Quantcast

Why do liberals have such a difficult time grasping the concept of law, and being able to know the difference between a "right" and what they think is fair?

Conservative in California 2009/12/04 22:50:06
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Liberals always have funny notions of how they think the law should work rather than the law actually does work. Just because you really want something badly, doesn't mean it is a right (e.g. gay marriage). Just because you don't like what someone else does, doesn't make it illegal (e.g. Bush going to war in Iraq). Just because you dislike someone else's opinions, doesn't make it illegal to say what you think.

Unfortunately too many liberals who confuse "rights" with "fairness" went to law school, and are now federal judges in the mold of Sotomayor, who don't believe in the plain language of the Constitution or the Founder's intent, but believe the Constitution should be erased and replaced with common law judicial fiat.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Daring Blasphemer BN-0 2009/12/05 04:55:08
    Some other answer.
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +13
    The conservatives, when they most recently took power, destroyed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of security. How is this NOT an attack on the very fabric of this country? This was specifically argued against by the founding fathers.

    As to the legality of the Iraq war, who has to declare war, according to the Constitution? How does the law view the outing of a CIA agent? That has been specifically illegal since Reagan. Who paid for that horrendous and treasonous breech of national security?

    As to gay marriage, where is that addressed in the Constitution? How does anyone else having civil rights affect you? If two gay men live next door to you and they get married, how is your live affected? How do you neocons (you are not conservatives) justify the limiting of others right, because YOU disagree with them?

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • FindingHeartInThisCrazy World 2009/12/05 05:19:01
    Some other answer.
    FindingHeartInThisCrazy World
    +7
    i am not sure why the crazy neocons have to stick their noses in everyone else's business all the time...that is what offends the rest of us...not only liberals or progressives...why does anyone care about gay marriage..what you really are seeing and feeling is our exhaustion with your judgements of others and we are letting you know more than ever..
  • Conserv... Finding... 2009/12/05 05:29:32
    Conservative in California
    +2
    I don't care that much about gay marriage. I care about the constitution and the rule of law and the republic of the United States.
  • Finding... Conserv... 2009/12/05 05:34:02
    FindingHeartInThisCrazy World
    +1
    that's fine
  • chaoski... Finding... 2009/12/05 05:45:07
    chaoskitty123
    +2
    And what you are blind to is being revealed by their attacks and investigations. I illustrate this with how Liberals responded to the ACORN scandal where time after time we see ACORN reps willing to set up and use government money to pay for what they knew would be the importation of child sex slaves. They then added to this voluntarily trying to help them avoid taxes, claim the children as dependents and even help bring the children into the country. That for me was the last straw when Liberals instead of seeing it for what it was instead attacked the opposition for using this to make racist attacks on the President and refused to address the matter of what could have happened if this were a real effort to bring child sex slaves into the country. In the past, Liberals would have been rioting in the streets learning what monstrous acts ACORN was willing to do and you would not have cared who or why the information was revealed... only that it was true and that children were involved.

    Now while you counter attack that these are neocons, the facts are that a growing number of Independents and even Democrats are waking up to the fact something is very wrong in the Democratic Party and while you may try to make excuses, the ACORN issue is just one of many. Why is it that Liberals ...







    And what you are blind to is being revealed by their attacks and investigations. I illustrate this with how Liberals responded to the ACORN scandal where time after time we see ACORN reps willing to set up and use government money to pay for what they knew would be the importation of child sex slaves. They then added to this voluntarily trying to help them avoid taxes, claim the children as dependents and even help bring the children into the country. That for me was the last straw when Liberals instead of seeing it for what it was instead attacked the opposition for using this to make racist attacks on the President and refused to address the matter of what could have happened if this were a real effort to bring child sex slaves into the country. In the past, Liberals would have been rioting in the streets learning what monstrous acts ACORN was willing to do and you would not have cared who or why the information was revealed... only that it was true and that children were involved.

    Now while you counter attack that these are neocons, the facts are that a growing number of Independents and even Democrats are waking up to the fact something is very wrong in the Democratic Party and while you may try to make excuses, the ACORN issue is just one of many. Why is it that Liberals automatically respond that any criticism of Obama is racist and hateful? IT has reached such ridiculous proportions that even many black Americans are defending those accused of racism and when pressed to prove how criticizing Obama for losing over three million jobs when he promised to create jobs is racist... these people admit it's not racist and the criticism would be made even if the President were white... and yet, you will find these same people making the same accusations repeatedly and when challenged they again back away like scalded dogs because there is no proof nor truth in what they say.

