Sunday Morning News


So Romney wants big cuts to education. Education is one of three categories, along with state government and healthcare that resulted in his whole "women have suffered under Obama" meme, but his solution is to cut more education funding, which I would assume would impact the women he and housewife of the millennium, Ann, are such strong advocates for? Got it.
Romney is a Teabagger's wet dream: Attack healthcare for the poor and women. Attack children's education. Both of which are blatant attacks on minorities for having dared to vote for a black president. Oh, and protect the wealthy under any and all circumstance because they shouldn't have to pay for or fight in all the wars Republicans want. And they do want more wars. Wars with Syria. Wars with Iran. Continued wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Paid for by anybody and everybody but the rich.
BTW Does a Mormon Cammander and Chief think his son's should fight in America's wars? Ask the fucking question right wing media!!!
Thanks for highlighting David Barstow's NYT investigation of Walmart in Mexico. It's a fantastic piece of journalism. If I were a Pulitzer I would give myself to Mr. Barstow most passionately, over and over until he was exhausted.
RE: bribery in Mehico:

I remember when the Indian government tried to shut down a KFC in Mumbai for having two flies in the restaurant. As one local paper put it, they should have been given an award.
The Romney article is horrifying. Romney has a history of raiding companies for the benefits of his investors and it's becoming clearer that he would gut the functions of government. The only "people" who would benefit are corporations and the rich. His plan is class warfare at its worst, warfare on the poor. If you at all depend or use government services and Romney gets elected, I am so sorry. He is nothing at all like a moderate. The suffering will be deep.

So it's up to Obama and his campaign to keep hammering this point. He should say it a million times during the convention and the debates. It would be irresponsible not to.

And good riddance for Colson, a typical unrepentant Republican cheat and liar who felt no dissonance with being a purported Christian.
Also: Happy 89th Bettie.
Either painful cuts now or complete disaster later. It's that dire.

Days to election: 198
@ 8, why aren't LGBT issues important to you?
@9: I never said they were not.
@9 no he thinks that lgbt's are only interested in one issue and he's not like them....cause he's better.
you never said they were important, either.
My techfriends, please help.

I like reading Slog-mobile on my iphone with Opera. Please spare me the advice that I should use something else: I know that I could, and, hey, I might.

All in all, I really like Opera browser and, for Slog-reading, it's swell.. except for videos. There is something about the way videos are served from Slog that causes my Opera browser to open them in some Uri that starts with 'waplink', and then the video does not play.

Slog is the only site I visit for which this problem exists. I surf many video sites. They almost all work great. None but Slog give me 'waplink'.

WTF is 'waplink'? Why is the issue Slog-specific? To whom do I send my suggestion to get this fixed?

@ 10, as @12 points out, you've also never said that they are.

I'm going to take you at face value for a moment here - that you are who you say you are, a gay man who supports Romney for president.

We can deduce from what you have and haven't written here that LGBT issues aren't important to you. For one, you never write about them here. For another, you're supporting a bigot. If you are truly a gay man, then one + one = "doesn't care about LGBT issues."

If you do care, please tell me this: Which LGBT issue is of the most importance to you today, why it is, and what you are doing about it.
You forgot about Colson that not only was he a blatant felon he was a blatant homophobe as well. He will not be missed. Next up: Ken Hutcherson.
I hope the School Board goes politically correct and chooses Mr Banda for the office. That way, when he does not show up at meetings, they can say (drum roll, please)

No hay Banda!

"We can deduce from what you have and haven't written here that LGBT issues aren't important to you."

Or it can be that there is something about Romney's campaign that is more important to him.

Except when he was asked that he was unable to answer it.

He's trolling and he's particularly weak at it.
He doesn't even know the issues that he's supposed to be trolling.
I've been comparing key words and phrases such as "food stamps" and "unemployment insurance" with the AP article and the PDF file from Romney's site referenced in that article.
I'm not surprised that I'm not finding any matches so far. I don't fault the AP for extrapolating to some extent, but I would expect that the AP would have the journalistic courtesy to call out such extrapolations and explain how they reached their conclusions.

