I blame every single one of the bastards! Starting with the President, right down through Congress. Every single incumbent deserves to be voted OUT!

Yup
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I blame the voters...those who decided to leave this President in office on his current course of "fundamental change", who continually vote the people back in to office who have made such a mess with unsustainable and unkept promises while claiming that they are best qualified to fix the mess....who voted to maintain an unsustainable and ever growing dependency state under the fallacy that raising taxes on 1% or 2% of their fellow Americans is the best way to ensure the flow of gifts from government..... who ignore the founding of this country and the principles onwhich it's foundation was laid and who swoon at the voices of the sophists whose promises always fall short....they voted to not only continue the current course of government dependence but also to expand it through Obamacare and whatever else might be devised to sell the electorate on better living at "government's" expense....the only way to attampt to pay for it is through higher taxes on "all" earners and massive military cuts.....and even then...we're still screwed, it's not the inability to cut a deal in Washington that forced us over the "fiscal cliff"...it's the inability of the electorate to recognize the danger that the ever expanding bureaucracy and it's profligate spending poses...Happy New Year :)

Nah, we'll be fine. After all, the Senate passed a bill last night with - wait for it - $15 billion in spending cuts. 15 billion. That's almost 1/1000th of what we need!


Also, 620 billion in tax hikes.

What happened to the deal of $12 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes?

. After all, the Senate passed a bill last night with - wait for it - $15 billion in spending cuts.

I wonder if that was for 1 year or over the next 10 years? :)

"total federal spending for fiscal year 2012[1] reached $3.6 trillion"

btw...we're going over much more than a 'fiscal' cliff :uhuh:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=opinion


Let’s Give Up on the Constitution
By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN
Published: December 30, 2012

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.........


If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance."

the house hasn't taken action on it yet, so we're still in freefall

They are our employees. It is our responsibility to keep an eye on them...Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives (http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx)

the house hasn't taken action on it yet, so we're still in freefall

how should they act?


"According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.
When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 3:1 and 2:1.

“In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency.

"In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”"

that is the question isn't it.

They will piss away that 620 billion and spend even more. This nation is heading for ruin ....fast. I hate to say it but what it will take to fix our problem isn't going to be pretty and most likely will involve firearms
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They will piss away that 620 billion and spend even more. This nation is heading for ruin ....fast. I hate to say it but what it will take to fix our problem isn't going to be pretty and most likely will involve firearms
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhh, those Second Amendment remedies we've heard about?

So who will you target first?

-spence

Unfortunately, you cannot just stop paying into the system

btw...we're going over much more than a 'fiscal' cliff :uhuh:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=opinion


Let’s Give Up on the Constitution
By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN
Published: December 30, 2012

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.........


If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance."

Wow--progressives are coming out of the closet. This piece is pure progressive anti-constitutional fallacy loaded with its contradictions and vague suppositions.

He opens with "As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos . . . almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution," but ironically fails to see that the fiscal cliff thingy is a result of disobedience to the Constitution.

He wonders "why does a grotesquely malapportioned senate get to decide the nation's fate?" And why should anyone care that the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the "lower" chamber, and why should that chamber "have a stranglehold on our economy?" He doesn't mention that the senate would not get to decide the nations fate so readily if the progressive 17th ammendment would not have given them so much power, and that the "malapportion" was a PROTECTION against the central government having supreme power over the states. Nor does he seem to understand that the "stranglehold on our economy" is a result of the unconstitutional transfer of power from the people to the central government. His whole thesis throughout his essay is an argument for and about central power. Their is no discussion of state sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people--only the unilateral decision of "reasonable" bureaucrats. He speaks as an elitist who deems that "our economy" should be in the hands of a central bureaucracy freed from constitutional restraint rather then in the hands of the people who are protected by the Constitution from that bureaucracy. He blames the Constitution for keeping us from debating the merits of devisive issues and inflaming our public discourse. He is, apparently secluded in his ivory tower, not aware of the ongoing debates on those issues that actually do exist, and that inflamatory public discourse derives from individual perspectives. He would quiet that discourse by more efficiently channeling the debate through discussion by select experts rather than by the freedoms reserved to the people by the Constitution.

He considers adherence to constitutional law to be "bizarre," then creates a scenario where "a" president or "a" party leader in congress "reaches a considered judgement that a particular course of action is best for the country" then "someone bursts into the room" and says that some dead white men who thought it was fine to own slaves, etc., might have disagreed with his course of action. He reduces the argument to absurd simplicity. He bizarrely attributes such absurdity to adherence to constitutional law??? All white men will eventually be dead as are all those white men who have disregarded the Constitution. And most of the founders did not think slavery was a fine thing, even many of them who owned slaves, but had to allow it in the Constitution to ratify it, and with its precepts and provisions that it would eventually be eradicated.

He then goes on about "the long history of disobedience" to the Constitution and how that has not produced chaos or totalitarianism but has helped us to grow and prosper. He does not explain how that prosperity was more likely a result of the constitutional liberty of the people rather than dissobedience to the Constituition, nor, indeed, how disobedience created our national bankruptcy and dwindling prosperity.

He, incredibly, then goes on about how we should not disobey ALL constitutional "commands," mentioning the most important ones which we should continue to obey out of "respect" not "obligation." And that we should not change the existence of the constitutional structures, but "the basis on which they claim legitimacy." That is, policy, not principle would be the basis for their existence. He seems to beleive that policy is a precept divorced from mere opinion. That one official's policy is, ipso facto, better than another's. That one bureaucratic expert's opinion/policy is better than another's and that all political policies created by elite politicians are superior to individual desires and the divided wills of the people. Policy by the elite shall rule.

He then goes on with the amazing juxtaposition: "As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity, and as we see now, the failure of the congress and the white house to agree has already destabilized the country." WHAT??? He has admittedly throughout his piece pointed out that the Constitution is and has been disobeyed while at the same time we are obsessed with adhering to it. So which is it? Are we surviving because of disobedience or is the country destabilized because of it? Under the Constitution, the president executes the laws of congress, he doesn't negotiate them. Disobedience has made the president a co-equal, or more, legislator. And that unconstitutional condition is not the sole reason for destabilization. How about the disobedience of all branches of central government to adhere to their enumerated powers which would preclude them from creating the massive central bureaucracy that spends and controls beyond the power granted to them and even makes them ALL legislators--including the judiciary and the unconstitutional shadow government of regulatory agencies. If the bureaucratic, adminsitrative, unconstitutional state of central government that hovers over us is so beneficial, why is there this destabilization and fiscal cliff? Why is the Constitution, which is disobeyed, the problem?

