Politics and religion.

[Puckstop31]

I've got a news flash for everyone, the government already taxes people and "distributes the wealth" the way it sees fit. It's nothing new.

I am saying that redistribution of money, in this country, is nothing new. Farm and sugar subsidies, graduated income tax, bailout of banks. I’m not saying I approve; I’m just stating a fact of life.

As for the Constitution, while it may be a problem for Obama, it was a bigger one for Bush. His administration has trashed it. I most certainly did not approve of that - but then he didn't request my approval

OK, so we KNOW the government does it. Both "sides" do it. Yet we are willing to keep on letting them do it by putting them back in office?

Grace - You think BO will get your approval to further negate the Constitution? Look, we all know that Bush is the devil and most of what he did was bad. Lets move past that and NOT put another person, just like him OR WORSE in the White House. BO is on record, many, many times now, saying that the Constitution is the problem. Not that we don't adhere to it, but that it is THE problem. If that does not scare the crap out of you.... Well, then there really is no hope and it will come, eventually, to open armed conflict. Why? Because there are way to many people who took an oath to uphold and defend that document and what it stands for... Against ALL enemies, foreign or domestic. I took that oath, to defend the document and what it stands for, not the men and women in DC raping it. I keep my word. It is not time yet, but those storms clouds are getting nasty.

If there ever was a case for a 3rd party... This election is IT.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

OK, so we KNOW the government does it. Both "sides" do it. Yet we are willing to keep on letting them do it by putting them back in office?

Grace - You think BO will get your approval to further negate the Constitution? Look, we all know that Bush is the devil and most of what he did was bad. Lets move past that and NOT put another person, just like him OR WORSE in the White House. BO is on record, many, many times now, saying that the Constitution is the problem. Not that we don't adhere to it, but that it is THE problem. If that does not scare the crap out of you.... Well, then there really is no hope and it will come, eventually, to open armed conflict. Why? Because there are way to many people who took an oath to uphold and defend that document and what it stands for... Against ALL enemies, foreign or domestic. I took that oath, to defend the document and what it stands for, not the men and women in DC raping it. I keep my word. It is not time yet, but those storms clouds are getting nasty.

If there ever was a case for a 3rd party... This election is IT.

The Constitution is not THE problem!!! It's the idiots who don't follow it. Bush had the support of Congress before he invaded Iraq, no matter what they are trying to make everyone believe now. I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution saying go invade another country if you don't like their leader!!!

If the Constitution falls, so does our country. At least it can't be amended by just one person.

By the way, I've heard the European Union is wanting to take over the banking systems of the world. Now THAT scares the bejeebers out of me.

[Puckstop31]

The Constitution is not THE problem!!! It's the idiots who don't follow it. Bush had the support of Congress before he invaded Iraq, no matter what they are trying to make everyone believe now. I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution saying go invade another country if you don't like their leader!!!

If the Constitution falls, so does our country. At least it can't be amended by just one person.

By the way, I've heard the European Union is wanting to take over the banking systems of the world. Now THAT scares the bejeebers out of me.

OK, so we AGREE.

A vote for Obama is a vote for doing away with the Consitution. A vote for McCain is a vote for more of the same "back room" redistirbution of wealth.

Pick your poison. OR Vote for a 3rd party.

Bush will be a saint compared to either one of these clowns. Think about THAT.

[lizbud]

BO is on record, many, many times now, saying that the Constitution is the problem. Not that we don't adhere to it, but that it is THE problem. If that does not scare the crap out of you.... Well, then there really is no hope and it will come, eventually, to open armed conflict. .

Shall I warn the FBI now that you are inviting armed conflict among
citizens after this election? Do you realize how you sound saying all
this stuff?

Please, pretty please, show me your proof of Obama saying this the US
Constitution is a problem in any way.

[lizbud]

Just wanted to share my very favorite cartoon of the day.

[Puckstop31]

Shall I warn the FBI now that you are inviting armed conflict among
citizens after this election? Do you realize how you sound saying all
this stuff?

Good God Liz... You are such a drama queen. Please get over yourself.

I pray every day that it does NOT come to that. But I fear it might. And yes, I realize how I sound saying this. The scary truth is, well, scary.

Please, pretty please, show me your proof of Obama saying this the US
Constitution is a problem in any way.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=79225

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

Now I know you are going to rip the source. But listen to the Youtube link. the read this article...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

The man wants to modify the Constitution. He wants it to be a document of entitlement, rather than a document of FREEDOM. He thinks the Constitution CONSTRAINS people.

I have read just about every word of the Federalist Papers. I have done extensive reading and research into the founders, their ideals and their motives. The documents they created are the greatest documents of governance in history. Perfect? No. But they must have done something right. Weare, in a short span of time, the most free, prosperous and influential nation in history.