@14: Same sex marriage, and I'm totally confident that we'll beat Referendum 74 in November. Now before you ask
me about Romney's support of the Republican's party's marriage amendment to the constitution, allow me to preface that it will never gain any traction with Congress or the states and I predict that Romney is just throwing his far right base a bone and will flip flop into not supporting such an amendment in the future. It's plausible. It's also plausible that Mr. Obama will continue to be opposed to same sex marriage.
Painful for who?

Painful for the big oil companies when government cuts their subsidies?

Painful for the military-industrial complex when government cuts defense spending?

Painful the the wealthy when government cuts their tax loopholes?

Ha ha! Of course not... you mean "painful to the poor and sick" when the last remaining shreds of any social welfare are cut.

Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor, right?
@13 (NotSean): I don't have an iPhone, I don't read SLOG on a mobile, and I'm not a tech guru. With those grains of salt out in the open, I just googled wap links iphone and got a result claiming that "Wapzilla" is the only WAP-capable browser for the iPhone. If whatever version of Opera you're using doesn't support WAP (wireless application protocol), that might be your answer.

I know that some incarnations of Opera (Opera Mini?), for Windows-based mobiles at least, support full-fledged webpages, not just stripped-down, simplified webpages for mobile. Regular webpages might not be as easy on the eyes or convenient to browse on a mobile, but on the other hand the videos might actually play for you.

If you remain stuck and no one else has a better suggestion, you could try emailing the Stranger's contact for web-related questions. (To get there, click on the Contact link at the bottom of the page.) I did once and I actually got an answer.
Here's where the lies begin.

I did a quick Google on "romney education cut" to see what exactly and how much education funding he would propose to cut.

Realize that the biggest parts of many state...not federal...budgets is education so it's not really the role of the national government anyway.

The only actually quote from Romney I could find is this:

Regarding the Department of Education, Romney promised to“either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller.”…

So...yes...Romney would cut [the Federal Department of] Education!!!

No quotes as to cutting Education spending itself!!
@PCM, thanks.

FWIW, I did try the google-and-bing tubes. I just didn't find or recognize a thread to go on.

Sarkozy? ? ? ?

Should anyone be interested in how he really came to be president and his acquisition of power, please research the Franco-American Foundation, John Negroponte and Frank Wisner, Jr.

It wasn't pretty, but much like those "preemptive arrests" of both the Bush and Obama administrations, it is pretty effective!

NPR is shitting bricks that he's I wonder why that would be????

The Sesame Street Choice

On Sesame Street, happiness prevails and analytical thinking is always to be avoided.

Whose wife was behind Sesame Street? The same fellow who wants to end Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and has worked to offshore as many American jobs as possible over the past thirty years.

The Sesame Street choice: either the vile sleazoid and financial parasite, Romney of Wall Street, or the pseudo-nice guy and rightwinger, Obama of Wall Street.

The Sesame Street choice is zero choice ----- zero options!

Sesame Street, as it turns out, isn’t our street nor the street we wished we lived on, but Wall Street posing as “entertainment education.”

Today, mind-altering propaganda is spread forth through “entertainment education” --- when it’s good, you get the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show; but when it’s bad, when it’s really, really bad, you get NCIS (where they flipped reality, spinning it as “conspiracy theory”), FoxFiction, CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NPR and PBS.

The corporate media’s construction of reality ain’t reality and that’s a fact, Jack! ! !

[I’ll be writing in Bernie Sanders for president this upcoming election. Screw the Sesame Street choice!]
Bettie's beem dead for at least a year now. Get a life.

As things stand right nown I'll be "holding my nose" and voting for Romney. Because yeah, I guess I am that much of a single-issue voter.