    It's gotten so bad that a growing number of Liberals are actually raising their voices to confront these people because they are tired of being attacked for what these people are doing. While many won't say it publicly, they are increasingly agreeing with their Conservative opponents because of the radical nature of Obama's strongest supporters and the fact they do not seem to care about facts, truth or their traditional beliefs.

    The Conservative Republicans were just as blind in supporting Bush as Liberal Democrats have been in supporting Obama. The sad thing is the Republican Party fell to pieces because of their support for Bush which is why the only one's Democrats really have to focus on are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck which would be like the Republicans focusing on Howard Stern and Keith Olbermann as if they were leaders of the Democratic Party. Sarah Palin is the only real political figure among the Republicans being focused on and like Glenn Beck chose to surround himself with progressive intellectual Conservatives even his Democratic opposition admire as some of the brightest minds in the country, Palin likewise seems to have surrounded herself with bright people as she's doing things now none of us could have imagined her capable of and you don't make a change like that overnight unless you've got people helping you.

    Like the Conservative Republicans self destructed under Bush, we are seeing the Liberal Democrats self destruct under Obama... that's what blind sheep do when they place their trust in a shepherd not understanding that shepherds protect their flock only to fleece them of their wool and slaughter them for their flesh because in the end... shepherds are self serving and sheep are just a means to make profit.

    The Liberals need to find their soul again as what we are seeing today from them is not intellectual and it is not progressive... it is in fact the opposite of both.
    (more)
  • Daring Blasphemer BN-0 2009/12/05 04:55:08
    Some other answer.
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +13
    The conservatives, when they most recently took power, destroyed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of security. How is this NOT an attack on the very fabric of this country? This was specifically argued against by the founding fathers.

    As to the legality of the Iraq war, who has to declare war, according to the Constitution? How does the law view the outing of a CIA agent? That has been specifically illegal since Reagan. Who paid for that horrendous and treasonous breech of national security?

    As to gay marriage, where is that addressed in the Constitution? How does anyone else having civil rights affect you? If two gay men live next door to you and they get married, how is your live affected? How do you neocons (you are not conservatives) justify the limiting of others right, because YOU disagree with them?
  • Finding... Daring ... 2009/12/05 05:15:02
    FindingHeartInThisCrazy World
    +10
    thank you...and..it is not the liberals that are the only ones tired of all the neocon nonsense..it is everyone except the neocons that are sick of their narrow minded destructive ways.......i am not a liberal or a conservative..i am just a person who wants this country to run efficiently and effectively and the last group that had the chance to make it all work for the last 8 years failed, lied, cheated the country, ruined our reputation around the world and also left Obama with a pile of crap to wade through..to put it nicely..
  • Conserv... Daring ... 2009/12/05 05:30:09
    Conservative in California
    +3
    a few conservatives held power, but it was mostly Republicans acting like liberals.
  • Daring ... Conserv... 2009/12/05 05:37:55 (edited)
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +6
    No they were neocons acting like neocons. Which, by the wording of this question and your other comments I have seen in the past, would be what you see in the mirror every morning, as well. It is always fun to see groups disowning their own leaders.
  • Conserv... Daring ... 2009/12/05 06:09:04
    Conservative in California
    +1
    ask ten liberals the definition of neocon, and you'll get ten different answers. It's a catch-all word that means everything and yet means nothing at the same time.
  • Daring ... Conserv... 2009/12/05 06:16:49
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +4
    That's funny, because I though it was a (self named) movement from the late eighties, started by people like Dick Chaney on the ideas that if we only had a new Pearl Harbor, they could 'remake' the U.S. as a corporate utopia. Oh, wait, that IS what a neocon is. They did it and you helped.

  • chaoski... Daring ... 2009/12/05 06:16:16 (edited)
    chaoskitty123
    +3
    And what did the Democrats you elected do to stop them? They in fact voted for most of what the Republicans wanted. An example is the Patriot Act which almost every Democrat voted for. Then Democrat voters took to the street screaming so when it came up for renewal most Democrats voted against it as did some Republicans. Bush needed Democrat votes to get it renewed and Democrat voters said any Democrat who voted for renewing the Patriot Act was a traitor to their beliefs and would pay a price at election time. Barack Obama voted to renew the Patriot Act and he did pay a price at election time... the Democrats made him President. Even for him saying he would not run because he had no experience, even as he said he lacked experience when he did run and even after he was elected and proved everything he himself said about not having experience was true... you keep supporting the man and anyone who criticizes him like they would any other President is attacked as a racist or hater because you who support him are using the color of his skin to defend him rather than the content of his character which is found wanting.

    Hell, people crash his party at the White Hosue and most of Obama's opposition attack the Secret Service for allowing people who could have been there to kill the Pres...















    And what did the Democrats you elected do to stop them? They in fact voted for most of what the Republicans wanted. An example is the Patriot Act which almost every Democrat voted for. Then Democrat voters took to the street screaming so when it came up for renewal most Democrats voted against it as did some Republicans. Bush needed Democrat votes to get it renewed and Democrat voters said any Democrat who voted for renewing the Patriot Act was a traitor to their beliefs and would pay a price at election time. Barack Obama voted to renew the Patriot Act and he did pay a price at election time... the Democrats made him President. Even for him saying he would not run because he had no experience, even as he said he lacked experience when he did run and even after he was elected and proved everything he himself said about not having experience was true... you keep supporting the man and anyone who criticizes him like they would any other President is attacked as a racist or hater because you who support him are using the color of his skin to defend him rather than the content of his character which is found wanting.

    Hell, people crash his party at the White Hosue and most of Obama's opposition attack the Secret Service for allowing people who could have been there to kill the President for failing in their duties. Because the opposition got to the story first and actually voiced anger that our President could have been assassinated... the Democrats took the opposite stand laughing it off as if it were a harmless prank forgetting what happened to men like Robert Kennedy due to slips in security.

    I do not agree with Conservatives or the Republicans on every issue as I am a Centrist and support all political parties without loyalty to any. But I will oppose stupidity when I see it.

    You speak of gay marriage. We live in a country with the third largest population in the world. We need to reduce that population but we need to do it in a way that is not cruel, an abuse of power or an infringement on rights. Two gay men cannot have a child together nor can two gay women. Procreation is a heterosexual act and if they want children then they want something only heterosexuals can have even with modern science. Most gays do not want to marry which is a huge mistake Democrats make when they address this issue. They want equal protections for their investments together in relationships which could be given to them simply enough if common law marriage made no distinction of gender and there is a written contract affirming they are in fact a couple legally making mutual investments as life partners. Problem solved as Conservatives and the vast majority of homosexuals don't want gay marriage and Liberals should only want the rights of gay couples protected. Marriage is a heterosexual institution based in tradition which today many heterosexuals do not take part in and with skyrocketing divorce rates, it's clear most regret getting married in the first place.

    The Centrist view is the course we should follow as it is based on the actual facts and not the opinions of extremists on the right or left who themselves are a majority heterosexual group on both sides and cannot even identify with gays... only the rights they sum up as simply as they can say they want the rights married couples have when in fact common law marriage often grants those rights without marriage and many Conservatives would accept such compromise as long as the issue of marriage were removed. Many special interest leaders and politicians know this but pursue gay marriage because it is divisive and guarantees years of support when it is very clear that even most Democrats do not support gay marriage.

    This could further be used to pursue an intellectual view that our country must reduce or at least maintain our population levels. Intellectual thought would offer the view that since two gay men cvan't have children and two gay women can't have children that we compromise. In return for common law marriage rights, homosexuals accept the logic that if their way of life is something they are born with then any means that makes a woman a mother or a man a father would be a heterosexual act meaning they are not homosexuals. Sacrifice having children to help reduce the nations growing population and in exchange be given the same rights as heterosexuals in common law marriage.

    Now while Libs will immediately say that's discrimination, it is no more discrimination than supporting abortion and a mothers right to do with her body what she wants. If we are to believe these people are gay and that it is a natural state of being, then it is also a natural state of being they cannot procreate with members of their own gender. Say it ain't so and you say they aren't gay because procreation is a heterosexual act.

    Thus, we have a trade off. We preserve the tradition of marriage as between a man and a woman. We grant homosexuals the same rights as common law couples because common law marriage is a legal determination which has nothing to do with tradition or religion. We further establish a means by which homosexuals help reduce or maintain our population by forsaking childbirth.

    This is the intellectual approach and most gay couples I know say that while they might have difficulty with the idea of not having children, it is true that having children is impossible between people of the same gender and that while not perfect, common law marriage would give them almost everything they are asking for.

    So how hard is it to find answers when you stop listening to Republicans and Democrats who are listening to career politicians and special interest leaders manipulating them for votes and the influence your support gives them? They want us divided against one another and that's why I say we should all band together in 2010 behind the battlecry VOTE NO TO INCUMBENTS... VOTE ALL THE BUMS OUT! A silent revolution where we all vote for new leaders who are not yet part of the decades old corruption and power structure that has led us to ruin.
    (more)
  • Daring ... chaoski... 2009/12/05 07:01:40
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +5
    Whew! That should be a blog of it's own.

    You claim to be a centrist and I, after reading this, agree that you seem to be. You, however make to mistake of assuming I am a liberal. I, too, am a centrist. I AGREE with a lot of your points and there is plenty of room for discussion of the rest.
    I agree that the Dems are also to blame for the theft of our rights, but the Reps were running show and therefore deserve the blame. As to Obama signing the Patriot Act again, I am equally appalled by it as I was when Bush signed it. I said then, if they pas it now, it will never go away. It is a travesty. Obama is proving to be just as power hungry as Bush. Even deciding, unilaterally, to ignore the Constitution (as did Bush) to send more boys to protect corporate property in the guise of war.

    You support both parties, I support neither.

    I also agree that the party crashers point to a real security problem, but how is it NOT the secret services' fault? I don't agree that liberal blew it off. The White House publicly laughed, but no way it wasn't taken more seriously behind closed doors. I heard Ed Schultz make the security point in very strong language. You can't get more liberal than that guy!

    As to gay marriage. All the ranting about their not having children IS discrimination—so is abortion!...



    Whew! That should be a blog of it's own.

    You claim to be a centrist and I, after reading this, agree that you seem to be. You, however make to mistake of assuming I am a liberal. I, too, am a centrist. I AGREE with a lot of your points and there is plenty of room for discussion of the rest.
    I agree that the Dems are also to blame for the theft of our rights, but the Reps were running show and therefore deserve the blame. As to Obama signing the Patriot Act again, I am equally appalled by it as I was when Bush signed it. I said then, if they pas it now, it will never go away. It is a travesty. Obama is proving to be just as power hungry as Bush. Even deciding, unilaterally, to ignore the Constitution (as did Bush) to send more boys to protect corporate property in the guise of war.

    You support both parties, I support neither.

    I also agree that the party crashers point to a real security problem, but how is it NOT the secret services' fault? I don't agree that liberal blew it off. The White House publicly laughed, but no way it wasn't taken more seriously behind closed doors. I heard Ed Schultz make the security point in very strong language. You can't get more liberal than that guy!

    As to gay marriage. All the ranting about their not having children IS discrimination—so is abortion! Discrimination is never intellectual, it is always about fear. Fear of change. Fear of those different from you. Homosexuals deserve the same rights you and I have. If they choose not to marry, that is their choice. If they could marry and any did, it would not affect your life in any way, but would give them the rights they currently lack, for bigoted, and hateful reasons.

    Please, no more anatomy lessons. I know how babies are made. I have two.

    I also agree with the sentiment of you last paragraph. I just don't think it is realistic.
    (more)
  • Finding... Daring ... 2009/12/05 17:12:18
    FindingHeartInThisCrazy World
    +1
    a trillion raves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
  • PartysOver Daring ... 2009/12/05 12:26:38 (edited)
    PartysOver
    +1
    Give me a break...

    The Socialist Party candidate for President of the U.S., Norman Thomas, said this in a 1944 speech :

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.! "
    He went on to say : "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."

    Who has been taking away freedoms again?

    Say hello to Karen Ward she has me blocked...

  • Daring ... PartysOver 2009/12/05 13:46:32
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +3
    Who cares what a socialist party candidate said in 1944, before he disappeared into obscurity? I am speaking of what ACTUALLY happened, not what a bunch of paranoids dream MIGHT happen....if..... Just because you finally discovered the Constitution, doesn't mean that the last thirty plus years of corporate RAPE of this country's middle class didn't happen.

    Your silly spat with Ms. Ward has little to do with me.
  • PartysOver Daring ... 2009/12/05 13:57:23
    PartysOver
    +1
    It does not surprise me that you fail to accept the party of spend and control is not the Democrats of the past. There was a day Democrats had some ethics with regards to the Constitution. That day has long passed as Norman Thomas so eloquently stated. Today you stand with a party that neither respects the Constitution nor defends it.

