So the opponent's man was perceived as being the millionaire club's boy on an errand. So the answer is to break that perception by putting up a candidate for the highest office in the land who reflects a true picture of America's staunch middle class. A staunch believer in smaller government and greater personal responsibility. A believer in a Higher Power at work in human affairs,and thus that life has meaning beyond just in and for itself only; as the secular humanists on the Left believe. It's really very simple.
And it requires the elimination of the Republican Party as it is. Which has been complicit in the rise of a more coherent Left, by its policies of supporting Wall Street over Main Street.
It's time for Change, all right. Big Change. Fundamental Change. With an eye on the vertical of life, rather than just the horizontal, of the same old, same old. Been there. Done that. How about putting Life all together next time?? And taking the current political standoff up a notch. For the Left has something to offer a considerate citizen, too: a sense of caring and sharing; that we're all in this together. Not such a big income gap between the CEO and the blue collar worker on the shop floor. No more sense of exploitation. You know the drill. Do it.
--
Further contributions to this thread:
- Alexander Gofen
- Even if one believes that the treasonous Repoobs did not deliberately lose by their collaboration with the rival, one at least must see that the Repoobs are irresponsible and stupid gamblers: The gamblers refusing to use the trump card - the ineligibility of the opponent.
- Romney-bots presently just replicated the behavior of MacCain-bots in 2008, following the party line as though the best way to defeat the opponent - the obvious cardsharper - is ... to go and gamble with him!
- But conscious citizens do not gamble with a cardsharper naively hoping to win: especially when the battle is so crucial... Conscious citizens know that they would be surely defeated - and then would have to swallow their defeat. After all, they legitimized the gamble by their own agreement to play with the cardsharper! The conscious citizens ARREST the cardsharper instead of gambling with him...
- In 2008 Repoobs and McCain knew that a person born to a non-US-citizen father cannot possibly be a natural born citizen, yet McCain chose to gamble, to ignore the Constitution, actually playing a con candidate set to lose.
- Romney knows what McCain knew plus much more, namely that the opponent is an identity thief, forger and fraud, with all docs counterfeit. Yet Romney chose to gamble, to ignore the Constitution, and to ignore even the basic law and order, actually playing a con candidate set to lose. Both betrayed their duty, playing for their own defeat.
- Shame on you America. Shame on you the repooblican water carriers. Now a new party is a must: The Judeo-Christian America!
- http://www.resonoelusono.com/P...
- show less
- Like
- Reply
- 1 hour ago
- 2 Likes
- Bob Munck
- Alexander Gofen: a person born to a non-US-citizen father cannot possibly be a natural born citizen
- Nine US courts have ruled that you are wrong; none have ever agreed with you. Several of those decisions were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it allowed them to stand. No law, regulation, or court decision has ever agreed with you. You really shouldn't listen to ignorant people like Taitz and Farah.
- Like
- Reply
- 1 hour ago
- in reply to Alexander Gofen
- 1 Like
- kibitzer3
- Bob, if you would go back to the beginning, with the intent of the Founding Fathers on this matter, and their writings on the subject, you would have your answer.
- Now if you don't believe in parsing the Constitution according to its meaning, and just want it to mean whatever you want it to mean, that's another matter. And oh - see you in court on this one. Sooner or later, the Truth will out, and Justice will be served. For it is a Just universe.
- Count on it.
- Edit
- Reply
- 38 minutes ago
- in reply to Bob Munck
- reggiec
- James Madison warned us against this.
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” - Like
- 5 minutes ago
- in reply to kibitzer3
[Excellent quote and contribution to this thread, reggiec]
kibitzer3: the intent of the Founding Fathers on this matter
If they had wanted to establish that rule, they would have written it into the Constitution; there was no word limit preventing them from being explicit. The courts have interpreted the words actually in the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, and made their ruling. It's too bad you don't like it, but they get to decide, you don't. That's the way our system works.
Sooner or later, the Truth will out, and Justice will be served.
It has. Learn to live in the real world.
[The posting didn't give me a chance to Reply to the above.]
- Matthew Ottewell
Why are right wingers so possessed with what people 200+ years ago thought a document meant?
It is so bizarre. We have the ability through meta-analysis and comparative constitutional law to provide more vigorous and robust constitutional elements.
Why is progress so scary to some tea party members? lol
- Like
- Reply
- 1 minute ago
- F
-
kibitzer3
Matthew:
I don't know what you were taught about 'comparative constitutional law' - whatever that's supposed to mean in actual legal terms (it sounds a lot like Humpty Dumpty's arrogant declaration that 'Words mean what I say they mean'; and remember what happened to him) - but for clarity's sake: the Constitution is a legal document, a contract, if you will ('compact' is the word that has traditionally been used in political terms) between the federal government and the several States, which provides within its terms for an amending process. Absent an amending process on any detail of the contract - which requires in part the ratification of a certain percentage of the States - the contract stands as originally ratified by the States.You can take your liberal 'philosophical' gobbledygook and do with it as you will. But you will not apply it to my country's Constitution, as the rule of law for this nation. - I understand that there is some newfangled theorizing about 'a living Constitution' and such. But that is just tantamount to justices making decisions merely based on their personal political proclivities - that is to say, on arbitrary law. And if that opening to tyranny is what you mean by "progress", then indeed, it will be "scary" to some citizens; however you characterize them. Personally, I would characterize them as readers of, and understanders of, history.
- But there you go. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment