Leftist...oops...was I just redundant???...attempts to dispense with facts by objecting to the one who presents same.
So...rather than the sophomoric attempt you've proposed...
...how about attempting to show any errors in the post...
...can you?
I didn't think so.
So, let's review: the simple-minded folks argue against reading, and offer nothing by way of rebuttal...merely moan about who offers the evidence, not the authenticity of said evidence.
I'd laugh at you if you weren't so sickening.
But the way...just to prove what an idiot you are, one of the books I'm reading is
"Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality" by
Richard Thompson Ford
Another is
"Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Back" by Amy Goodman and David Goodman
Others I've read this year include
Glenn Greenwald's “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”
and
“Why We’re Liberals,” by Eric Alterman
Every on is way Liberal, dope.
Now you....did you finish the "Cat in the Hat" yet???
I can Google "liberal books" or conservative for that matter and say I have read anyone these books.
Cat in the Hat? I read that book to my kids and also to their children. What's your point? Do you need to know the ending?
I am what I say I am, I'm a independent moderate. I have recent posts that are against raising taxes on the wealthy, against Obamacare and, pro-Keystone Pipeline. True, I'm 100% for Main Street America which conflicts with the narrow ideology that you married. But hey, I'm middle class! What am I supposed to do, cower to folks with Big Money? That's self-defeating!
You know, I bet if your ego wasn't the size of Texas, you might just be bearable. Open your eyes, the world has more sides than your narrow vision can identify.
Wait...are you suggesting that I haven't read any book that I say I've read????
That I feel you are so important that I would throw away my honor to satisfy YOU???
You worthless gnat....
...Name the book and I'll post my notes from same.....
Here are some form Glenn Greenwald's book, you jerk.
1. The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.
a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.
2. The concept has made its way into our clichés: equal before the law, justice is blind, no man is above the law, a nation of laws, not men.
3. What the founders feared most was that a centralized federal government would erode liberty, forcibly override local rule, obliterate self-governance, and transgress every limit. The Constitution was the attempt to prevent that.
4. The founders recognized that, unless the law was applied equally, the Constitution would become merely a suggestion, compliance being optional.
5. The central dispute in Marbury v. Madison was whether the courts had the authority to subject officials in the executive branch to their rulings.
6. None of the founders believed in equality as a general proposition. The opposite is true: they considered inequality on every level, other than law, to be the natural, inevitable, and just state of affairs. Even Jefferson, one of the most egalitarian of the founders, held that there was “a natural aristocracy” among men, based on “virtue and talents.” This was not only natural, but desirable: “The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and the government of society.”(10)
a. Adams the same. “It already appears, that there must be in every society of men superiors an inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution and course of nature the foundations of the distinction.”
b. Thomas Paine loathed inherited titles and assigned status as a legally enforced inequality: “Nature is often giving to the world some extraordinary men who arrive at fame by merit and universal consent, such as Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, etc. They were truly great or noble. But when government sets up a manufactory of nobles, it is as absurd as if she undertook to manufacture wise men. Her nobles are all counterfeits.”
7. But, like all other principles espoused by the founders, equality under the law was not always observed: slavery, dispossession of Native Americans, denial of voting rights to women are a few of the most glaring deviations. Over time, the principle of equality before the law was a roadmap for eradicating injustice.
Go ahead....name another.
Get lost, dope.