He even advocates drawing on resources such as Britain and New Zealand who don't have written constitutions but have systems of parliamentary "supremacy" as models. Isn't Britain deeper into fiscal cliffs than we are? And yet he also likes their being "held together" by longstanding traditions and accepted modes of procedure and ENGAGED CITIZENS. Yet he calls our relatively young Consititution "ancient" as if that were a detriment. How old is the British unwritten constitution and longstanding tradition and procedure? And how old is the concept of centrally dictated, bureaucratic government? All are older and more "ancient" than our Constitution.

He speaks of "much constitutional language being broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions." That is the nature of language itself. Its functional purpose of entirely transferring thought from one mind to another is impossible, but the purpose of language is usually to do so. So if we pretend because of the imperfection of language that it is impossible to communicate concepts, then the idea of government would be impossible, as would most facets of society. Because of this, he relegates constitutionalism to " . . . a place for discussion . . . rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments." And, yet, isn't it, indeed, the Constitution that not only allows discussions but guarantees individuals their moral and political judgments. Is it not, on the contrary, the unconstitutional centralized administrative state that suppresses those judgments into a one-size-fits-all judgment?

He seems to have missed the point that not only has the Constitution, which guarantees individual liberty been disobeyed, which to him is a good thing, but that it has not been merely "a place for discussioin" that has ensued, but an entirely new system of government, one that limits our ability to "give real freedom a chance." And by force of the power which it has usurped from the People, caused them to be less "engaged citizens" in self-government and more dependents of that central government.

:) I knew you'd like that...

I think he mentioned that he teaches or taught Constitutional Law ...apparently the same version as our President...:uhuh:

Liken the Cali Supreme Court upholding that you could not sue for damages due to a bumper car accident.

Or when it gets to the Ct Supreme, why you cannot sue because your child was unprotected from gun violence and traumatized be her classmates brutal deaths

He seems to have missed the point that not only has the Constitution, which guarantees individual liberty been disobeyed, which to him is a good thing, but that it has not been merely "a place for discussioin" that has ensued, but an entirely new system of government, one that limits our ability to "give real freedom a chance." And by force of the power which it has usurped from the People, caused them to be less "engaged citizens" in self-government and more dependents of that central government.
First off, I think this may be the longest sentence you've ever written.

Second, I think the tone of this opinion was very successful in gaining your attention. I'd suspect that the headline and opening salvo was meant to be taken a bit tongue in cheek.

Third, the opinion to me at least simply says we're using the Constitution as a divisive tool rather than a constructive tool and on this point I'd have to agree.

Perhaps the author's message is this...try and figure out what's the right thing to do, then look to the Constitution for guidance rather than just looking to the Constitution for the solution. I've read the damn thing so many times I know I can't tell for sure what it's all about...especially that pesky Second Amendment.

-spence

Didn't the congress do this to themselves? Kind of reminds me of Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles with his own gun to his own head,

Hold it, next man makes a move.....listen to him men, he's just crazy enough to do it

if only it was as funny as the movie

Blazing Saddles - Nobody move or ... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I)

First off, I think this may be the longest sentence you've ever written.

Nah, I've written longer ones. Besides, it's actually two sentences. There's a period in there amongst all the words. But I hate that almost every time I type a word ending in ion I manage to add an extra "i" as in ioin. Can't always manage to catch and edit out the extra "i"s since so many words end in ion and I write such long winding and pompous sentences. Gotta work on that shorter, punchy, style.

Second, I think the tone of this opinion was very successful in gaining your attention. I'd suspect that the headline and opening salvo was meant to be taken a bit tongue in cheek.

Spot on. Not only the tone, style, shading, intent, and progressive view of govt. got my attention. Above all, his blatant, if not refreshing honesty. I don't think he meant any part of it to be taken as tongue in cheek.

Third, the opinion to me at least simply says we're using the Constitution as a divisive tool rather than a constructive tool and on this point I'd have to agree.

How do you use the Constitution as a divisive "tool" except by claiming that it stands in our way? Divisions of political opinion exist naturally outside of it. The Constitution unites divided opinions within a structure of government that allows those differing opinions to coexist. But its structure "divides" government powers in order to check and balance those powers against the tyranny of an undivided, unitary central government. It unifies the nation and guarantees the union of sovereign differences by dividing its own power. That is what makes it a constructive "tool" rather than a divisive one. Those who wish to eliminate the "divisive" checks and balances, as progressives do, in favor of a central power that acts in unison will impose favored opinions against the unfavored, and will be divisive of society.

Perhaps the author's message is this...try and figure out what's the right thing to do, then look to the Constitution for guidance rather than just looking to the Constitution for the solution. I've read the damn thing so many times I know I can't tell for sure what it's all about...especially that pesky Second Amendment.

-spence

Often the problem is not just the right thing to do, but who is to determine that right thing. The Constitution doesn't create solutions, it determines who is responsible for those solutions. Why we so often go astray and why it is so often hard to determine what the Constitution means is that power is expressed by those who do not have constitutional authority to express it. That is determined by the structure and language of the Constitution, and that is not vague or indeterminate. The problem with the progressive view of government is that ultimately a central group of experts have nearly unlimited authority to express and enforce power.

The problem with the progressive view of government is that ultimately a central group of experts have nearly unlimited authority to express and enforce power.

which explains why Spence has "read the damn thing so many times I know I can't tell for sure what it's all about" :)

It's all disgusting to me. We've all seen how past voting records have been used as weapons in elections. There is not one member of Congress that isn't weighing that, partisan politics, and their own pocketbook into their vote. Accountability and "transparency" are actually working against getting the right thing done here. I say lock them in a joint session until they get an agreement, no media, and have a non partisan arm such as the Supreme Court be the vehicle to deliver the voted bill to the president's desk. Maybe then we could get these jackwads to do something without the fear of culpability to their party and those they "owe."

The Fiscal cliff and the Debt Ceiling are but two minor annoyances compared to the real problem facing us: The Total Fiscal Liability of our country. Take every last dollar everyone in the country earns this year and it does not solve the problem.

We're broke. Shut it down. Bye. See Ya.

The Fiscal cliff and the Debt Ceiling are but two minor annoyances compared to the real problem facing us: The Total Fiscal Liability of our country. Take every last dollar everyone in the country earns this year and it does not solve the problem.

We're broke. Shut it down. Bye. See Ya.

Apparently, nothing is going to be shut down. The military will shrink a bit, just about everything else will continue to grow including the deficit and the debt. And now that Obama and the Dems have got what they wanted by not really negotiating, why would they do so to lower spending significantly? And the debt ceiling will probably get raised, if not by congress, then by some shenanigan such as an executive order, etc. And we will not notice the costs to the economy, and to the employment rate, and the higher tax burdens for everybody who pays taxes, and the higher prices and cost of living because it will all be recognized as the new norm. And the Republicans will have been marginalized, if not destroyed, as a political force, reverting back to their role as the little loyal opposition ala the 1960's and 70's. The SCOTUS will be packed with left wing, anti-constitutional ideologues, so will also not be a threat to the new regime. Economic math will be irrelevant since the phenomenon, with our full-fledged entry into the planetary fiscal abyss, will truly be world-wide and compared to the rest we might be a bit better off so the 51% and growing that decide elections will think we are doing well and will continue to vote for the progressive politicians with whom they have formed an unbreakable symbiotic relationship of give to me and I will vote for you.

Unless, as you have pointed out, a new Reagan who is articulate and charismatic enough will come to the temporary rescue. The Republicans, or whoever rises from the ashes of that party's destruction, will have to once again realize that the people will vote for a truly different and optimistic agenda driven by leaders who believe in our historic American agenda, not in the copy-cat leftovers of the left. If they want power again, temporary as it always is, they have to part with the idea that they must be more like Democrats. The 51% will rather vote for the real thing.

all set...we're good...higher taxes, a boatload of new spending and the unemployed can happily remain unemployed for another year, I guess that is to offset all of the new revenue...we'll talk about mundane topics like spending reductions in a couple of months when we discuss increasing the debt ceiling...again......which I guess makes a lot of sense...talking about possible cuts when you are simultaneously planning and expected to borrow even more money and go further into debt :confused:

but who is counting anyway?

Obama Returns to Hawaii at an Added Cost of Over $3 Million
by Keith Koffler on January 2, 2013, 5:58 am

In a move that is rich in irony, President Obama this morning agreed to sign an emergency deficit reduction bill that does almost nothing to rein in spending and then jetted out to Hawaii to resume his vacation at an extra cost of more than $3 million to taxpayers.

The price tag is in addition to more than $4 million that is already being spent on the Obamas’ Hawaii idyll, bringing the total cost of the excursion to well over $7 million.

Ahhh, those Second Amendment remedies we've heard about?

So who will you target first?

-spence
??? I was thinking confiscation would be on the Obama administrations list. You just can't keep on doing to the American people what is happening without protecting yourself.
Enjoy your victory Spence. You got higher taxes and more money for entitlements . Another bullet into your grandchildren's future .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All of this Fiscal Cliff nonsense is nothing but a dog and pony show to keep the public distracted and muddy the already molasses-thick waters that is our bloated and corrupt federal budgeting. Neither Congress nor our President have a sense of fiscal responsibility to anyone except those that pad their pockets.

Senator Coburn from Oklahoma said: "If We Raise Taxes, We're Just Going To Use It To Grow Government." While he was correct in that aspect, he then voted Yea for a bill that increases the tax burden on Americans.

Hell, the damn "deal" actually increases overall spending:
Deficit 'fiscal cliff' bill actually spends $330 billion more - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jan/1/deficit-fiscal-cliff-bill-actually-spends-330-bill/)

I recently read a statement: "Today, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is how they'll spend the money they steal from you."

:) I knew you'd like that...

I think he mentioned that he teaches or taught Constitutional Law ...apparently the same version as our President...:uhuh:
Those who best know and understand the law are also best-suited to exploit it. There was more than one major push last year by our lawmakers to completely stomp on the Constitution. The biggest offense was National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2012) which could have subjected American citizens in the country to indefinite detention, a-la the Chinese government.

[QUOTE=nightfighter;977475 There is not one member of Congress that isn't weighing that,
partisan politics, and their own pocketbook into their vote. [/QUOTE]

And threrin lies the problem, NOT the Constitution, but the current elected officials sworn to uphold it.
The Constitution was a pefect document set up by the founding fathers to keep our freedom and liberty,
to be upheld by true statesmen who's sole purpose was to represent the people with honor and integrity.
Sorry to say, men like that don't exist anymore.

Sorry to say, men like that don't exist anymore.

I think they exist (Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal), it's just really hard for them to get elected. It's a whole lot easier to get elected by promising people more free stuff than the other guy, especially when the entire media (minus 1 TV station) is basically acting as a PR firm for the guy promising the free stuff.

I think they exist (Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal), it's just really hard for them to get elected. It's a whole lot easier to get elected by promising people more free stuff than the other guy, especially when the entire media (minus 1 TV station) is basically acting as a PR firm for the guy promising the free stuff.

I forget, did Paul Ryan vote for this most recent bill? :smash:

I forget, did Paul Ryan vote for this most recent bill? :smash:

You're right, you got me. If Paul Ryan voted for this bill, that must therefore mean that there's no difference between him and Nancy Pelosi. That's what you're saying? If Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi both voted for this bill, they are genetically indentical?

That's just brilliant.

No, but if he was the fiscal hawk he claims to be, don't you think he would have voted with Cantor et al? Otherwise, it is another tax and spend, while belittling spending, republican.

For the record, on this issue, both sides suck the big one.

No, but if he was the fiscal hawk he claims to be, don't you think he would have voted with Cantor et al? Otherwise, it is another tax and spend, while belittling spending, republican.

For the record, on this issue, both sides suck the big one.

So if the choice is vote for a bad bill, or vote against the bad bill and take the risk that we sink back into recession...then if you vote for the lesser of two evils, you can't call yourself a fiscal hawk.

Got it. Check. Ryan is a fraud, and a big fat liar, and a liberal in disguise. How could I have been so stupid?

Bryan, how exactly do conservatives suck the big one on this? They are in the minority. They didn't have the ability to force anything into the bill that the Senate Democrats weren't going to approve. They called for meaningful entitlement reform, and the Democrats said no.

Because both sides played this as a political card, rather than work towards a solution that would have involved more compromise. this 'mentally disordered' liberal wanted to see a more balanced approach to spending. Instead they waited until the last minute and just kicked the can 2 months down the road.

Ryan is a hypocrite on spending, he talks against spending, but then is first in line writing letters asking money for his state. Does it make him a bad person, no, it makes him a good Politician...

I forget, did Paul Ryan vote for this most recent bill? :smash:

True!!! As did Brown. Very disappointing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're right, you got me. If Paul Ryan voted for this bill, that must therefore mean that there's no difference between him and Nancy Pelosi. That's what you're saying? If Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi both voted for this bill, they are genetically indentical?

That's just brilliant.

they are genetically equivalent. changing their views and actions to meet whomever's expectations are need to get more money in their re-election warchests

Because both sides played this as a political card, rather than work towards a solution that would have involved more compromise. this 'mentally disordered' liberal wanted to see a more balanced approach to spending. Instead they waited until the last minute and just kicked the can 2 months down the road.

Ryan is a hypocrite on spending, he talks against spending, but then is first in line writing letters asking money for his state. Does it make him a bad person, no, it makes him a good Politician...

"Instead they waited until the last minute and just kicked the can 2 months down the road. "

Who is this 'they' that you refer to? Again, the GOP doesn't control the Senate or the Executive branch. Bryan, please tell me what you think would have happened, if the GOP-controlled house passed a bill that had more cuts? The Democrat-controlled Senate would have rejected it, and if somehow that failed to happen, Obama would have vetoed it.

The conservatives offered a balanced approach leading up to the elections last November, and the country resoundingly rejected their ideas. We reap what we sow.

"rather than work towards a solution that would have involved more compromise"

Anyone who understands 5th grade math, knows that a political compromise won't fix the problem. When you factor in the unfunded costs of SS and Medicare, our debt is north of $50 trillion. There's no ambiguity in how we need to address that. We need massive, painful cuts. When Paul Ryan suggested a step in that direction, your fellow liberals made a commercial showing him pushing an old lady off a cliff. That's what causes gridlock, that's what prevents any meaningful legislation.

"Ryan is a hypocrite on spending, he talks against spending, but then is first in line writing letters asking money for his state."

Currently, Paul Ryan is a congressman representing a district in Wisconsin. His job is to represent their interests. Has Ryan funded a lot of wasteless pork projects to send money back to his district? I have no idea. Since you're so sure, maybe you could back up your statement. His current job is to take care of his constituents. That doesn't mean he screws everyone else to make his constituents rich, but his responsibility to his constituents is greater than his responsibility to you and me.

Ryan stuck his neck out when he proposed cuts to Medicare that amounted to a few trillion in savings. I haven't seen anyone else stick their neck out like he did. Your side attacked him for it. And now you hold him accountable because he didn't do what you wanted him to do?

they are genetically equivalent. changing their views and actions to meet whomever's expectations are need to get more money in their re-election warchests

Wrong. Agree with him or not, Ryan put his head on the chopping block when he came out and proposed cuts to Medicare. He knew he'd get attacked for it, but he did it because he knows it is necessary.

What has Pelosi ever done, that showed that kind of intellectual courage? She's a pro-union nut, who owns hotels that are not allowed to unionize. She claims to be Catholic, yet she has never met an abortion she didn't like. She condemned waterboarding, then it was proven that she signed off on it before it happened.

Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi aren't distinguishable? Then neither are Rachael Maddow and Kate Upton.

So, with the deal the Bush tax cuts have been made "permanent" for 99.4% of those that received them. And there is a big sigh of relief that the tax side of fixing the fiscal cliff nonsense has supposedly been accomplished. I guess that means that the Bush tax cuts were NOT only for the rich and that they were NOT the cause of the recession as many shouted. The amount of taxes to be collected from the .6 of a percent of taxpayers left won't amount to enough to matter much in significantly lowering the deficit and certainly not the debt. And, actually, with the new spending that is to come, the tax raise will not only be insignificant toward deficit/debt reduction, the deficit/debt will rise. So, apparently the fiscal problem IS spending not "revenue." If nothing else, at least that has been established.

Wrong. Agree with him or not, Ryan put his head on the chopping block when he came out and proposed cuts to Medicare. He knew he'd get attacked for it, but he did it because he knows it is necessary.

What has Pelosi ever done, that showed that kind of intellectual courage? She's a pro-union nut, who owns hotels that are not allowed to unionize. She claims to be Catholic, yet she has never met an abortion she didn't like. She condemned waterboarding, then it was proven that she signed off on it before it happened.

Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi aren't distinguishable? Then neither are Rachael Maddow and Kate Upton.


Again the both voted for this current measure. I guess your mind missed that yet again. Neither are different from one another just like a dog is a dog.

??? I was thinking confiscation would be on the Obama administrations list. You just can't keep on doing to the American people what is happening without protecting yourself.
Enjoy your victory Spence. You got higher taxes and more money for entitlements . Another bullet into your grandchildren's future .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry, I just assumed you were calling for arms.

-spence

And, actually, with the new spending that is to come, the tax raise will not only be insignificant toward deficit/debt reduction, the deficit/debt will rise. So, apparently the fiscal problem IS spending not "revenue." If nothing else, at least that has been established.

Yes, Obama and the Libs don't get it. They're like little children in a candy store
with a checkbook buying everything in sight.
They still aren't mature or smart enough to know
that money in the checking account is needed to pay for it.

Overdrawn, no problem, the Children of the future will pay for their candy.

Obama loves it, everybody gets a lollypop now as he makes all fair and equal
on our Children's and Grandchildren's dime.

