Incidentally, the Founders never outlawed "cruel and unusual punishment." They wrote "cruel and unusual punishments." That is a plural, meaning "cruel" punishment is taboo, as is "unusual" punishment. Nearly all Americans use the 8th Amendment prohibition as if it reads "cruel-and-unusual punishment." It doesn't; "cruel" and "unusual" are two separate things.”
“Could someone at the Huffington Post edit the material it publishes. The NAACP did not put up nine podiums. Podiums are small stages a speaker stands on. Jay Leno uses a podium. What was put up were lecterns; there is a difference.”
“Actually, the Founding Fathers never said a word about the three branches of government being totally equal.
What they did say is that each branch have certain areas in which to exercise power and each branch must defer to the other two so that power be exercised properly.
It is the order of the three branches in the Constitution that determines how government is to operate. Congress is created in Article I so it is the leader in governmental operations and sets the path the others are to follow. The executive is in Article II, so it is to follow through on what Congress has done. And the judiciary is listed last, so it has power to review actions of the first two to assure that proper procedures are being followed.
It has been a good system, and the order of power was not accidental, it was set that way on purpose.”
“'Tis sad to read so many climate-change deniers flaunt their ignorance. It's not the size of the cabin, house, mansion one lives in nor the amount of energy used that is the problem.
It is how the energy was developed. Al Gore is constantly assailed because his large home uses more energy that does an ordinary one-family house. But Gore uses "green" energy, that is energy that DOES NOT saturate the environment with "green-house" gases. In fact, Gore pays several thousands dollars more a year to use "green" energy that he would pay if he used pollution-generating energy. So get off his case.
As to why there can be record cold temperatures amid a gradually warming planet, read:
“You're only guessing that Americans knew about the Holocaust in the '40s and ignored it. I didn't know, but I was only 10 years old when the war ended, but I do remember the US propaganda. Americans probably didn't know and for a good reason.
I had a professor at Georgetown in the '60s whose brother had been police chief of Warsaw, but spent the war as leader of the Polish underground. His brother, the Georgetown prof, had been a student in Warsaw, but became a courier for the underground.
He related how he came to Washington with information of the German atrocities. He said a US official said (paraphrasing here) "I don't want to call you a liar, but I do not believe what you are saying is true."
I.E. American officials didn't want to know, so they refused to listen or investigate. Had they accepted the truth, they would have included it in their propaganda.”
“To list Jimmy Carter among the "worst presidents" may not be fair. His presidency certainly was lame, but the man himself was fine, but he couldn't buck the entrenched special interests that rule DC.
Republicans will fall in lockstep with a GOP president regardless of how lame he is, but Democrats tend to promote their own ideas and will not take to control by a president.
Carter at least had successes in his four years in office: Poverty hit the historic low of 11.4% and he engineered a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel that still stands regardless of how much George Bush has destablized the Mideast.
Two recent surveys of Americans list Ronald Reagan as either first- or second-greatest presidents of all time. But in eight years Reagan produced two fewer accomplishments than did Carter produced.”
“to dictatortot (or others who think there is a "liberal bias" in news:
I worked in newspapering for two decades and never found a "liberal bias" back then (before Fox News), and there has never been a study proving a "liberal bias". There have been studies that prove for the main that people working as journalists were educated, progressive, free thinkers ~ a definition of liberal ~ but that doesn't in any way prove bias.
Besides, another definition of liberal is "unbiased."
It is too common for many to think that if someone isn't biased for us, he or she is biased against us; a classic conservative whine.”
“Scalia keeps saying things that prove he doesn't understand the US Constitution, and apparently doesn't care to understand.
Article i, Section 8, paragraph 18 clearly says that any laws enacted must be based on a power the Constitution gives to the government. Since abortion and homosexuality aren't mentioned in the Constitution, they are to be immune from regulation. That makes them the "immunities" which the 14th Amendment says states may not touch. That's easy to figure out.
Scalia has to be the worst anti-Constitution judge ever on the Supreme Court.”
Oct 12, 2006 at 16:33:39
“Nice try Joan, but all Americans don't hate the French and the reasons you cite are just more reasons for some Americans to continue hating all things French.
American Righties began hating the French during the American Revolution because the French helped us gain independence from Great Britain, a long-time enemy of the English aristocracy. Our Righties, known then as Tories (about half a million in a population of 3.9 million) were against independence. About 10% of them abandoned America, many taking up arms against independence, the most famous being Gen. Benedict Arnold. Political Righties have hated the French ever since; they may not remember the precise reason for their hatred but that hatred has been passed down generation after generation, only needing new excuses for their loathing.
The right has hated everything that independence led to; one nation, the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, end of slavery, labor rights, womens' rights, civil rights, voting rights and the despised democratic principles of American government.
Political Righties failed to prevent independence and we are better off they failed. They tried to prevent one nation, wanting two or three to preserve slavery, and we are better off they failed. They opposed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and we are better off they failed. They tried to destroy America with a Civil War and we are better off they failed. They tried to prevent labor rights, womens' rights and civil rights, we are better off they failed. They brought about the Great Depression through policies of McKinley and Coolidge and the wrong response by Hoover, which threatened to destroy the nation. They hate Franklin Roosevelt, not because he saved the capitalism they claim to cherish, but because he saved democracy.
They claim that Ronald Reagan is solely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union by causing it to explode in bankruptcy from Reagan's arms race. They are so convinced of this fallacy that they are now using bankruptcy to try to destroy another nation they despise. That hated nation is the democratic United States of America.”
“The argument that "we haven't been hit again" by terrorists since 9/11 is as phony as can be. Remember when al Qaida bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. The Clinton administration captured all who were responsible, tried them, convicted them and they now spend their time in prison--legally, I might add. We were not "hit again" after that, but then George Bush was appointed president and vigilance went out the window. Those who were responsible for 9/11 have not been captured, tried or convicted but are running free. Makes us wonder which political party is best at "protecting America."”
“OK, I will mention her name in response to her idiocy.
Much has been said and written the past few days about the ranting and raving of conservative Ann Coulter after she spewed out her personal hatreds on a recent television appearance. Criticism at her is misplaced. She is, and was, doing what she is being enriched to do.
I write from some experience. After several years in United States intelligence with the US Air Force Security Service and the National Security Agency supposedly protecting this land, years of studying the US Constitution at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government and two decades as a writer and editor on major metropolitan newspapers never working in the field I most desired, I can't get as much as a letter to the editor published in America when well-written, thoughtful, knowledgeable and in defense of our constitutional principles. This despite being one of the top--if not the top--constitutional experts of American journalism, which I left in disgust years ago.
On the other hand, Coulter is given newspaper columns, book deals, radio and television programs, public speaking appearances and other venues to spew her hatred of all things good. She is constantly given such opportunities and paid millions of dollars to attack America's most-basic constitutional freedoms and the people who uphold them. She rants and raves against decency and honesty and does so because the leaders and "deciders" of America's media pay her handsomely to do so. They pay--or do--nothing to defend America.
Ann Coulter may or may not be a raving lunatic but she, like other peddlers of hate such as Rush Dimbulb, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Michael Savage and countless others are only Mortimer Snerds sitting on the knees of media moguls to spew forth hatred of all things good, especially a democratic United States. They--not Ann Coulter--are the problem.”
“The second Amendment has been in existence since 1791, so it's about time Americans learn what it is really about. It was adopted for national defense, and national defense only. Says that clearly to literate people who can figure out the "security of a free state" bit.
James Madison was in charge of a panel that wrote the Bill of Rights and he didn't include the Second so every fool could commit resurrection against the very federal government he spent his political life trying to create.
The "well armed militia" statement refers us back to
article I, section 8, paragraph 16 that empowers Congress to arm the militias, i.e. "gun control."
The National rifle Association's continual distortion of the Second makes it a "subversive" organization.”
“I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about "the liberal bias" of the news industry and how that industry has a "hiring bias" favoring progressives.
Of course the industry has a liberal bent and hires more "progressives" than "regressives", but critics of the press never wants to discuss why that is so.
First we start with why some politics are called "left" and some are known as "right." It has to do with the brain. The left side of the brain controls our intellect and liberals are governed by intellect. The right side of the brain governs emotions, and conservatives base their politics on emotion.
Research at UCLA between the differences of Democrat (liberal) brains from Republican (conservative) brains showed distinct differences, although the study was rather small. When presented with images of the 9/11 attacks, Democrat brains registered "alarm" at the savagery directed toward the victims. Republican brains showed indifference.
People tend to drift into careers that reflect which part of the brain is dominant. Liberals, who are sympathetic to plights of other people, go into fields such as education, journalism and the arts. That is also why women, who are engineered for nurturing of their offspring, vote more to the left than to the right. Those who think with their emotional brain and are indifferent to other persons' injuries and concerns go into fields such as the military, law enforcement, insurance, banking and football coaching. Men, who have been conditioned since Adam left
Eden to be hunters and warriors, vote to the right where there is little or no concern for the well being of other persons or species.
The political right likes to howl about a "liberal bias" in journalism because it is reportedly composed of 33% liberal but only 7% conservative (but 60% middle of the road). They never mutter a sound when studies show that the career military officer corps is 40% conservative, only 7% liberal.”
“What we know about genetics is that we all come from an egg the female produces. That egg contains two X chromosomes, which are female. The egg must be fertilized by a male's chromosomes to produce an offpring. If fertilization is by his X chromosome, the egg remains females, if by the Y chromosome, the egg becomes male.
We all begin life as female and He'she-it God has left nipples on men, tomcats and he-mutts as a reminder of where we come from. Accept that.