But I'm not happy about it.
"I've been comparing key words and phrases such as 'food stamps' and 'unemployment insurance' with the AP article and the PDF file from Romney's site referenced in that article."

No you haven't.
If you had been doing that you would understand the final paragraph on that AP story.

"There's good reason why Ryan's budget and the Romney budget don't have details," said Jim Horney, a budget analyst with the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy priorities think tank. "If people knew what it would actually have to be done to accomplish what they're saying should be done, it's hard to imagine there would be widespread support for it."

The point being that Romney's "plan" is nothing more than platitudes and talking points.

In the old days, someone trolling would at least understand the material they were trolling.
Could someone please cite the explicit constitutional authority the feds have for a) education in any form and b) spending taxpayer money on mitigating poor personal choices in career or family on the part of some at the expense of those who didn't actually make those poor choices?

Alternatively, could someone show where a) the Department of Education advances educational outlooks for kids in any way proportionately to the money spent or b) welfare programs help the poor to actually change the bad decisions that made them poor to begin with, again in any way commensurate with the vast expenditures on them?

No? Oh! So basically these programs are unconstitutiional welfare for incompetent, lazy government workers who couldn't actually get a job in the private sector? Well, that makes a hell of a lot more sense than claiming they actually do anything any sane person would want done, anyway.

Parenthetical note- A young friend of mine just finished a technical degree in instrumentation. He was offered a number of jobs, 2 in the private sector, 3 in government work. (Oddly, 2 of these were at Hanford, which now does absolutely nothing at astronomical expense.) The counselor at his college and the folks he spoke to working in his prospective career advised against working for government given even a less well paid private sector option. The reasoning was that after such a job he would be unable to work in the private sector, since government workers had a reputation for irrational salary and compensation demands coupled with a lack of work ethic fostered by government work. You could howerer get a job in government if you had worked in the private sector. So, from a career planning perspective you could work at one job that blocked out half your later employment options, or at another that kept them all open. He now works at a job he loves and is paid well to do. In the private sector.
@26, listen up. Your mom's banging her cane on the floor again. She wants you to come up from your bedroom in her basement. It's time for her sandwich.

That's a loud cane! I live northeast of Seattle, and she in Yakima. And she doesn't use a cane. And she and her husband sold the house that had a basement. Though they do have a disused root cellar...

But hey, 1 out of 3 ain't bad! For you. Being so consistently wrong is maybe what makes you so gloomy, buddy.
@26: "The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States"
General welfare, bitch. That means making sure that everyone is doing all right. If you think that efforts in that regard aren't being done efficiently, propose an alternative. (And no, "kill the programs and give the rich more tax cuts with the money saved" does not count as an alternative.)
@24 Honest question here, 5280, what single issue are you referring to? I'd assume gun rights, but I didn't think Obama has really been all that anti-gun.

Um hmm.

The hackneyed lib use of the elastic clause as a grant of federal authority without any limit of any kind?

(FYI- No constitutional scholar worth mentioning actually thinks we have a federal responsibility to "make sure everyone is doing all right." At most, they interpret a duty to make sure everyone has the opportunity to do all right.)

Doesn't granting your government the unchecked authority of a North Korean despot or Somalian warlord, worry you just a tiny bit?

You have the perfect right to surrender YOUR liberty to your government. Go for it. Not my call. You clearly want to live as a slave rather than a free citizen, and I wouldn't dream of asking you to forgo your chosen chains. But when you attempt to surrender my liberty and that of my childrens as well? Yeah, then I have a problem.

So yes. Kill Social Security and the Department of Education and HUD and all the other illegal activities, by all means. That they're ineffecient, even pointless at doing what they claim to have as objectives, isn't really the issue. That the federal government has no legal authority in these areas at all, that's the issue. If you and a majority of other citizens of Illinois want cradle to grave government care you have that right. In Illinois. You do not have the right to impose your far left values on the center right majority of your fellow United States citizens however. You do not have the right to abrogate the Constitution for your personal ideological aims, more to the point.
Yeah who does the federal government think it is, promoting the general welfare through its taxing and spending powers granted under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. I mean, that clause wasn't *really* meant to be part of the Constitution, right? Only the sections and my interpretations thereof count!

And 76 years of Supreme Court precedent dating back to US v. Butler, and an expansive interpretation going as far back as Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers never happened right? It never happened! *plugs ears* NYAH-NYAH-NYAH... WHERE IS JUDGE NAPOLITANO WHEN YOU NEED HIM?
If I instituted a policy which gave ponies to all children who wanted them and paid for the stabling, how well do you think a politician would do trying to eliminate that program? Have that policy in effect for 80 years, and then try to eliminate it, what would you think the effect politically on those trying to do so?

Because a majority of people gain an immoral benefit from something doesn't make it good policy.

The effect of all progressive thought over the long term is to make of citizens a lot of spoiled toddlers demanding ponies at someone elses expense. It happened in Europe, and it is happening here. Unpopular though it may be to point out that a citizenry made up of the immature isn't a consumation devoutly to be wished, it isn't inconsistent with the Constitution or even just basic good governance.
@25: Yes, I did read that final paragraph and it doesn't negate what I said. Here's another example:

At issue are these programs, just to name a few: health research; NASA; transportation; homeland security; education; food inspection; housing and heating subsidies for the poor; food aid for pregnant women; the FBI; grants to local governments; national parks; and veterans' health care.

Romney promises to immediately cut them by 5 percent. But they would have to be cut more than 20 percent to meet his overall budget goals...

Romney's Full PDF file:
The Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act

- Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent, reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion.

Interesting how the AP is able to enumerate a tossed salad of federal expenditures that will get reduced cut under Romney's non-security discretionary spending category. Some of their guesses may be right, but the point is that this is just another shoddy extrapolation rather than any investigative journalism. Actually, I double the Romney campaign has enumerated such a list this far out. Also interesting is how the AP get's that 'more like 20 percent' postulation. Perhaps the number 20 got stuck in their minds from Romney's $20 billion savings figure?

The AP is totally hopeless.

I refer you to my comment to VL. If you wish to be a slave of a dictatorial government rather than a free citizen of a free nation, that's your right. Imposing that slavery on others is not.

FDR's little pet Supreme Court made a LOT of bad decisions. (See for reference the 'switch in time that saved nine.) For that matter, Plessy V Fergusen was a bad decision. So, should a court making a bad decision become a suicide pact for us all to honor? Not in my judgement, but then I love liberty and you slavery. I honor the rule of law and you the felt expediency of the moment. I wish my fellow citizens to be self reliant adults making their way in their own pursuit of happiness, and you wish them chained to each other in a sociological suicide pact. So we're probably not going to agree on much of anything at a guess.
OC @30: Yeah, guns.

Obama's pretty anti-gun. Yeah, I know, he hasn't done much about it so far. Um, except for Fast and Furious, which we all know came from the very top. But no, he's all for gun ownership. Supposedly. Until he isn't.

Now, to be honest, I don't think Romney is either. Thus the hold my nose" bit.
Wait, doesn't VP Biden take Air Force 2 generally?

(No, I'm not getting into this apparent phallus-smacking competition. Unless Dominic calls....)
Pinch hard. Romney has announced his intent to "get rid of" Planned Parenthood to reporters in Kirkwood, MO. Of course he could be doing his flip-flop. tWas but 6 years ago that Mr. Romney was patting himself on the back for "Romneycare". And not that long ago he was chuffed about "Romneycare" being used as the national model for "Obamacare". And, now he goes on about the evil "Obamacare". Pinch hard. Very hard. Mr. Romney cares for Mr. Romney and he'll change his tune to manipulate his audience. If eliminating the 2nd would buy him what he wants, then he'd do it.
@39 Roger, and I guess I can see Obama becoming more anti-gun as a lame duck if he had the votes, like a re-auth of the assault weapons ban or some such, and yeah, definitely more likely to do that than Romney would be.
@36: Just a quick note, before I head back out in to the sun, to remind you that you have yet to respond to the invitation I extended to you during the conversation regarding Romney and his dog.