Nah, I've written longer ones. Besides, it's actually two sentences. There's a period in there amongst all the words.
And indeed it is. I was starting to prep for dinner and perhaps not giving your post my full attention.

Spot on. Not only the tone, style, shading, intent, and progressive view of govt. got my attention. Above all, his blatant, if not refreshing honesty. I don't think he meant any part of it to be taken as tongue in cheek.
The idea that a Constitutional professor of 40 years would suddenly advocate ripping it up resembles a literary hook more than anything else.

How do you use the Constitution as a divisive "tool" except by claiming that it stands in our way? Divisions of political opinion exist naturally outside of it. The Constitution unites divided opinions within a structure of government that allows those differing opinions to coexist. But its structure "divides" government powers in order to check and balance those powers against the tyranny of an undivided, unitary central government. It unifies the nation and guarantees the union of sovereign differences by dividing its own power. That is what makes it a constructive "tool" rather than a divisive one. Those who wish to eliminate the "divisive" checks and balances, as progressives do, in favor of a central power that acts in unison will impose favored opinions against the unfavored, and will be divisive of society.
While I'd agree with your description I think that's also a central argument made by the Opinion...perhaps you and the author share more than you'd care to admit? :devil2:

Often the problem is not just the right thing to do, but who is to determine that right thing. The Constitution doesn't create solutions, it determines who is responsible for those solutions. Why we so often go astray and why it is so often hard to determine what the Constitution means is that power is expressed by those who do not have constitutional authority to express it. That is determined by the structure and language of the Constitution, and that is not vague or indeterminate. The problem with the progressive view of government is that ultimately a central group of experts have nearly unlimited authority to express and enforce power.
I'd disagree that the structure and language of the Constitution is always that clear. While the Founding Fathers were certainly remarkable it's not like those who have followed have all been inept. Interpretations over the last two centuries are just as much a part of the American fabric as are the original words or subsequent amendments.

-spence

Bryan, how exactly do conservatives suck the big one on this?
I'd say it has something to do with their complete and utter humiliation.

The GOP set out a negotiation position based on an absolute belief that any tax increases were off the table. At the end of the day, they folded and got nearly nothing in return.

Ultimately I think this will be good for the GOP. To rebound they have to hit bottom and while I'm not sure this was it it's getting close.

-spence

The idea that a Constitutional professor of 40 years would suddenly advocate ripping it up resembles a literary hook more than anything else.


-spence

read his bio...

University of Chicago...no way?

no literary hook, no tongue-in-cheek, this is his MO...just the same vermin that seem to be around every corner these days :uhuh:


humiliation Spence?.....I'd imagine more frustration from having to deal with dishonest, destructive psychopaths :uhuh:

I have to agree with Spence, the GOP was humiliated. They have no back bone . We will see in a couple months if they are as corrupt as the Dems. For now believe they are .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what would you have had them do?...I think we knew that this was a no win from the start....


so if they aren't successful getting spending cuts in a couple of months...they are as corrupt as the dems? what leverage do they have ?

now we have the debt ceiling and sequestration in the next 60 days to argue about with a new Congress.

Oh and FEMA relief for Sandy, way to go our elected officials.

Both sides lost, the American people lost

what would you have had them do?...I think we knew that this was a no win from the start....


so if they aren't successful getting spending cuts in a couple of months...they are as corrupt as the dems? what leverage do they have ?

There is a reason they do things the way the do. Take the tax breaks in the bill for various industries.. 1 tear extensions. You think maybe that's so they can shake down these same industries in another year? Scott , they didn't have to vote for a bad bill... Many didn't !!!
And they can stand up for this countries future in a couple months . Some of them will
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is a reason they do things the way the do. Take the tax breaks in the bill for various industries.. 1 tear extensions. You think maybe that's so they can shake down these same industries in another year? Scott , they didn't have to vote for a bad bill... Many didn't !!!
And they can stand up for this countries future in a couple months . Some of them will
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there aren't enough of them and those that will "stand up or this country's future" and stand firm on fiscal sanity are the ones that are mischaracterized and assaulted by Spence and the media as "absolutists" dragging the party to the far right lunatic fringe...:) the principle that taxes should not go up until permanent and meaningful spending cuts were in place makes perfect sense but to Spence and the left, that is an unreasonable and absolute position...we have a 73,608 page (in 1939 it was 504 pages) tax code which continues to grow...there's a great place to start if you want to look for more revenue, rather than meaningful reform we have the old reliable method of negotiating employed by teachers unions and school departments where we wait until the eve of the new school year to bargain, threatening to disrupt the lives of the people paying the bills if they don't pony up more money or threatening to start cutting sports and arts from the lives of the youth if the bureaucracy is not fully funded, preferring to bargain on the eve of a perceived or fabricated crisis(Senators received the bill at approximately 1:36 AM on Jan. 1, 2013 – a mere three minutes before they voted to approve it at 1:39 AM.)
...it's dispicable, it's destructive and it does nothing in the long run but add more layers to the bureaucracy, increase out indebtedness and hasten our collapse....Spence for some reason applauds this, mocks the only people in the room who object and acts as though this is some kind of game( I don't know if you caught the CSPAN Democrat press conference on Monday but it was nauseating, smug and frankly frightening that we have people like this determining the future of our country) where we're simply keeping score to see who can come out on top in a negotiating tournament......you can't win negotiating with liars or crazies, and we're dealing with both aided by a complicit mainstream media propoganda machine.....I guess I'm saying...don't get your hopes up...expect more "humiliation"....mockery and humiliation are an important component of the Progressive playbook, expect the people that you are "counting on" to be further villified and marginalized and "humiliated" for the next two months....you can blame republicans for not jumping in front of the bullet...I'll reserve my ire for the lunatics that are driving the train and giving you the finger ......great to met Buckman Jr. by the way....:)

as of the 1st...we are out of money...


NEW YORK (CNNMoney)

It's official: U.S. debt reached its legal borrowing limit Monday, giving Congress about two months before it must raise the debt ceiling or risk causing the government to default on its bills and financial obligations.

"I can confirm we will reach the statutory debt limit today, Dec. 31," a Treasury Department official said Monday.