    I don't know how old you are nor do I care, but I've been well aware of the contents and interpretations of the US Constitution for 40 years; so save the assumptions.

    It's not my spat with Ms. Ward - - who apparently sought to avoid opposing opinions and debate, just to point out I am on more Liberals Block lists than they are on mine. The true meaning of your hypocrisy.

    Cheers.
  • Daring ... PartysOver 2009/12/05 14:38:12
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +4
    YOUR assumption that I am a Dem or a liberal is where YOU fail to understand how deep of trouble we are in. I could no more support Clinton or Obama than I could Bush or Palin. Get you head out of your ass and take a closer look at the pretense we call a two party system. Keep arguing over immigration, abortion and other wedge issues; keep hunting down 'proof' of socialism. We are and have been for some time, a fascist nation, ruled by corporations for their own betterment at your expense.

    If you had read the Constitution once, you never would have thrown out that over-patriotic crap about defending my right to speak. That Right is (was) in regard to speech about the U.S. Government. I didn't assume anything, either you understand that our rights were removed under Bush in exchange for false security, or you don't.

    How is Ms. Wards disagreement with YOU my hypocrisy? I have had disagreements with her and she didn't block me. I choose my friends based on their ability to make me think, not by how much they agree with me. As your earlier statements proof is your criteria.

    This whole exercise has been a deflection.
    >>The conservatives, when they most recently took power, destroyed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of security. How is this NOT an attack on the very fab...<<
    YOUR assumption that I am a Dem or a liberal is where YOU fail to understand how deep of trouble we are in. I could no more support Clinton or Obama than I could Bush or Palin. Get you head out of your ass and take a closer look at the pretense we call a two party system. Keep arguing over immigration, abortion and other wedge issues; keep hunting down 'proof' of socialism. We are and have been for some time, a fascist nation, ruled by corporations for their own betterment at your expense.

    If you had read the Constitution once, you never would have thrown out that over-patriotic crap about defending my right to speak. That Right is (was) in regard to speech about the U.S. Government. I didn't assume anything, either you understand that our rights were removed under Bush in exchange for false security, or you don't.

    How is Ms. Wards disagreement with YOU my hypocrisy? I have had disagreements with her and she didn't block me. I choose my friends based on their ability to make me think, not by how much they agree with me. As your earlier statements proof is your criteria.

    This whole exercise has been a deflection.
    >>The conservatives, when they most recently took power, destroyed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the name of security. How is this NOT an attack on the very fabric of this country? This was specifically argued against by the founding fathers.<<
    This statement is the one that apparently launched your current tyrade. Do you have any disagreement with it, or are you just angry that my memory is longer than ten months?
    (more)
  • Finding... Daring ... 2009/12/05 17:17:16
    FindingHeartInThisCrazy World
    +1
    we agree in our views very closely..i do not support any party and i think that it is our largest problem..you are correct...the corporate lobbyists (the new mafia) are in control of our country and have been for decades............all this hatred towards Obama is playing right into their hands...all this distraction over the dumbest of things because the lobbyists know how to get these crazies to do their dirty work of keeping us down and powerless...divided.
  • Daring ... Finding... 2009/12/05 20:01:35
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +2
    Agreed. But, proving Obama isn't one of THEM, would be a tough road to hoe, at this point.
  • Finding... Daring ... 2009/12/05 20:13:28
    FindingHeartInThisCrazy World
    +1
    no sense in even bursting our brains over it anyway...we only need to see it for what it is and expose it intelligently so others reading these conversations see that the nuts are our problem and that there are other points of view available for consideration...keep giving facts and pouring your intelligence...that is all you can do anyway....thanks!
  • Finding... Daring ... 2009/12/05 17:13:36
    FindingHeartInThisCrazy World
    +1
    she's the biggest idiot on sh...seriously hate filled...watch ouut for her....
  • Daring ... Finding... 2009/12/05 20:00:11
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +2
    I ain't scared. So far she seems a tad obsessed with you. Did you guys have a nasty breakup and you kept her CDs?
  • Finding... Daring ... 2009/12/05 20:16:30
    FindingHeartInThisCrazy World
    +1
    yes...i asked her to marry me so we could save the world together...she told me she is not a lesbian and sent me a photo of a head with dozens of knives sticking out of it & blood all over the head...i guess she wasn't interested...she blocked me months ago...i think she is either Frog Prince's wife or the Frog's second account he has to spread his hatred around even more than he already does....one will never know.
  • Daring ... Finding... 2009/12/05 21:48:31
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +2
    She claims you blocked her.
  • Finding... Daring ... 2009/12/05 22:08:48
    FindingHeartInThisCrazy World
    +1
    no, she blocked me...she must have tried to respond to my remark to you about her and then was blocked in doing so..she must have forgotten..it has been awhile..one does not forget a photo of knives sticking out of a head...at least I do not forget...she must send the photo to anyone she is afraid of and so does not remember...I would have jumped in if I thought I could have responded to her believe me...she is a real angry one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • USAF Ve... Daring ... 2009/12/07 20:13:42
    USAF Vet Dan
    Usurpation is usurpation - no matter which "side" is doing it. Yes, Neocon Bush did his fair share of shredding the Constitution... I could write a book about them. Now that we have that out of the way, how about addressing Obama's exponential infractions? ...and all his proposed programs the liberals are very happy to push in spite of their unconstitutionality?
  • Daring ... USAF Ve... 2009/12/08 04:45:24
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +1
    I have already stated that Obama is following the same road as Clinton and Bush. None of them are or were interested in the Constitution. As to liberals following their leader, conservative had better look in the mirror. Your kin, followed the Bush & Cheney criminals like a cult! There are already liberals, even on this site, who are losing faith in this administration. I don't know thew answer, but the problem of the 'two' party system, pretending they are different from each other, while shutting out real opposition, has to end.
  • USAF Ve... Daring ... 2009/12/08 15:17:49
    USAF Vet Dan
    +1
    //"Your kin, followed the Bush & Cheney criminals like a cult!"

