Conservatives hate your constitution

Here in wisconsin
They want to eliminate any local controls on mining and leave it solely to the state. That is their latest initiative (koch suckers)
Seems some local municipalities wanted to monitor water and air pollution along putting in place regulations on what roads and times the trucks could roll out of the mines.


have to put a stop to that.
(sarcasm)

canndo said:

He said the original constitution, and it was. Just because it happened to be a compromise in order to get the ball rolling (something Republicans should try their best to emulate) doesn't mean that it wasn't racist in it's original form.

Click to expand...

Enlighten me? Sorry if I don't just take your word for it, surely you have examples you can offer.

ginwilly said:

If a man is there to do what he feels right, not what he feels will get him re-elected I would call that noble, not hypocritical.

Click to expand...

i agree.

obamacare was not popular when it was passed, but it was the right thing to do, even if it fails. we couldn't keep going down that 17% of GDP on healthcare road.

obama is pretty damn noble.

ginwilly said:

you support the side with ideas so good they have to be mandated and lied about.

Click to expand...

i can show you plenty of states where doctors, at the behest of right wingers (republicans, conservatives, and "libertarians") are compelled by law to lie to their patients about the plain facts of abortion.

i can show you plenty more where medically unnecessary mandates and regulations are put in place to restrict or entirely prevent abortions. hey, want a transvaginal ultrasound?

ginwilly said:

This is why family values guy conservative will have to leave office in shame after an affair and liberal gets a promotion.

Click to expand...

this man fucked a prostitute and wears diapers. he is still in the senate.



this guy was forced out of the house for consensual texts.



derp dee fucking der, reality must fucking hate you.

ginwilly said:

Gore

Click to expand...

how can you be so fucking dumb to bring up gore after making that stupid claim about liberals getting a pass for their sexual misconduct?

ChesusRice said:

Every congress critter that voted for the Iraq war didnt do their job. Everyone of them democrat or republican

Click to expand...

Sort of. Sort of not. Bush, if you will recall, pretty much coopted legitimate intel and put his own spin on it. Many congresspeople had no recourse but to listen to Bush's generals and his filtered intel. They believed because they had no other input. On the other hand, as Lewis Black puts it "hell, I knew it wasn't the Iraqis and I was just sitting on my couch".

canndo said:

Sort of. Sort of not. Bush, if you will recall, pretty much coopted legitimate intel and put his own spin on it. Many congresspeople had no recourse but to listen to Bush's generals and his filtered intel. They believed because they had no other input. On the other hand, as Lewis Black puts it "hell, I knew it wasn't the Iraqis and I was just sitting on my couch".

Click to expand...

that was cheney, that was in his bag of tricks with "P2OG". Set up his own intel unit out of his office to re-vet intelligence to produce the outcomes he wanted. It's no secret the tensions between Rumsfeld and Cheney, reflected those between the DOD and the CIA - who was going to take the lead and uncover the "slam dunk"

echelon1k1 said:

that was cheney, that was in his bag of tricks with "P2OG". Set up his own intel unit out of his office to re-vet intelligence to produce the outcomes he wanted. It's no secret the tensions between Rumsfeld and Cheney, reflected those between the DOD and the CIA - who was going to take the lead and uncover the "slam dunk"

Click to expand...

We all know now that Cheney and his lawyers (too late to remember their names) but upon whom do we pin the blame? Was Cheney president? I believe that Obama is being blamed for everything that goes on in his adminiistration (rightly), but the same holds for Bush. The point is that the old dog that says "well, Democrats voted for war, well Democrats voted for the patriot act" distorts the truth, they did so because they were exposed to a sculpted set of facts and evidence. Had they not been so exposed, they very well might not have voted the way they did.

I recall there were some senators who were outraged when they discovered the truth and that in essence they had been lied to. They, like the media, are to be held accountable, but pointing to them as some sort of proof that Bush was right in his actions is as I said, a twisted form of logic that is the staple of many conservative arguments.

canndo said:

We all know now that Cheney and his lawyers (too late to remember their names) but upon whom do we pin the blame? Was Cheney president? I believe that Obama is being blamed for everything that goes on in his adminiistration (rightly), but the same holds for Bush. The point is that the old dog that says "well, Democrats voted for war, well Democrats voted for the patriot act" distorts the truth, they did so because they were exposed to a sculpted set of facts and evidence. Had they not been so exposed, they very well might not have voted the way they did.

I recall there were some senators who were outraged when they discovered the truth and that in essence they had been lied to. They, like the media, are to be held accountable, but pointing to them as some sort of proof that Bush was right in his actions is as I said, a twisted form of logic that is the staple of many conservative arguments.

Click to expand...

Bush, Cheney and the neo-con players in his administration should be held accountable, as with the agency heads that helped to craft a false narrative for war.

echelon1k1 said:

Bush, Cheney and the neo-con players in his administration should be held accountable, as with the agency heads that helped to craft a false narrative for war.

Click to expand...

No sitting president will ever bring charges against a former president. That's a precedent each one is terrified of.