A bipartisan fiscal cliff deal passed by the Senate early Tuesday and awaiting a vote in the House did not address the debt ceiling issue.

As expected, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner had submitted a letter to Congress on Monday saying he had begun a "debt issuance suspension period" that would last through Feb. 28. That means Treasury will employ a series of "extraordinary measures" so it does not exceed the debt limit, currently set at $16.394 trillion.

Such measures include suspending the reinvestment of federal workers' retirement account contributions in short-term government bonds.

By taking those steps, Treasury can buy about $200 billion of headroom. That normally can cover about two months' worth of borrowing, although continuing uncertainty about tax rates and spending make it hard to determine precisely how long the extraordinary measures will last.

this 'mentally disordered' liberal wanted to see a more balanced approach to spending. ...

Dr. Bryan.....respectfully.....WTF does this mean???:confused:

never mind..I Googled it...Obama Catch Phrase..... (which means it means nothing) primarily and maybe exclusively used regarding "spending cuts" from what I can see...which we know never materialize.....I like Obama's "Balanced Approach" to Christmas Vacation Spending ....... "shared sacrafice" and all of that......

The Republican Party has problems Scott. Being fiscally conservative,wanting a budget, protecting our borders, defending the Constitution, Defending the unborn and the sanctity of marriage and expecting those that can work to support their families to work used to be the norm for republicans . Now you're crazy right-winger if you defend those institutions. Stick to your values don't compromise. Brown has become a Republican in name only. No different than Olympia Snow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Republican Party has problems Scott. Being fiscally conservative,wanting a budget, protecting our borders, defending the Constitution, Defending the unborn and the sanctity of marriage and expecting those that can work to support their families to work used to be the norm for republicans . Now you're crazy right-winger if you defend those institutions. Stick to your values don't compromise. Brown has become a Republican in name only. No different than Olympia Snow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the democrat party has become a hoard or raging alcoholics(marxists), many on the republican side fall on an off the wagon depending on how close it is to the weekend ..... some are calling for all of those who are still drinking to take a balanced approach to their booze consumption :)

Christie Craving Pork-Filled Sandy Bill
Jan 2, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

New Jersey governor Chris Christie, a Republican, blasted Speaker of the House John Boehner for ending the congressional session before voting on the Hurricane Sandy relief bill.

"I called the Speaker four times last night after 11:20 and he did not take my calls," said Christie, who said Congress had not delivered on the aid needed to clean-up after the hurricane and Boehner had avoided giving him answers as to why. "There’s no reason for me to believe anything they tell me, because they’ve been telling me stuff for weeks. And they didn’t deliver."

But one of the big objections to the bill was that Senate Democrats had filled it with pork.

In fact, "Democrats expanded the legislation during a mark-up to include not just areas affected by Sandy, but also to provide money for 'storm events that occurred in 2012 along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast within the boundaries of the North Atlantic and Mississippi Valley divisions of the Corps that were affected by Hurricanes Sandy and Isaac,'" we reported previously.

The expansion of the bill was a way to provide a financial incentive for senators from red states--"two Republicans senators from Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas, and the one Republican senator from Louisiana"--to vote for the bill. "The Sandy kickbacks provide an incentive for those Republicans to vote on the bill," we wrote.

.....................

this is great

Purcell: Isn’t this another example of reckless politicians exploiting an emergency to fund pet projects and pork?

Deep Mole: Pet projects? Pork? There is no pork in the president’s proposal.

Purcell: You’re nuts. As this bill worked its way through the Senate before Christmas, Democrats slipped in all kinds of non-emergency goodies. Then they offered more goodies to Republicans to win their support.

Deep Mole: Goodies?

Purcell: Why does the bill include $2 million to repair roof damage at Smithsonian buildings in Washington, D.C.?

Deep Mole: The Smithsonian is a national treasure that Sandy victims may one day visit. We must make sure they are not traumatized by leaky museum roofs!

Purcell: Nice try, my friend. Why does the emergency bill include $336 million for Amtrak-related expenses?

Deep Mole: Amtrak is a common mode of transportation for New York residents to travel to Washington and go to the Smithsonian. We must make sure Sandy victims are not traumatized by broken-down trains.

Purcell: You are clever. Then explain why the emergency bill includes $8 million to buy new cars for federal agencies.

Deep Mole: Many federal agencies are assisting Sandy victims. They need new cars from government-owned General Motors to drive to the areas where government services are most needed.

Purcell: You’re good. Then explain why the bill includes $150 million for fisheries in Mississippi and Alaska.

Deep Mole: Hurricane victims are known to work very hard cleaning up their messy homes and burning excess calories. It is essential they have access to high-protein American fish!

Purcell: Then explain how $4 million for repairs at the Kennedy Space Center has anything to do with a hurricane in the Northeast.

Deep Mole: The John F. Kennedy Space Center has launched many historic flights into space, bringing inspiration and hope to millions of Americans. Aren’t inspiration and hope what Sandy victims need most?

Purcell: Not bad, my friend, but this waste is yet another example of our politicians “not letting a good crisis go to waste.” Our country has almost $16.3 trillion in debt. We are accumulating additional debt at the rate of $150 million an hour — yet the gravy train keeps rolling. Our political leaders are out of control.

Deep Mole: They are?

Purcell: Yes, the Taxpayers for Common Sense explain that the federal government has established a clear definition of what an “emergency” is to determine which incidents or events are worthy of federal relief. Emergency spending should only support something that is necessary, sudden, urgent, unforeseen and not permanent. Those are the rules.

Deep Mole: Rules? The Senate has not passed a budget in more than three years. There are no longer any rules. In our republic the only thing that can stop out-of-control politicians from spending recklessly are the voters — and a majority of them no longer care about what we waste money on, so long as they get their cut.

Purcell: Well, if the pork-laden version of the Sandy bill passes the Senate, the only hope is that the Republican House will do its job and strip out the waste. It is called checks and balances.

Deep Mole: So naive. If Republicans in the House do anything to hold up the bill, the president will tar them for withholding assistance to the victims of Sandy and the media will saturate the airwaves with images of the obliteration Sandy caused. Dumb Republicans can’t win for losing.

———

Thank you Scott, that is GREAT.

True that Scott
Btw the print was beautiful. Thanks again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The idea that a Constitutional professor of 40 years would suddenly advocate ripping it up resembles a literary hook more than anything else.

Professor Seidman's article "Let's Give up on the Constitution" is a culmination of his 40 years of study and thought on the subject. It is not a sudden opinion and the title is meant seriously, not as a literary hook. He is writing a book soon to be published on the subject which you might read and, I guess, find much if not all, to agree with. As for the article, I find very little with which to agree. His impetus to disagree with adherence to the Constitution stems from how he considers it so readily to have been disregarded, even by the founders. He mentions Jefferson believing that he had no constitutional authority to purchase the Louisiana territory on his own. While Jefferson had doubts about that, he was not necessarily right in his belief. To begin with, a treaty signed by the executive with a foreign power still has to be ratified by the senate and funded by congress if money is required. He had to make the snap purchase without congress only because Napoleon insisted on the immediate purchase or it might not happen. It was too beneficial in every respect not to do it, but there was no time to go through "proper" congressional procedure. The deal could still have been denied by Congress, but the majority saw that it was too good to pass on so they approved it, and all was, eventually, constitutionally confirmed. Maybe that's why Seidman says that Jefferson believed his action unconstitutional, rather than saying that it actually was. He mentions Lincoln's supposed unconstitutional acts in the Civil War. Those are also disputed as being unconstitutional, but the major irony is that the freeing of the slaves was the worm in the bud of the Constitution and that was corrected. The Adams Alien and Sedition Acts that he cites were undoubtedly mostly unconstitutional, and all but one of the four were soon abolished, constitutionally. Yes, there were attempts to circumvent the Constitution from the beginning, even by founders and, possibly, by the great Lincoln. But the founders understood that men are fallible and the people must be shielded against tyrannies, even by those they themselves would impose. Which is exactly why an instrument such as the Constitution was necessary to protect the people's natural liberties. To say that the Constitution should be abandoned because it has not always been followed, is, ultimately, to say that laws should be abandoned because they are broken. The founders believed the reverse, laws must be instituted because all men, especially those who govern, are prone to lawlessness, and must be restrained from that inclination even if not all such lawlessness can be avoided. Ultimately, they believed for that reason that freedom and the Constitution would not be possible if we as a people are not for the most part virtuous.

Seidman makes other false analogies, such as "In the face of the long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution's defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism." Quite the contrary, constitutionalists don't fear a reversion to Hobbes's version of the state of nature. They don't believe such a state exists, rather they ascribe to John Locke's version of nature and natural rights. What they fear is the reversion to the ancient form of Hobbesian Leviathan, of the ruler's absolute authority as defined in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy:

"The Leviathan must be neither divided nor limited. The powers of legislation, adjudication, enforcement, taxation, war making . . . are connected in such a way that a loss of one may thwart effective exercise of the rest."

It is that consolidation of power that constitutionalists fear and for which the Constitution was instituted to prevent. And it is, indeed, the direction that disobedience to the separation of powers in the Constitution is leading us.

While I'd agree with your description I think that's also a central argument made by the Opinion...perhaps you and the author share more than you'd care to admit? :devil2:

Actually, Seidman and I do not share what appears to be his argument for freedom from constitutional restriction. His argument for freedom from the Constitution is GOVERNMENT'S freedom from the Constitution. My concept of freedom is in accord with the Constitution's restraint of government's freedoms which are limited by those powers granted to it by the people, not the freedom of government "experts" deciding what the limits of our freedom are. The difference is fundamental, and the progressive thrust is toward the Leviathan.

Seidman's statement that "the deep-seated fear that such [constitutional] disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition" is an over-statement. We do not fear that it will unravel the ENTIRE fabric--much of which has more to do with cultural, religious, and natural heritage than with the Constitution--but that it will change the relation of the citizen to the State. And that portion of the fabric has been unravelling at a quickening pace which began in earnest with the progressive movement and especially with the constitutional disobedience of the FDR era. That is when disobedience, different in type of most previous disobedience, massively involved freeing the State to dictate to the individual in ways that the Constitution prohibited, and was done wilfully, as the FDR braintrust admitted. They knew their legislation and regulations were not allowed by the Constitution, but their progressive concept that government grants rights and must have the freedom to efficiently rule at will was ultimately for the people's benefit.

I'd disagree that the structure and language of the Constitution is always that clear. While the Founding Fathers were certainly remarkable it's not like those who have followed have all been inept. Interpretations over the last two centuries are just as much a part of the American fabric as are the original words or subsequent amendments.

-spence


Jefferson would have agreed with you to the extent that, as he wrote in an 1816 letter "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond ammendment."

It is not that those who have followed have been inept. They have been too ept. They have "interpreted" and sometimes ammended with a different purpose than that for which the Constitution was written. The original intent was optimal individual freedom, especially from central tyranny. The progressive intent has been to transfer that freedom from the individual to the government. So the interpretations and ammendments have made the government stronger and the individual weaker, more dependent on the strength of government. Though Jefferson did not see the Constitution as "perfect" which would be impossible for fallible men to create, he believed in ammendment not abandonment. He even recommended that it be periodically ammended to fit future generations. But he saw the structure of governement in the Constitution as one to be continued "so that it may be handed on, with periodic repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."

So, when Seidman ends with "If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by 'we the people' is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance" he is speaking of government's freedom to rule with expedient and efficient discussion and opinion of "experts" not the citizen's freedom from government to rule as it wishes.

What he advocates, implicitly, is rule by men, not rule of law. He is an example of how law schools have produced judges who rule progressively rather than constitutionally. And the irony is that he doesn't seem to know how successful this has been. He talks about abandoning the Constitution as if it were the problem. The Constitution has already been abandoned bit by bit so that it is barely hanging on with the thread of what is left. The fiscal chaos to which he attributes the cause as clingling to constitutional formalities is none of that--it is the disobedience to the structure and intent of the Constitution to reign in the very extravagance that the Federal Government now has the power to exert. And the regulatory "experts" that have been spawned will continue to cast an over-arching web of control over us--for our own good of course. But it is they who have the power now, not us.