    Not my "kin". As I've said many times, I spent 8 years hammering on Neocon Bush. Not trying to sound curt, but please stop assuming I'm a Neocon. I'm a Constitutionist first and a Ron Paul Republican second.

    //"but the problem of the 'two' party system, pretending they are different from each other, while shutting out real opposition, has to end."

    This is among the issues on which we most strongly agree.
  • Daring ... USAF Ve... 2009/12/08 15:42:15
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +1
    Yes, my friend. Whenever you respond to a post, I know I am going to have to work. Thank you for challenging me and helping me to shape my point of view.
  • Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum 2009/12/05 04:33:41 (edited)
    Some other answer.
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +10
    I think you are the one who needs a refresher course in international treaty obligations and the U.S. Constitution. Just because you don't like liberals doesn't mean that they are wrong. It is clear that you are arguing with a strawman and have never attempted to understand what these "liberals" actually believe and why.
  • Conserv... Warren ... 2009/12/05 04:54:28
    Conservative in California
    +2
    treaties are not supreme to the constitution. Nothing is. Sounds like you need the refresher.
  • Warren ... Conserv... 2009/12/05 05:40:20
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +4
    No one said it was. You are arguing with another strawman, not me. Are you familiar with Article VI?

    "... 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."
  • Conserv... Warren ... 2009/12/05 06:12:15
    Conservative in California
    +1
    I disagree, but either way, a President can abrogate any treaty at any time for any reason--also not in the Constitution, but SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld it. So, whatever b.s. sovereignty Obama signs away, Palin or whomever will revoke the treaty after swearing in.
  • Warren ... Conserv... 2009/12/05 06:15:09
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +5
    Are you claiming your opinion overrides the U.S. Constitution? Those words were directly quoted from Article VI.
  • Conserv... Warren ... 2009/12/05 23:34:30
    Conservative in California
    I disagree with your interpretation of the provision.
  • Warren ... Conserv... 2009/12/06 02:05:19 (edited)
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    Unfortunately too many conservatives don't believe in the plain language of the Constitution or the Founder's intent, but believe the Constitution should be erased and replaced with political interpretations made by bloggers with no education in Constitutional law.
  • chaoski... Warren ... 2009/12/05 06:38:39 (edited)
    chaoskitty123
    Actually, the Liberals are wrong and they are not Liberals anymore. As I express above, the Liberals of old would not have ignored revelations about ACORN being so willing to pay for and even help bring child prostitutes into this country. Real Liberals would have been enraged and taking to the streets regardless of who the messenger was once it was proven the message itself was true. Liberals used to fight to protect children and do what was right for child welfare. It was one of the things I admired about Liberals being a victim of child molestation myself. But seeing how they reacted in the ACORN matter when undeniable proof was presented... it just made me sick that the Liberals could sacrifice so much for so little in return. They defend President Obama calling anyone who opposes him or ciriticizes racists and haters. Then when challenged to explain how criticizing him for losing over three million jobs is racist or hateful, they back down and even admit when push comes to shove that the opposition would be saying and doing the same things if the President were white. That means it's not the opposition acting like racists... but Obama's supporters who are using the color of his skin as a defense on almost every issue making false claims and accusations that inevitably wil...





