Sarah Palin's Alaska Offspring


Hell, I don't know. But one thing's for sure: @bristol_palin has definitely surpassed @lindsaylohan on Twitter for sheer, unadulterated drama.
Guys of Procul Harum: isn't it time to write new words "A White Trash Shade of Palin"?
You, Your, You're, Yours- Them's important things to No...err, Know.
@97: I'm just reminding you to READ it, not leaf through it while mumbling your own foregone conclusions.
@98: Reagan built up a huge deficit, allowed the Savings and Loan Crisis to happen, and escalated the Cold War, nearly bringing the planet to a nuclear holocaust. And you seem to be intent on ignoring the Iran-Contra Affair, in which Reagan clearly had committed a crime.
FDR had the courage to spend money on public works (Hoover's refusal to deficit spend one iota had doomed the country to a prolonged recession), and though the process of recovery was a bumpy one, America was on the rise before WWII even broke out. FDR created Social Security, established the FDIC, and was a strong proponent of civil rights.
In fact, historians by an overwhelming margin consider FDR to be one of the three greatest Presidents, along with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Your allegations of socialist treason are entirely unfounded, and functionally libelous.
This is the most famous family in the U.S. and they're never going away. FTW
"I'm just reminding you to READ it..." You might try doing so yourself. Where in the Constitution is the theft of my money for the food, housing or medical care of others authorized, to take only one instance of FDR shredding the document?

That's right. Nowhere.

Where is the right to direct me to purchase a financial instrument, insurance, that I neither need nor want in the form prescribed by the abomination of Obama health care?

Right again, nowhere.

As for FDR, you and the rest of the brainwashed can view him as you like. It's a free country. I go by the long term effects of his disastrous presidency, not by your alleged short term gains. In the long term that man turned a nation of independent and competent citizens into one of whining babies incapable of wiping their own posteriors without a federal program to help them. He was, and will likely remain, the worst president this nation has ever seen. If he wasn't, well, God help us. I can't see how anyone could possible be worse. So far, the combination of native ability and ill will for this nation in the use of that ability FDR possesed seems to have been an awful anomaly.

FDR and civil rights? Now that must be an attempt at irony, right? Under FDR a man was told growing corn on his land for his family was in violation of interstate trade. Under FDR the rights of property ownership were significantly curtailed. Under FDR the plain meaning of the Constitution was interpreted to mean whatever FDR wanted it to. Want to know how the Patriot Act came about? Look to FDR and his dilution of how we look at our Constitution. Want to know why I undergo an illegal search at airports, court-houses, certain sporting events and so on? Yep. That would be FDR stretching the Constitution to the point where it broke, allowing all these abuses.

"Functionally libelous?" In the first place, neither libel nor slander apply to public figures. Which is why liberals can lie about George Bush, for instance. I cannot threaten such a public figure legally, but I can voice my opinion of them. For instance, I can say 'Obama is so far out of his depth and abilities that I fear for my country.' Were this false, which it isn't, it still wouldn't be libelous. It is political speech. In the second, what the hell does that even mean? I tried to look it up in Blacks, but my copy seems to be missing the term 'functional libel.'

Also, there's this thread some folks created in response - disgusting:…

I'm not ignoring anything about Reagan. Last I checked Congress held hearings on the Iran-Contra mess. Somehow I don't remember impeachment, never mind criminal charges. But maybe you recall something I don't?
@97: Utilising? Speak American, ya fuckin' limey.
@106: "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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. Congress has the right to levy taxes etc. in order to pay for, among other things, the "general Welfare" of America. And the Elastic Clause ("To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof") allows for a mandate to be insured. After all, if you aren't insured and you go to the emergency room, your care is being paid for by the taxes of everyone else. And the general Welfare of the United States tends to preclude people not having access to the necessities of life. You can argue about the Elastic Clause if you want, but you lose all credibility when you claim that the Federal government doesn't have the right to tax its citizens.

The Congressional hearings on the Iran-Contra Affair could not quite prove that Reagan knew for certain what his subordinates were doing. Either Reagan was a lousy crook, or he was so incompetent that he was entirely unaware of the actions of his office. Which do you think?
Also, you don't seem to have any sources backing up your assertion that public figures cannot sue for libel or slander. You may be thinking of the great burden of proof placed on the plaintiff under this country's defamation laws. When you accuse FDR in print of subverting the Constitution in violation of the Oath of Office, you are technically committing libel. Of course, nobody's going to try and sue you...
It's awfully easy for you to blame FDR for everything that's gone wrong with America, considering as you don't feel obligated to provide any sources, evidence, or even reasoning beyond wild accusations. If you were right, one would think that a historian here or there would agree with you, considering that they are the ones properly educated on the issues.
Wow, the trollbait is strong in this one.
I is so pruod abuot the level of educashion that thoz kids is getting up theyre in Alaksa. She has a braigt futur as a guverner.
You can repeat 'read the document in those irritating capitals all you like. I have. At a venture I have more closely and more often than you.

I'm aware that the Congress has power to levy taxes. I'm unaware of how levying taxes on one group of citizens to directly benefit another is uniform. Taxes pay for roads, schools, common defense and so on are clearly a common burden on all of us. i object only to the use of my money for the sustenance of my lazy fellow citizens who won't provide for themselves.

Nor do I argue against medical insurance per se. But the choice of what investments I make, or provisions for my risks, is mine. It isn't yours and it sure as hell isn't Obamas'. Having said that, if someone shows up at the hospital without insurance they should have to pay whatever bills accrue, not the taxpayer generally or other patients. If it takes them 20 years, I don't see where that is the taxpayers problem. It certainly isn't mine. Every right was given them to purchase insurance prior to needing medical care.

No, I'm not going to cite every ridiculous precedent begun under FDR. Start with Wickard, for one of the more damaging to jurisprudence in this nation, but that is one among many bad decisions. See, that's what happens when a president threatens to pack the Supreme Court until he gets justices with no legal integrity who will do as he says. In this case the threat sufficed, and the integrity of the court was destroyed.

As far as the Elastic Clause it is long overdue for removal by Amendment. It's insane to think that men who fomented revolution over government over reaching without representation would condone- government over-reaching without due representation. As with any contract, that clause is modified by the specifically enumerated powers around it. It's only liberals who think that it is the magic wand to make government able to do anything it wants. It is only liberals who would want such a tryannical government.

New York Times v Sullivan is the case which established a general immunity for libel against public officials. In passing, defamation and libel are two different legal terms.

We could trade court citations, philosophical postitions and so on til the cows come home. I will simpy always agree that 'a government capable of giving you everything you want is one capable of taking everything you have.' You will always see government as responsible for every aspect of our lives from first breath to the pine box.

@113: I like this...
You claim that certain laws are unconstitutional.
I counter your arguments by reminding you of the Elastic Clause and how it has been interpreted over the past 200 odd years.
You respond, in essence, "Well, I think the Elastic Clause shouldn't be in there anyway." Good to know that you consider yourself competent of editing the central legal document of a nation of 300,000,000 souls.
Also, NYT v. Sullivan didn't establish immunity for defamation against public officials; it simply set the precedent that in such cases, malicious intent on the part of the accused must be proven. Understand your sources before you try to use them in an argument. And I am perfectly aware of the meanings of "defamation", "slander", and "libel". Slander is spoken, libel is printed, and defamation is a catch-all term that can refer to any such false and malicious claim.
I'm not surprised that you refuse to shed any light on your reasoning behind blaming FDR for all the nation's ills, or that backing up your assertion that using the Elastic Clause to "promote the general welfare" is somehow unconstitutional. You're the sort of paranoid anti-government fool who seeks to blame The Man for everything that goes wrong.
At the least, hearing your arguments has given me valuable experience as a proctologist.
99, Kim in Portland, as usual is a voice of reason. She puts Seattleblues in perspective for me, which is a good thing for my blood pressure. And @114 Venomlash, I love you.
I think that the Elastic Clause served a function for reasonable and educated men who understood its' limitations. Since we don't seem to possess such legislators or presidents (or citizens from whom to draw them, come to that) anymore, I think it time to more carefully spell out exactly what 'the general welfare' means. Since this is a blog and not a course in Constitutional law I tried to keep it simple so that people like you could understand. Apparently that was an error.

Similarly, books could be written about the manifold harms FDR did this nation. This isn't a book, nor do I have the time to waste educating you on basic political philosophy. In brief, FDR altered the basic relationship citizens had with their government. Prior to his administration people believed that government served the enumerated purposes spelled out in the Constitution. Otherwise, as one justice famously put it, they had 'the right to be let alone.' You are the direct result of 80 years of the corrosive doctrine that my needs lay an obligation on my fellow citizens to be met through the agency of our government. You and the progressive movement generally wants so strong a central government that all your needs are met from birth to death with no effort on your part. The USSR and China show the rocky end to that road, if you folks could ever bring yourself to remember that.

Since he could not so alter the nature and function of government within Constitutional constraints he did so by bending to the breaking point our founding document. That precedent of 'interpreting' congressional or exececutive powers is the direct reason why the 4th Amendment no longer means anything. Without something like FDR the Patriot Act would not have been possible, for one example. Courts would have slammed it down as a clear violation of the 1st, 5th and 4th Amendments, just to start with.

I didn't mis-state Sullivan. This case set the bar so high for libel (not defamation or slander, but libel) so high that it made it infeasible to sue as a public official. I did state the effect, rather than quoting whole swaths of the decision to make it easier. And I wrote the effect accurately. In my opinion this is a good thing, no matter how abused it has been. Amanda Knox, to take an example, is charged with defaming the police for telling a court that she had been abused. Were a journalist to repeat her accusations they could be charged this way as well. This could not happen here, and I'm thankful for it. It keeps democracy viable to allow airing of even our darker political secrets in the public square.

Like I said, books could be written about the evil FDR and his spirituall descendant Johnson did this nation. But trying to educate a liberal is liking trying to teach my dog French. I could get her to understand a few basic commands, but why bother? She'll never grasp the concepts behind the words.
You know, if you lost that condescending attitude, somebody might actually listen to you. Til then, though, you're just another horse's ass.
@116: Translation:
"Well, I wasn't making stupid arguments, no sir! I was just trying to make it easy for you to understand! And I'd provide evidence to support all these assertions I'm making, except you just wouldn't understand, anyway. Poor you; I may be uneducated and dogmatic, but I know more than you clearly do!
And always remember, liberals are doo-doo heads."
Yeah....there's a good reason you're not an elected official.
"Since this is a blog and not a course in Constitutional law I tried to keep it simple so that people like you could understand."

Boy, you sure do not think much of the intelligence of people other than yourself, do you? As a rule, I have little respect for people who generalize about others, as it shows a lack of depth of thinking.

"You and the progressive movement generally wants so strong a central government that all your needs are met from birth to death with no effort on your part.”

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing out what I think. I am so glad you know what I want and desire. If it weren't for you, I wouldn't know. And yes, that is sarcasm. Just wanted to point that out to you. In case, y'know, you missed it.

"Courts would have slammed it down as a clear violation of the 1st, 5th and 4th Amendments, just to start with."

And, of course, it had nothing to do with the politically stacked SCOTUS members. Good to know!

"The USSR and China show the rocky end to that road, if you folks could ever bring yourself to remember that."

Yes, because the political structures of China, the USSR, and America are IDENTICAL! You are being judgmental and making causal relationships where they don't exist. That, sir, is an intellectual FAIL.

"But trying to educate a liberal is like trying to teach my dog French."

And there are none so blind as those who will not see. You may have had a lot of education, sir, but it was poured into an intellectual and emotional void. Good luck with that.
Living in Seattle until I can afford to retire somewhere with sensible politics, I've been called many things by liberals to shut down an argument. Uneducated is, oddly, not new. Why an insult so clearly untrue is levied by your side of the political fence so consistently is one of lifes' minor mysteries. Being uninterested in abberant psychology I guess it will remain one, to me anyway.

Also oddly, I don't recall using the words 'doo doo heads.' Must have missed that.

There are many reasons I'm not an elected official. Living in Seattle but not thinking Das Kapital is the best thing ever written is one, though not the biggest one. Mainly, I've no interest in politics as the cynical practice it has become in our nation either side of the political divide. Mr. Smith left Washington a long long time ago. And frankly, the trend progressives started toward creating a nation of adult toddlers throwing tantrums whenever they don't get a lollypop from Uncle Sam seems to me irreversible. Fighting the good fight is one thing. Fighting a foregone lost battle quite another. I'll protect what's mine as best I can from the institutional armed robbery of progressive tax policy, but I won't tilt at that windmill. The house of cards that is a progressive government will collapse of its' own weight without my hat in the ring.
"Being uninterested in abberant psychology I guess it will remain one, to me anyway."

Again, you make a comment that is unsupported by fact. By inference, you claim that anyone who has a point of view different than your own is 'aberrant' (Note the correct spelling, please), as though yours is the only viable, true way to consider such issues. Way to keep an open mind and examine an issue honestly and with due consideration rather than respond with a knee-jerk, unsupported bias.

Good luck in your future home, wherever it is. Oh, and I hope you plan to not accept any Social Security and/or Medicare/Medicaid in your lifetime. I mean, after all, if people should be self-sufficient and all that, I am sure you have taken every conceivable precaution to insure that you will never become a "lazy fellow citizen who won't provide for themselves".
@120: There's a fairly strong correlation between seeming uneducated and actually being uneducated. I'm not Saiyan, I'm just Saiyan.
Well, Venomlash, he will respond to you and not me. I wonder why? Wait, no I don't.

I think of that line from Reba's song Fancy that goes something like "and she was born plain white trash!"