You remember.
Matt in Denver called you a liar, said that when next in Seattle he'd say so to your face, and you (probably because you felt secure that scenario to prove unlikely) responded, and I quote, Anytime you feel up to it pal?


And I, being much more geographically convenient, offered to serve as Matt's proxy?
So Seattleblues, do you feel up to meeting me here in Seattle to be called a liar to your face? Or are you, as I said in that thread, and will repeat here, afraid?
@40, those are just radio callsigns assigned to whatever aircraft the Prez or Veep are aboard. A Cessna 172 would be Air Force One if it was carrying the Prez, Air Force Two if the Veep. And they never fly together on the same aircraft.
@39: sometimes you're completely leotarded. dude, GUNS WON. obama's not going to do jack about it in a second term.
"Imposing that slavery on others is not."

So you still think that it is better that 10 soldiers die in Afghanistan than Romney pay one more penny in taxes?
dun dun dun:…

You guys on SLOG like to complain, but here's how they really complain (in a League of Legends forum):

Yeah I seems just like a huge community of immature kids (and even worse adults) who can't handle losing in a game. Instead of following the summoner's code, they want to blame you and then start cussing and then try to get you reported for not being good enough, with a new champ or something...or just because you didn't play the way THEY wanted you to even though you did the best you could, *within your ability*.…

You heard that right.

If only we had followed the Summoner's Code.
@31: Ever read the Constitution? Because THAT's not the Elastic Clause. The Elastic Clause is a few seconds later.
You don't care about truth or accuracy, nor do you stay in touch with the real world. You think that allowing the Federal government to set standards for what children are taught will turn us into North Korea or Somalia? PLEASE. The difference between this country and a dictatorship is that WE choose who rules us. Every few years, the people of this nation decide who they trust to man the rudder.
The Federal government isn't some faceless entity parasitizing the American people. It answers DIRECTLY to us. Giving it effective power to regulate and oversee will IN NO WAY make us less free, any more than having government at all does.
You think we'd be better off with a vestigial Federal government, letting each state decide how things are done for itself? Take a lesson from how we did under the Articles of Confederation, you damned Secessionist. I'll sum it up; WE COULDN'T GET JACK SHIT DONE.
What you're railing against here isn't a strong Federal government; your real target is majority rule. How is Illinois imposing its values on the rest of the country? Maybe the rest of the country agrees! Because you've ended up on the minority side, you want to take your ball and go home. For some reason, you can't seem to accept that most Americans disagree with you on these issues. If you want to except yourself from the law of the land, as written by the people's duly and democratically elected representatives, you can get the hell out.
I'll take my chances with a government that answers to its people, rather than allow myself to be run roughshod over by corporations answering only to their stockholders.
@41 I think the argument being made here, Kim in Portland, is that the government we elect and pay taxes to has no constitutional obligation or authority to work for its citizens. In other words, we elect officials and give the government part of our earnings and shouldn't expect it to provide healthcare, transportation, assurance of safe food and merchandise, security from fraudulent commercial practices, clean air and water, a safety net for when life fails, all those things. None of this is stated explicitly in the Constitution. Therefore, if our government were to provide all those things, if government were to at least pretend to give a damn about us, it would be infringing on our freedoms. I think that's perfectly reasonable, don't you agree? Government working for its citizens = The end of freedom.

Now, mainting corporate and trading tax loopholes, that's actually in the Constitution. Keeping massive tax breaks on oil corporations - the Founding Fathers actually spelled that out. And we were always intended to be at war with somebody. Our society's governing system was actually designed to be a pipeline where we would drop a portion of our earnings in one end and the pipeline would deliver it to corporations and the wealthy at the other end. That's the goal of America! Always has been. Don't you read the Constitution? There are two sections in the Constitution. The first one's called Guns and the second one's called Tax Cuts For Millionaires. This last one was the origin of the phrase, "Corporations are people, too, my friend." Thank Holy God we have a presidential candidate who understands this.

(Well, okay. Actually Mitt Romney added the "my friend" part.)
@34: How is Social Security immoral? Everyone pays into it when they work, and everyone gets the benefits when they retire.
@36: Never mind the judicial precedent, how about the Constitutional justification that madcap and I tossed your way? Apparently only YOUR interpretation of the Constitution counts any, huh buddy? If you don't like Obamacare or Social Security or the Department of Education, go ahead and say so. But don't give us this bullshit about it being unconstitutional, when it's clearly not; be honest about the reasons for disliking the legislation.

By the way, this past year, I owed the Federal government $73. I'm PROUD to pay my share. I don't bitch about how my money is helping the whole country instead of just me, you know.
"By the way, this past year, I owed the Federal government $73. I'm PROUD to pay my share."

Come talk to me when you pay $25,000 like we did in '11. Until then, you're a fucking parasite.
@ gay dude, sounds fairly boilerplate, but I'll take it for now.

@ 5280, I've seen nothing to indicate that Fast & Furious "came from the very top." It's possible, of course, but it's better to make decisions based on known facts. What have you read?
@ SB, you should take up Lissa's offer. We've gone over our budgets and can't visit Seattle this year. Maybe next year. You worthless liar.
Considering that Romney has said pretty much everything and its opposite over the last 10 years, I don't see the purpose of parsing what he said or didn't. The dude is not only an opportunistic weather vane but he is the epitome for the 1% and would govern accordingly.
I think it's sweet that Seattleblahs found himself a boyfriend. He and Gay Dude for Romney were made for each other.

Isn't love wonderful?
@53, if you had absolutely no deductions or exemptions (which is highly unlikely), you still made approximately $75,000 in 2011. More likely you made at least $100K. No sympathy for you.
@53: Oh, I would love to be making six figures and paying $25k a year in taxes. Unfortunately, I can't actively pursue a career at the moment because I'm still an undergrad working part-time as an independent contractor.
@59 aka part of thr 50% of americans who pay no income tax. Another parasite not paying his fair share bitching about those of us who do. Maybe you-all should be forced to send us thank you cards every year.
@61 can we at least get a simple thank you from the parasitic 50% who pay nothing but consume more gub'ment services? A card? A smile on the street instead of stealing my car?
Btw, 25% is just income tax. Add sales, property, FICA etc.

Plus, these morons arent satisfied with just this. If you think just the 1% can pay for their fantasy nanny state you're fooling yourself.
@60: If you whine a little more loudly, maybe I'll start caring about your opinions. Can't hurt to try, can it?
" upper middle class lifestyle w/o showing up at your house w/ torches and pitchforks"

No they just break into our home and cars and steal sh*t. Don't even bother to leave a thank you card.

Btw, don't pay your taxes and they will send someone with guns to take you away.
" Most of those other things you mentioned are regressive taxes that disproportionately effect people w/ lower incomes."

Not after they get their welfare check, aka. Earned Income Credit. Apparently the gub'ment needs to reward people for knowing they're supposed to work.
@68 no, that's where they get the training on how to steal your stuff.

Prisons can be counter-productive.
"Prisons can be counter-productive."

Then why are crime rates dropping?
@43 and 55

Cute. Threaten a fistfight, then say that you're in Denver and a middle aged woman can stand in your stead, then call a person who refuses to engage in physical conflict with a middle aged woman a liar?

If you weren't liberals I'd explain what gentlemen will and won't do, but since you are the concept of a gentleman (or a lady) is entirely beyond you.

You're really just the usual for a lib aren't you two? Lying, delusional effeminate cowards who use tax collection as a form of extortion from people who work to support those who point blank refuse to do so- then can't figure out why in the world the robbed are upset.

@69 That's what most liberals say..... until they get mugged.
@72: Seattleblues:
1) Matt didn't threaten a fist fight. He said he would call you a liar to your face.
2) Matt didn't ask me to stand in his place, I volunteered.

I will be crystal clear for you:
I live in Seattle and I will, on my own account, call you a liar to your face any time you feel up to it Pal. No threats of fist fighting. Just that.
Name the place and time.


To what end? Liberals don't understand truth, so when they call someone a liar it really carries very little weight.

If I wanted non-sequitor insults I'd talk to my senile neighbor 3 doors down. (Unlike liberals, he can't help his disconnect with reality. My grandad got that way at about 87 too, so I get what he's going through.) I'm usually there once or twice a month helping around his house or lawn anyway, so no commuting for the, um, priviledge of being insulted by the delusional.
@72: Care to take a moment from your pugilistic posturing and respond to the actual arguments I made in posts 49 and 51? Probably not; you melt into the background when confronted with reasoning based on actualities.


Your constitutional reasoning is that based on a couple of decisions the traitorous bastard FDR extorted from a cowed Supreme Court we live in an country whose federal government can do anything at all it likes, provided it can make up some half baked reason their conduct supports 'general welfare.'

You believe that nobody should under any circumstances take responsibility for their family planning, home buying, career or retirement decisions. No. Those are the collective responsibility of people in Washington DC, not the citizen him or herself.

You don't believe in property rights. What a man earns is only his at the will and whim of a majority of his fellow citizens. If he comitts the gross and bestial sin of doing well for himself he ought to be roundly punished by confiscation of his property for the welfare of the lazy or stupid.

And this was the intent of the men and women who risked property and their very lives in the Revolutionary
War. Over inadequate representation in their existing government. These men, these men who put their very families at risk to secure their liberty, wrote a document which negated the rights of Magna Carta and the Common Law, because they hated liberty so much.

Okay then. I don't know how to explain to a slave who loves his chains that freedom is superior. But you are the reason my kids are privately educated. The liberal brainwashing factories that are our public schools are the reason you could even consider that kind of thinking worth two shits or a damn.
You do lie on this forum, Seattleblues. You also ignore citable evidence that refutes your opinion. You are also exceedingly abusive with a substantial portion of what you type. At times you do acknowledge that you are both pridefilled and arrogant, but those acknowledge don't erase the ugliness that is within you. Nor do they suggest that you have any knowledge of what truth is. Just that you wish to present yourself as an abusive hypocrite. None of this matters, though. You're not real. You are a moniker on the Internet who chooses to paint an unattractive character from the safety of his keyboard. You like bring anonymous, because anonymity gives you permission to make abusive rants. You're sad. I pity you. I hope you grow out of it.
@ SB, you're a lying liar, and one who has the temerity - when finally cornered on it, as Lissa has you here - to project your lack of understanding what "truth" means.

God, you're pathetic. I'll call you that to your face, too - I WILL be in Seattle someday, and I WILL make sure you know about it here on SLOG.
I need to be fair to you, Seattleblues. You are not the only commenter that lies or goes on abusive rants. Certainly not. You just seem to be one who does both and insists on a delusion that you don't and that you are both moral and truthful. That makes you odd.