    Actually, the Liberals are wrong and they are not Liberals anymore. As I express above, the Liberals of old would not have ignored revelations about ACORN being so willing to pay for and even help bring child prostitutes into this country. Real Liberals would have been enraged and taking to the streets regardless of who the messenger was once it was proven the message itself was true. Liberals used to fight to protect children and do what was right for child welfare. It was one of the things I admired about Liberals being a victim of child molestation myself. But seeing how they reacted in the ACORN matter when undeniable proof was presented... it just made me sick that the Liberals could sacrifice so much for so little in return. They defend President Obama calling anyone who opposes him or ciriticizes racists and haters. Then when challenged to explain how criticizing him for losing over three million jobs is racist or hateful, they back down and even admit when push comes to shove that the opposition would be saying and doing the same things if the President were white. That means it's not the opposition acting like racists... but Obama's supporters who are using the color of his skin as a defense on almost every issue making false claims and accusations that inevitably will hurt the real victims of racism because when you cry wolf too many times, eventually people stop listening and the little shepherd boy gets eaten by wolves.

    Liberals are not acting like themselves. They are not following the traditional beliefs or ideological structure of their movement. Instead, they are acting like Socialists and since the election of President Obama and the attacks against him as being a Socialist, the Socialists have finally begin to reveal themselves among the Democrats and some Liberals are now waking up as to why they have been called Socialists for so long. It's because the old Socialist Party dissolved itself into the Democratic Party at a time when the Cold War was heating up and to conceal themselves they claimed to be Liberals and took advantage of things Democrats had adopted when they thought Socialism was progressive. The entire world today knows Socialism is far from progressive and even China and Russia have adopted Democratic ideologies to survive while other Socialist nations have abandoned Socialism altogether.

    I have attempted to understand what Liberals believe and why. I was raised in a Liberal household until Jimmy Carters administration where every dream my mother had was crushed. She told me to never again support a bastard like that and I never will. But Carter was not experienced and he was an idealist which is why his administration was overall such a failure to the point most Democrats said they would never vote for him again and didn't. Obama has the same problems and has surrounded himself with idiots when he needs to have people with proven experience, knowledge and ability so he in turn can benefit from them and mature by learning from them. It is not all Obama's fault except that he has chosen the wrong people to serve with him due to his inexperience. If Democrats would at least pressure him to replace members on his cabinet who clearly haven't a clue or there are seasoned people without the radical edge who would benefit him tremendously as teachers and guides, then we might see improvement in Obama's leadership ability. But what can you do when even Democrats are attacked as racists and haters for criticizing this President?

    You may disagree... but a lot of Liberals agree with me because I am not attacking Liberals. I in fact respect and admire Liberals when they act like Liberals. Just because someone calls themselves a Liberals does not mean they are a Liberal and if you research the Liberal ideology of the past, you will see why I say the Liberals of today have strayed from the foundations of their ideology and they have in fact become more like Socialists which is the real issue being almost the entire world is moving away from Socialism including nations like France where opposition is growing. Do the research and then re examine issues like what happened with ACORN and maybe you will see why people like myself became very angry wth Obama's supporters for their behavior because there is no question about what these people were agreeing to do... the only question is why Liberals refused to see it for what it was and it was the opposition crying out about what could have happened to these children. And even worse, had it not been for the opposition raising their voices, those videos would have circulated around the internet educating criminals and people evil of mind that ACORN would do these things.
    (more)
  • Warren ... chaoski... 2009/12/05 15:04:42
    Warren - Novus Ordo Seclorum
    +1
    When you say things like liberals are not really liberal, words cease to have meaning. If labels really do have no meaning, then why do you use them to generalize a whole group?
  • Hobbes817 2009/12/05 04:21:56
    Some other answer.
    Hobbes817
    +2
    You can't use "logic" and "liberals" in the same sentence.
  • Racefish 2009/12/05 03:39:42
    Some other answer.
    Racefish
    +1
    They're all lawyers, and their clients keep voting for them.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/22 15:36:16

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals