|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2010 : 06:34:11
|
We've all been hearing a lot of blather about changing the Constitution, mainly if not entirely from Republicans. I am not sure why these douchebags want to take the country back to the virtual stone-age of pre-Revolution times, but it seems that they do.
REPORT: The GOP’s Agenda To Change The Constitution
Since President Obama took office, Republicans have shrouded their agenda of opposition by wrapping it in the flag and the Constitution. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) even went so far as to label her radical anti-government views “constitutional conservatism.” Yet, for all of their constitutional pablum, the GOP’s agenda is nothing less than a direct assault on America’s founding document. Time and time again, Republicans have called for basic constitutional freedoms and fundamental aspects of our constitutional government to be repealed either by amendment or by activist judges:
|
I have some very strong opinions on this, but I will let the article and it's following comments say it for me. They are quite eloquent enough.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 11:12:31 [Permalink]
|
Filthy.....
The deliciously elegant irony of this situation is the Republicans endless protestations that they are "rigid Constitutionalists" devoted to law that reflects the exact intent of Founding Fathers; and then they carp daily about changes that are needed to the Constitution!
They are hypocritical maternal fornicators, all! |
 |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2010 : 11:31:50 [Permalink]
|
| Why do the regulars here seem to hate republicans so much? Not every political issue boils down to religion surely, I know some atheist republicans and I know many Christian Democrats. I'm not an American and really don't follow American politics very closely, but there is basically no "Religious party" in the big three parties of the UK. Being right wing here is more of a "rich old white man" thing than a religious thing. |
 |
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 08/06/2010 11:32:33 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 12:57:28 [Permalink]
|
OFFC.....
| Why do the regulars here seem to hate republicans so much Not every political issue boils down to religion surely, |
The US Republican party was partially hijacked by the "Religious Right" starting back in the mid-60's, and coming to culmination in the late 80's'wiki
The Christian right became prominent due to a variety of developments, including the "shift in gravity" (the movement of the Christian population) to the South and West, both in regards to population movements and to rising leaders in the "anti-establishment" of the West, which consequently led to more power in electoral votes. |
This led to an involvement of religious dogma and "Christian" voodoo in politics and ultimately government that is simply unacceptable to most freethinkers.
Those of us capable of rational cognition (skeptics) are outraged by the incorporation of Christian mythology into the legislative and executive branches of the United States Government. For one thing, it's unconstitutional. And one of "our" basic precepts is that hypocritical religious claptrap not be integrated into the government and laws of this country. Such as legislation affecting homosexuality, abortion, and the role of "God" in government.
| Not every political issue boils down to religion surely, |
No, not every political issue has a religious aspect. But enough major rights and liberties of those that don't accept religious declarations of how they must think and behave are threatened by the Republican political agenda to engender violent opposition to such politics. The doctrinaire authoritarianism of Christian theology is totally unacceptable to most skeptics; consequently we tend to be progressive to ultra liberal in political outlook, and completely antithetical to Republican theologically driven ideology. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 17:09:30 [Permalink]
|
Not all of our disagreements with Republicans are about religion. The republicans pushed for the deregulation of wall street. They pushed for the deregulation of the banks. They hate anything that will cut into the profits of those who give them the most money. What we got for that is our current economic crisis. They are of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. They throw bones to the religious right because they need them for votes. But I swear, they would throw them under the buss in a flash if they hurt their bottom line.
And then there is this. Just about everything Obama has done was first suggested by a Republican. If the Democrats like the idea, they hypocritically change their position and oppose what they were once for. They are calling healthcare a socialist takeover, but the plan that was finally pushed through reconciliation was largely the same plan that they came up with. No matter what it is, they object to it if the Democrats are for it. So what's to like about them? Right now they are opposing a plan that would give breaks to small business. That's something they ran on! But since the Democrats are for it, they forgot who came up with the idea...
What is to like about them? They are a bunch of selfish assholes who don't give a crap about anything but themselves... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Farseeker
Skeptic Friend
Canada
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 16:34:26 [Permalink]
|
I don't get it.
I have always loved Americans. But lately, are you bent on self destruction? Can not reasonable people differ ?
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2010 : 00:12:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Farseeker
I don't get it.
I have always loved Americans. But lately, are you bent on self destruction? Can not reasonable people differ ?
|
The thing you are missing is that we aren't all reasonable people.