Now logic will tell us that if a "virgin birth" is possible without a Y chromosome doing its bit, the egg will produce a female embryo and a third of the world would now be worshipping Jessica Christ, not Jesus Christ.”
“Guess we could make court decisions on what the Constitution specifically says as Anton Scalia and other cavemen want, but should we?
Let's see. Article I, Section 8, says Congress can establish Post Offices and postal roads. Nowhere does it say Congress can make interstate highways and the Interstate System President Eisenhower spearheaded would be forbidden. What the Founders envisioned were dirt trails through the forest where horse-drawn wagons could transport the mail. Nothing else.
Article I says Congress has power to form and maintain army and naval forces and Article II says the President is to be commander in chief of the Army and the Navy. Nowhere does it say that there is to be an Air Force. Guess we will have to eliminate that branch of the military.
The only constitutional mention of military armaments are in Article I, Section 10 (states may not keep ships of war during peace time without congressional approval) and the Second Amendment (the right to keep firearms). Guess we will have to eliminate aircraft (no need for them because we can't have the Air Force), missiles, tanks, bombs, torpedos, etc., etc., etc., since the Founders' original intent didn't include these items and much more.
That is what we would have to do if we listen to Scalia and others who reject a "living Constitution."”
“What is all this nonsense? The left brain governs intellect (i.e. thinking, or liberalism) while the right brain governs emotions (i.e. reaction and belief, or conservatism). The political right seldom uses the left brain, it relies on its opinions; never lets facts get in the way and refuses to change course when its beliefs prove to be failures. Beliefs such as tax cuts for the wealthy create wealth for everyone; deregulation of commerce improves the economy (forget about savings & loan debacle, Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing, etc, etc, etc.); invading nations that threaten us not improves national security. Factual results haven't caused these right brainers from re-evaluating their screwups.
Busted needs some left-brain thinking to overcome such statements as:
"The conservatives ARE RIGHT BRAIN dominant. That's why they are called the "right-wing". You "lefties" are all caught up in how many have died or been injured etc. The Democratic Party lefties have no new ideas. ... The "righties" have made proposals for alternative energy research, help for AIDS in Africa, intelligence collection on international communications, reform of social security, prescription Medicare insurance, and a global war on terror."
Left-brain reasoning concludes that the left proposed alternative energy sources during the Carter Administration. Ronald Reagan killed that.
Lefties know Reagan ignored AIDS when it cropped up, saying it was God's punishment for homosexuality.
Lefties know that Bush's "Social Security reform" violates the US constitution four different ways, therefore is subversion.
Lefties know Bush abandoned the "global war on terror" to begin a war elsewhere and which was totally unneeded.
Lefties know that the "prescription Medicare insurance" is a fraud and was only designed to benefit drug corporations. and that intelligence collection can be done legally with no harm to the effort.
Here's some new ideas from the left. Eliminate all pensions for elected and appointed government officials since they are the ones who have screwed up the nation. Evict Texas from the union because of its crimes against American and its Constitution.”
Feb 6, 2006 at 18:37:39
“It appears that fundamentalism is our main problem, and it doesn't matter that it is religious fundamentalism, social fundamentalism or political fundamentalism.
It just seems that the Islamic world has more fundamentalists than does the Christian or Jewish worlds, but all have them and all are the same.
The Muslim fundamentalist says that Allah created their societies and their governments, so they must be perfect and not subject to any change. But they are not perfect and the fundamentalist sees that. He then must blame that imperfection on some outside forces subverting Allah's perfect arrangements. Those outside sources have long been modernization and the West. And now European cartoons.
Fundamentalists in Christianity and Judaism think the same way, which means if they had the power they would behave the same as do Islamic fundamentalists--no one is allowed to challenge or change God's perfect will. And, of course, only they know what God's perfect will is.”
“Bush is a "conservative" in the mold of the Tories of Revolutionary War time and their descendants who have always hated a democratic America.
From Benedict Arnold to Karl Rove, Tories have done their utmost to hinder the democratization of America and to destroy a democratic America in favor of their vision of an authoritative America with them as the ruling aristocrats.
They opposed the Revolution, about 10% abandoning the colonies to take up arms against America's fight for freedom.
They opposed the Constitution arguing for two or three separate Americas in order to save slavery.
They opposed the Bill of Rights, because to them, only the aristocracy has rights.
They began the Civil War, once again to perpetuate slavery.
They opposed the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, the 14th Amendment applying the Bill of Rights' freedoms to state and local governments and the 15th Amendment extending voting rights to freed slaves.
They have opposed all labor rights, civil rights, equal rights, women's rights.
They attribute the demise of the Soviet Union solely to Ronald Reagan and how he bankrupted the USSR with a needless arms race. They are so impressed how that bankruptcy tactic worked against the USSR they put Bush in power to use it against the other nation they detest; the United States of America.”