And, contrary to his "If we acknowledged what should be obvious--that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions--we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey," rather the almost infinitely wide range of positions are not expressed or commanded by constitutional language. What is circumscribed in the Constitution is that various types of positions are to be legislated, enforced, or adjudicated by various branches of gvt. so long as those types fit into the realm of enumerated powers. Types of positions which are not circumscribed by the enumerations or by the limitations of power granted to those branches are the province of the states or the people to debate or regulate. So-called problems of "interpretation" arise, usually, when legislators and/or judges wish to make laws/policies/positions fit the Constitution even when they don't. The logic and law must be twisted and contorted into positions that are barely recognizable by the concocted definitions that purport to describe them. The jurisprudence of constitutional disobedience has always been the wilful twisting, if not outright lying, of concepts--legal, moral, or social--to make legislation appear to fit constitutional construction. And they use various progressive judicial philosophies.

Seidman says "the two main rival interpretive methods, 'originalism' (divining the framer's intent) and "living constitutionalism' (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled." But the two rivals are more complex. Originalism is accompanied by formalism, textualism, strict construction, intent, as means to apply the actual constitution as written. "Living constitutionalism" is a hodge-podge of several methods of "interpretation" concocted by progressive theorists to escape from the actual Constitution and make of it whatever the judges wish--such theories as Monumentalism, Instrumentalism, Realism, Cognitive Jurisprudence, Universal Principles of Fairness, Rule According to Higher Law, Utilitarian Jurisprudence, Positivist Jurisprudence, Sociological Jurisprudence--theories that the Founders would have considered arbitrary whims of personal judgment and destructive to constitutional law-- are used to accomplish a "living Constitution" that bears little resemblance to the written one.

Such is the state of modern, progressive jursprudence which has effectively disobeyed the Constitution, such is the method taught in most universities and colleges. Apparently, Seidman doesn't recognize that what is utopian, is not a government of "We the People," nor one "of, by, and for the People," but one of "Us the Beneficent Government--of, by, and for the Government." He doesn't recognize that the disobedience he advocates is, for the most part, the current state of affairs, so he can't connect our broken system of government to that state of affairs and must then attribute it to a fictional over-concern for sticking to the Constitution.

Being fiscally conservative,wanting a budget, protecting our borders, defending the Constitution, Defending the unborn and the sanctity of marriage and expecting those that can work to support their families to work used to be the norm for republicans .


Good defenition of being a conservative, Buck. ....... Conserving that which is good.

Can anyone tell me what is bad about working within a budget, following the Constitution,
limiting an influx of immigrants to what we can afford, defending the sanctity of life,
the stability of marriage and working to support a family with all the self-esteem
and independence that goes with it???
I doubt it. but I am always ready to listen.

Good read on bailouts related to the fiscal cliff

Secret and Lies of the Bailout | Politics News | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104)

.

Can anyone tell me what is bad about working within a budget, following the Constitution,
limiting an influx of immigrants to what we can afford, defending the sanctity of life,
the stability of marriage and working to support a family with all the self-esteem
and independence that goes with it???
.

Of course no one can tell you what's wrong with those things. That's why, rather than telling you what's wrong with those things, liberals will instead respond by calling you a racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, violent, gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, plutocratic, backwards-thinking, 'Hee Haw'-watching, bigoted, white-supremacist, tobacco juice-spittin', wife-beating, hate-mongering neanderthal.

It's a lot easier to hurl insults than it is to tell you what's so wrong with the notion that we not bankrupt ourselves, or why Osama Bin Laden has more of a right to live than an unborn baby.

Now it seems that those in-bred, trailer-trash hicks in Texas somehow have lowered unemployment to 6.2%, and they have a budget surplus of $8 billion. This, in a state that spends a fortune on services for penniless Mexican immigrants. I guess it turns out that you don't need a massive government infastructure to have lower unemployment.

Connecticut is going broke, Texas has more money (and lower unemployment) than they know what to do with. And here in CT, our high and mighty liberal legislature looks down their noses at those right-wing hicks in Texas. And we're going broke.

Obviously oil has a whole lot to do with that. But it's not everything. The typical response would be to say "it's easy for Texas to have a surplus, they have lots of oil". If that's true, why are 'we' (meaning Obama) denying so many drilling permits? Why don't we all follow Texas' example, to the extent we can?

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7kGHROxQzUkAwddXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1NTduMnF hBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDIwMF8yN TA-/SIG=13h9m6g6q/EXP=1357690119/**http%3a//news.yahoo.com/texas-legislature-wrestle-over-unexpected-budget-surplus-184800547.html

Now it seems that those in-bred, trailer-trash hicks in Texas somehow have lowered unemployment to 6.2%, and they have a budget surplus of $8 billion. This, in a state that spends a fortune on services for penniless Mexican immigrants. I guess it turns out that you don't need a massive government infastructure to have lower unemployment.

Connecticut is going broke, Texas has more money (and lower unemployment) than they know what to do with. And here in CT, our high and mighty liberal legislature looks down their noses at those right-wing hicks in Texas. And we're going broke.

Obviously oil has a whole lot to do with that. But it's not everything.

texas sucks, I am going back to my trailer and kick my cousins, er, I mean wife's butt!

texas sucks, I am going back to my trailer and kick my cousins, er, I mean wife's butt!

RIJIMMY, come on in out'da swamp, Hee Haw reruns is on TV Land!

If you guys decide to secede, I'm going to have a decision to make...I wonder what the job market is for actuaries in Texas. And I have always wanted to learn how to smoke a good brisket.

Of course no one can tell you what's wrong with those things. That's why, rather than telling you what's wrong with those things, liberals will instead respond by calling you a racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, violent, gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, plutocratic, backwards-thinking, 'Hee Haw'-watching, bigoted, white-supremacist, tobacco juice-spittin', wife-beating, hate-mongering neanderthal.

.

You forgot one of Obama's favorites, Bible Thumpimg.

RIJIMMY, come on in out'da swamp, Hee Haw reruns is on TV Land!

If you guys decide to secede, I'm going to have a decision to make...I wonder what the job market is for actuaries in Texas. And I have always wanted to learn how to smoke a good brisket.

Lyle Lovett - That's Right (You're Not From Texas) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMhaehb5AnE)