The stakes also need to be considered. I consider the 8 years of G W Bush's presidency to be the culmination of a robbery that was planned when Reagan was elected. The concentration of wealth that occurred under that admin is monumental. And only a very few have benefited. The rich stealing from the poor by manipulation of the legislature, while distracting the electorate with wedge issues.
Seriously, who cares about or even notices deregulation of banks and international trade when the media (driven by ratings, so news must entertain) has two regards yelling at each other? No one.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2010 : 21:50:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
The deliciously elegant irony of this situation is the Republicans endless protestations that they are "rigid Constitutionalists" devoted to law that reflects the exact intent of Founding Fathers; and then they carp daily about changes that are needed to the Constitution!
|
I'm not a fan of fetishizing the "Founding Fathers," but the asking for amendments or changes of amendments is in no way at odds with the Constitution itself, the ability to add and repeal amendments is a major part of it.
Let's go with the article and see which ones mean anything whatsoever with regard to one's commitment to upholding the Constitution (I'm arguing nothing but the thesis of the article, and I guess this thread, is flawed):
Trying to change the 14th Amendment -- this is exercising a power granted by the Constitution!
Commerce Clause -- firstly, who has ever heard of Ken Cuccinelli? The Constitutional argument seems bad historically, I agree, but the implication that this requires that he opposes civil rights is not true. At some level, there exists a valid argument regarding the interpretation of the clause, though these examples take it further than is supported in history.
Repealing the 16th Amendment -- stupid idea (and it doesn't have any political wheels without some replacement for income, so it's a non-issue). Regardless, trying to repeal an amendment is does not imply any lack of confidence in the Constitution (for the same reason the 18th & 21st amendments do not).
"Repealing Fundamental Rights" -- not sure this takes away rights so much as continues not granting some that never were, but this one is purely religious (and/or bigoted). I won't defend it, but I fail to see what it really has to do with the Constitution.
Repealing the 17th Amendment -- still, repealing amendments is fair game with regard to the Constitution. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 08/09/2010 21:51:40 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 05:05:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Farseeker
I don't get it.
I have always loved Americans. But lately, are you bent on self destruction? Can not reasonable people differ ?
|
The thing you are missing is that we aren't all reasonable people.
The stakes also need to be considered. I consider the 8 years of G W Bush's presidency to be the culmination of a robbery that was planned when Reagan was elected. The concentration of wealth that occurred under that admin is monumental. And only a very few have benefited. The rich stealing from the poor by manipulation of the legislature, while distracting the electorate with wedge issues.
Seriously, who cares about or even notices deregulation of banks and international trade when the media (driven by ratings, so news must entertain) has two regards yelling at each other? No one.
|
Emphasis added
Dude you have hit on two of my biggest issues. Tax cuts for the rich does very little for the average Joe's and Jane's and entertainment news which far too many people equate with being informed.
edited: as/with |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 08/10/2010 05:07:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 07:22:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Commerce Clause -- firstly, who has ever heard of Ken Cuccinelli? |
He's my state's stupid AG. I hear of him all too often.| Repealing the 16th Amendment -- stupid idea (and it doesn't have any political wheels without some replacement for income, so it's a non-issue). |
Nitpick: the 16th Amendment did not give Congress the power to collect income taxes. They already had that. The 16th Amendment gives Congress the right to spend taxes collected on incomes however Congress wants, instead of having to spend it among the states proportional to population. Repealing the 16th Amendment wouldn't require a replacement for any income, only a re-apportionment of the outlay (for example, Congress would likely ask defense contractors to move some of their manufacturing around, so that there's not such a huge concentration of defense spending going on in California).| "Repealing Fundamental Rights" -- not sure this takes away rights so much as continues not granting some that never were... |
This is a big one. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It grants powers to the government and it protects the rights of citizens. And the 9th Amendment ensures that anything we can dream up as a right is reserved to us from the start, and the courts have decided that the government requires a compelling and non-discriminatory basis for eliminating a right. So if marriage really is a "fundamental right," then anything that seeks to thwart that right for arbitrary or baseless reasons is, indeed, trampling on our rights. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 07:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Speaking of amending the constitution, Rachel Maddow weighs in with a little dose of reality:
| Prime time cable news programming is typically filled with trite and banal commentary; and as we can see in the following clip, even one of the most respected of the lot can be guilty of cliched platitudes. But sometimes even the most banal analysis still needs saying. Case in point? Rachel Maddow’s pointing out last night that much of the rhetoric surrounding the repeal of the 14th amendment which asserts birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is just a cynical “wedge issue” designed to drum up support in advance of the mid-term elections. |
Snip
| As Maddow points out in the following clip, amending the constitution is really, really hard. So difficult, in fact, that none of us should take this political rhetoric very seriously (in terms of actually changing law.) And in her words, hearing a politician state constitutional amendments as a goal, is akin to hearing a child claim that they will get better at math, not by doing their homework, but by donning a super-hero costume. |
Watch the video:
Rachel Maddow: GOP’s Talk Of Constitution Amendment Is Just A Cynical Election Ploy |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
lorddix
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 06:35:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
| Repealing the 16th Amendment -- stupid idea (and it doesn't have any political wheels without some replacement for income, so it's a non-issue). |
Nitpick: the 16th Amendment did not give Congress the power to collect income taxes. They already had that. The 16th Amendment gives Congress the right to spend taxes collected on incomes however Congress wants, instead of having to spend it among the states proportional to population. Repealing the 16th Amendment wouldn't require a replacement for any income, only a re-apportionment of the outlay (for example, Congress would likely ask defense contractors to move some of their manufacturing around, so that there's not such a huge concentration of defense spending going on in California). |
|
To nitpick the nitpick: The 16th amendment gave congress the right to collect income taxes and disregard the apportionment clause of the constitution. Prior to the 16th amendment all direct taxes had to be apportioned among the states or based upon the census.
| The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. |
More information on the history of the 16th Amendment. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 09:07:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by lorddix
To nitpick the nitpick: The 16th amendment gave congress the right to collect income taxes and disregard the apportionment clause of the constitution. Prior to the 16th amendment all direct taxes had to be apportioned among the states or based upon the census. |
That's what I said. How is it a nitpick?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 15:26:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Not all of our disagreements with Republicans are about religion. The republicans pushed for the deregulation of wall street. They pushed for the deregulation of the banks. They hate anything that will cut into the profits of those who give them the most money. What we got for that is our current economic crisis. They are of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. |
This is stereotypical hogwash. Both parties are controlled by the rich.
http://article.nationalreview.com/295884/party-of-the-rich/peter-schweizer
Also, deregulation by the republicans is not exactly accurate. Didn't President Bush sign this into law?
http://www.soxlaw.com/
Not exactly deregulation. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 15:41:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Kil
Not all of our disagreements with Republicans are about religion. The republicans pushed for the deregulation of wall street. They pushed for the deregulation of the banks. They hate anything that will cut into the profits of those who give them the most money. What we got for that is our current economic crisis. They are of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. |
This is stereotypical hogwash. Both parties are controlled by the rich.
http://article.nationalreview.com/295884/party-of-the-rich/peter-schweizer
Also, deregulation by the republicans is not exactly accurate. Didn't President Bush sign this into law?
http://www.soxlaw.com/
Not exactly deregulation.
|
Clinton, with a republican congress, are responsible for significant deregulation of banks. But let's be honest here Robb, republicans are the primary culprits.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2010 : 16:32:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Kil
Not all of our disagreements with Republicans are about religion. The republicans pushed for the deregulation of wall street. They pushed for the deregulation of the banks. They hate anything that will cut into the profits of those who give them the most money. What we got for that is our current economic crisis. They are of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. |
This is stereotypical hogwash. Both parties are controlled by the rich.
http://article.nationalreview.com/295884/party-of-the-rich/peter-schweizer
Also, deregulation by the republicans is not exactly accurate. Didn't President Bush sign this into law?
http://www.soxlaw.com/
Not exactly deregulation.
|
Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) -- "How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S. economy." Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, "Four Deformations of the Apocalypse."
Get it? Not "destroying." The GOP has already "destroyed" the U.S. economy, setting up an "American Apocalypse."
Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats' Keynesian policies. But what this indictment by a party insider -- someone so close to the development of the Reaganomics ideology -- says about America, helps all of us better understand how America's toxic partisan-politics "holy war" is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective death wish.
But why focus on Stockman's message? It's already lost in the 24/7 news cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to where our very survival is threatened? |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The enemy among us.....