Would love to see them at least tried even if they are found guilty and pardoned. That would make the future/present dictators think twice.

ginwilly said:

No sitting president will ever bring charges against a former president. That's a precedent each one is terrified of.

Would love to see them at least tried even if they are found guilty and pardoned. That would make the future/present dictators think twice.

Click to expand...

Not only would it have presidents think twice, but it would have the electorate, and congress think again as well. I don't care where it starts, and I don't think that a simple impeachment is enough. Let me be the first to say that I would not mind Obama standing trial - after his term, for drone deaths in other countries. He should be tried only by people in this country, perhaps a simple jury, for war crimes. It is about time we come to the real conclusion that our continualy escalating "war on terrorism" is now much like our "war on drugs", it simply gives the wrong people not only a certain self righteous demeanor but more and more raw power. We lock our citizens up, poison other country's land and people, subvert their laws as well as our own and demonstrate that we are not the moral bastion of liberty we think we are.

This is far fetched, but imagine if we did such a thing. It would be a shame and send a sad signal if we were to put our one and only black president on trial but suppose we ignored that. Suppose we as a people demanded such a trial. What would happen to those in other countries who mark us as evil and culpable without accountability? might it just be that those in other countries might just stand down? Might it be that some of the terrorism that is actuated by shear frustration at the actions of Bully America would lessen? Might it also demonstrate that we as a people see that other people in other countries have a legitimate gripe and we wish to try to rectify it?

Now the problem is that no matter what the verdict, it would not work very well. If Obama was found not guilty, all those other people would presume the trial a sham. If we were to find him guilty, then what? what is the penalty for a war crime? would 6 months in jail be enough to signal our intent? a year? or would we have to condemn a modern president to life in prison? Or, being that lots of muslims don't think that anything other than death or dismemberment is actual punishment, would we have to put him to death? Then, would they be satisfied with chemical execution or would we have to cut off his head?

Well, it's a thought.

Of course there is no statute of limitations on war crimes, so......

ginwilly said:

A reluctant public servant serves best wouldn't you say? If a man is there to do what he feels right, not what he feels will get him re-elected I would call that noble, not hypocritical.

I would say the Tea Party racist/extremists were absolutely following their core beliefs during shutdown negotiations while others were following polls. You disagree with their position so you don't think their actions were righteous. What many on the left failed to realize is that those crazies were elected on promises to do just that and were the people acting most in their constituents wishes.

While you are bashing conservatives and saying they should never hold office, let's not forget you support the side with ideas so good they have to be mandated and lied about. You can't get around that one. I hate the right for the war on terror that brought us the Patriot Act, I hate the left for not only NOT repealing it, but putting it on steroids after they campaigned against it. I hate the left for never taking ownership of ... well.. anything, unless it's good press, then it's all them. Our political ideologies may be diametrically opposed, but the actions of those we elect to represent us are indistinguishable. Until the tea party crazies came along that is, I admire them for being the ones who practice what they preach even when I don't agree with what they are preaching.

This is why family values guy conservative will have to leave office in shame after an affair and liberal gets a promotion. The conservative runs on and sets that standard. It's also why global warming Gore gets so much shit for his giant carbon footprint. We have different standards for each party.

Click to expand...

The problem with your statement is that no conservative believes he IS a servant so long as he is in office, he cannot be because government does not serve the people. He can only cause havoc, he can only tear down because he believes that government can serve no purpose.

That is the point I make. The Tea Party people prove my point. They were perfectly willing to take down everything that IS good about government - at least until they made the discovery that some things are good. Each time they encountered things that the government does that is in the people's interest they attempted to reverse their course of action. They began picking winners and losers in policies and programs, and so were no better than those they sought to stop. Why should a WWII memorial be any more important than meals on wheels?

In reality, all they did was play politician giving in to what looked good rather than actually taking charge and snipping at programs that really were not good for our country, like government welfare programs, or a bloated military. They still picked on the weak and those who didn't have monied representation. That is where rather than what you state, they were just as hypocritical.

All right canndo, you run for prez and I'll be the VP that makes sure nobody assassinates you out of fear of me taking over. We can argue all day but I bet we get shit done.

Obama can't be the first because the cry of racism would drown out any facts. Let's do all them from the Korean "conflict" to present. I imagine most would be found not guilty anyway, but I like the message it would send to our country and the world.

canndo said:

The problem with your statement is that no conservative believes he IS a servant so long as he is in office, he cannot be because government does not serve the people. He can only cause havoc, he can only tear down because he believes that government can serve no purpose.

That is the point I make. The Tea Party people prove my point. They were perfectly willing to take down everything that IS good about government - at least until they made the discovery that some things are good. Each time they encountered things that the government does that is in the people's interest they attempted to reverse their course of action. They began picking winners and losers in policies and programs, and so were no better than those they sought to stop. Why should a WWII memorial be any more important than meals on wheels?

In reality, all they did was play politician giving in to what looked good rather than actually taking charge and snipping at programs that really were not good for our country, like government welfare programs, or a bloated military. They still picked on the weak and those who didn't have monied representation. That is where rather than what you state, they were just as hypocritical.

Click to expand...

We are both just stating opinion, granted, but you are pretending to know the hearts, minds and motive of every conservative. You lose me when you go full left retard like that.

canndo said:

What makes them POWs? How do we know? In a symetrical war, if they are captured by the U.S. or it's allies and they are in the uniform of their country, then it is pretty obvious. If they are captured by god knows who, and turned in for a reward based upon the sort of watch they wore or who they were talking to, does that make them enemy combatants? And those with U.S. citizenship? what rights have they?

Click to expand...

The innocent ones should be freed. If a US citizen is captured while trying to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan then it is GITMO for him. They have no constitutional rights. If I go to England and have a Glock tucked in my waist band, I can't cite the US constitution as my protected right to "keep and bear", wouldn't you agree?

There was never an Iraq War. There was a unilateral invasion of a sovereign country. In order to be a war, both sides must recognize the state of hostilities between each other and declare this. The Iraq Invasion was an act committed by the fascist American president George Bush. Shortly before doing so he removed the US from the ICC in order to prevent him from being charged as a criminal for crimes against humanity.

UncleBuck said:

shut up, you filthy urban welfare rat.

Click to expand...

No Buck , that's you. I've never had to rely on welfare to survive, I've been employed since I was 16 years old, even while I was studying. Not even an unemployment check. Nothing.

You Sir, are an idiot.

ginwilly said:

Enlighten me? Sorry if I don't just take your word for it, surely you have examples you can offer.

Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

ginwilly said:

We are both just stating opinion, granted, but you are pretending to know the hearts, minds and motive of every conservative. You lose me when you go full left retard like that.

Click to expand...

I can not claim I know motivating factors, I CAN claim to be aware of overt and sometimes covert actions on the part of those few. I can only judge another by their actions and words. It is evident that those few intended to cause disruptions in government and then back tracked for certain programs while ignoring others. That is not how government works in this country. We take the good programs with the bad and work within the system to correct our errors. Taking a country hostage was never the intent of the framers, yet these very people profess to love the Constitution. In reality they love it only when it suits their agenda.

canndo said:

I can not claim I know motivating factors, I CAN claim to be aware of overt and sometimes covert actions on the part of those few. I can only judge another by their actions and words. It is evident that those few intended to cause disruptions in government and then back tracked for certain programs while ignoring others. That is not how government works in this country. We take the good programs with the bad and work within the system to correct our errors. Taking a country hostage was never the intent of the framers, yet these very people profess to love the Constitution. In reality they love it only when it suits their agenda.

Click to expand...

Actually, if we followed our founders intent, shutting down the federal government would have barely been noticed.

Your judgement comes from an admittedly greater good slant while mine comes from an individual liberty slant. Of course we are going to interpret the same findings in different ways, I've accepted this. What I try to avoid is painting ALL dems with a brush because I've met some truly righteous people from the left. I disagree with the whole premise of "greater good" because of societies fickleness and the 1st level thinking required to embrace it.

I feel if we all chipped in just a little we'd have no need for safety nets from a central planning standpoint. I disagree with using force to make those who disagree with me comply with what I feel is best, I'm not wired that way. I do my best to practice what I preach but admittedly fail more often than I'd care to admit. I still feel I'm doing more for the "greater good" than harmful liberal feel good policies that are based on feelings, not logic.

Central planners are the nut low and stifle a society's advancement more than any other factors. <----IMO

ginwilly said:

Actually, if we followed our founders intent, shutting down the federal government would have barely been noticed.

Your judgement comes from an admittedly greater good slant while mine comes from an individual liberty slant. Of course we are going to interpret the same findings in different ways, I've accepted this. What I try to avoid is painting ALL dems with a brush because I've met some truly righteous people from the left. I disagree with the whole premise of "greater good" because of societies fickleness and the 1st level thinking required to embrace it.

I feel if we all chipped in just a little we'd have no need for safety nets from a central planning standpoint. I disagree with using force to make those who disagree with me comply with what I feel is best, I'm not wired that way. I do my best to practice what I preach but admittedly fail more often than I'd care to admit. I still feel I'm doing more for the "greater good" than harmful liberal feel good policies that are based on feelings, not logic.

Central planners are the nut low and stifle a society's advancement more than any other factors. <----IMO

Click to expand...

The way it was supposed to work was that we elect people who looked out for our best interests based upon the majority, with a eye toward keeping the tyranny of that majority in check. That means that at times the minority is ill served. As it now stands, it is the minority, the very rich and powerful that is most often served while the rest languish. So long as this is the case, I am definitely for "the greater good". THis is not feelings but pure logic. The greater good often means the greater prosperity for the majority which, contrary to trickle down, has been shown to work. We could look at that "feelings not logic" stance where it applies to keeping the WWII memorial open while shutting down the meals on wheels program, which, as much as anything, helps the vets who were being honored at the memorial. Which is feel good and which is logic?

My standing on the prone back of another while holding my hand to my heart in reverence toward the flag is pure feeling and absent of logic.