And, I am sorry when you get called names or when people make jabs at your family. Your humanity deserves to be treated better. Innocent children and spouses deserved to be respected. But, I'm also sorry when you are the name caller and when you attack other children and spouses. Two wrongs don't make things right. Honestly, you should know that. Everyone should know that. Such is the Internet and its anonymity.
@76: I will be happy to provide copies of your own words and citations that refute them when we meet. There will be no insults on my part non-sequitur ( and that's sequitur with a "u" FYI) or otherwise.
If distance is a problem I am more than happy to meet where ever may be most convenient for you.
Whenever and where ever you feel up to it pal.
@76: And remember Seattleblues you brought this on yourself when you accepted Matt's original challange. That you thought yourself safe in your posturing is immaterial. Wriggle an whine all you like, but there it is.
@78: Well well well, what have we here? Allow me to paraphrase:
"Sure, you do have a coherent line of reasoning, but I disagree with it and it was previously suggested by someone I don't like!"
You don't have a counterargument; you have opinions. And when your opinion is that FDR, consistently ranked by historians--HISTORIANS, people EDUCATED on the issue--as one of the best presidents in American history, is a traitor to his nation, you're not going to be terribly convincing. You're not an officeholder or a legal scholar or a historian, and yet you seem to think that your opinions trump everything. When I use the Elastic Clause to justify something, your response is that the Elastic Clause should be taken out of the Constitution because it's wrong. (Never mind that you can't even correctly identify the Elastic Clause.)
And yes, if the Federal government can make a case that there is a pressing public interest in passing a certain law, and there is nothing in the Constitution against the proposed law, that law can be passed. If you think it's a bad law, agitate against it. But don't try to pretend that the Federal government only has authority over what is written out in every last detail.
Now, I do believe in property rights. I have the right to own property, and Uncle Sam has the right to tax me on my income. And since we live in a representative democracy, I have as much say as any voting citizen on how my property may be taxed and how those taxes may be spent. It's right there in the 16th Amendment that the Federal government has the right to help itself to a portion of my earnings; surely even you don't try to deny that. So, again, it boils down to "I don't like this tax". Boo hoo. You don't like it. What a shame.
@78: As far as responsibility goes, you're making a false dichotomy. Either everyone pulls their own weight with no help, or you get babied by the government and never have to do a lick of work!
Nobody is asking for an escalator to prosperity. No sir, we just want a ladder. And maybe a boost up to that first rung for those of us who are doing particularly poorly. See, I'm happy to pull myself up, and so is the vast majority of this country. But we need something to pull ourselves up by.
You are laboring under the delusion that nobody is poor unless they are lazy moochers. Your privilege is showing, Seattleblues. People usually end up poor because they get laid off or suffer a costly injury or have some other crisis. You've been lucky enough to avoid such problems. But not everyone has your good fortune. It's called the Just World Fallacy; look it up.
I'm not quite sure why you think public schools and universities of any stripe indoctrinate kids into being liberals. Maybe people just tend to agree less with your pie-in-the-sky worldview once they've got more data to draw on?
"Maybe people just tend to agree less with your pie-in-the-sky worldview once they've got more data to draw on?

That's not how we vote in America, here it's usually center to center right. You're the minority. Maybe you should consider moving? Good luck getting work papers in any European nation though, much easier to get work and papers in free market, small nanny state nations in Asia.
@86: Co ja kurwa czytam?
"unnecessary if people did the sensible thing "

Thanks for acknowledging at least half the population are idiots driving around with $4,000 rims and Playstations. I still think we should get thank you cards from Venomlash and other non-contributors.
@87 Yhet mee katoey noi.
@39- Listen, I know you're fucking crazy and need a gun with you all the time. But Obama has done nothing against your security blanket. The Democrats have dropped that issue completely. They're not going back to it. Romney is just as likely to suddenly start trying to grab your gun as Obama is. He'd probably use some sort of "free market solution" like auctioning a limited number of licenses. That way the very rich could still have guns.
@88: My point is that he's trying to impose his opinions on us, even while the opinions of people educated on the issue are in direct conflict with him. If three doctors diagnosed me with pneumonia, Seattleblues would be the guy insisting, without any qualification, that I've actually got pneumonia.
@90: Co ja kurwa czytam?
*actually got malaria
can't type without sleep