To put it in one sentence... The man wants to turn it into a document of entitlements, and change it from a document of FREEDOMS.

I challenge you to actually READ the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Tell me what you think. Then compare it to the "government" we have today.

[lizbud]

You have seriously misunderstood what was being discussed & what Obama was trying to show to whomever he was speaking to.

The constitution was mentioned & so was the Warren Court, but his main
points in the conversation was about neither.

[Puckstop31]

You have seriously misunderstood what was being discussed & what Obama was trying to show to whomever he was speaking to.

The constitution was mentioned & so was the Warren Court, but his main
points in the conversation was about neither.

Right Liz... I am the one who misunderstood. You are so infinetley more clairvoyant than I, than anybody for that matter. It's not like I have spent most of my adult life spending time reading, discussing (honsetly... not with intellectual juveniles...) and studying our founders and what their intent was for our country.

Liz, there is not one intellectually honest bone in your body. You would not see the truth if it slapped you in the face with a brick. See, I admit it when I am beaten.... I am honest enough and wise enough to know that we learn more from failure than success...

So tell me... What WAS his point? The more detail you can provide, the better, please.

[blue]

But Puck, that interview was 7 years ago. According to my coworker it has no bearing on NObama's views now. Surely NObama in his work in the State and Federal Senates he has grown to respect the Constitution and its intent.

I couldnt type that with a straight face.

[lizbud]

Right Liz... I am the one who misunderstood. You are so infinetley more clairvoyant than I, than anybody for that matter. It's not like I have spent most of my adult life spending time reading, discussing (honsetly... not with intellectual juveniles...) and studying our founders and what their intent was for our country.

Liz, there is not one intellectually honest bone in your body. You would not see the truth if it slapped you in the face with a brick. See, I admit it when I am beaten.... I am honest enough and wise enough to know that we learn more from failure than success...

So tell me... What WAS his point? The more detail you can provide, the better, please.

Okee Dokee, Sometimes I think you are channeling this women.

Palin Suggests Obama Would Re-Write Constitution
October 29, 2008 7:57 AM

ABC News' Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin went beyond her running mate's recent attack on Sen. Barack Obama -- inaccurately claiming that Obama called the lack of "redistributive change" during the civil rights movement a "tragedy" -- and used Obama's 2001 interview to insinuate that he wants to re-write the U.S. Constitution and appoint radical Supreme Court justices and judges who would confiscate the property of American citizens.

At two rallies in Western Pennsylvania last night, Palin referenced at the top of her remarks a 2001 public radio interview with Obama that surfaced this week, in which Obama discussed the role of the courts in the civil rights movement.

"There he was talking about the need for quote 'redistributive change,'" Palin said on the campus of Shippensburg University Tuesday night. “Sen. Obama said that he regretted that the Supreme Court hadn't been more radical. And he described the Court's refusal to take up the issues of redistribution of wealth as a tragedy. And he said he also regretted that the Supreme Court didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers there in the Constitution”


Obama had in fact argued the opposite in the 2001 interview, saying that the civil rights movement had become too focused on making change through the judicial system, rather than from the ground up through community organizations.

But Palin used Obama's words to follow an argument Sen. John McCain has made this week that Obama has long-advocated for "spreading the wealth." "Obama says that he wants to spread the wealth," Palin said to boos from the crowd. "In other words he thinks that it's your job to earn the wealth and it's his job to spread it."

But Palin then went beyond any argument McCain has made, using the 2001 interview to insinuate that Obama wants to re-write the U.S. Constitution and appoint radical Supreme Court justices, while also suggesting that under Obama, judges would confiscate the property of American citizens.

Referencing the interview, Palin said, "So you have to ask, is this a suggestion that's he’d want to re-write the founding document of our great nation to accomplish his goals. And what does that say about his ideas on future Supreme Court justices?"

"Let me remind Barack Obama of something else. When judges don’t confiscate your property and your hard-earned -- all of your hard-earned money and then re-distribute that, he may call that a tragedy. But I call it fairness and adherence to our U.S. Constitution," Palin added later in her remarks.

In the interview, Obama described one of the "tragedies of the civil rights movement" was that "the civil rights movement became so court-focused".

"I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still suffer from that," Obama said in the interview.

When a caller asked whether economic redistribution should come through the courts or the legislative process, Obama replied, "I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn't structured that way."

Obama's 2001 interview made no mention of judges confiscating property. The Palin campaign did not provide clarification on what Palin was referring to with the remark.

Palin said the 2001 interview revealed Obama's "real ideology" and that his goal to "spread your wealth around" would only spread "scarcity and poverty and bureaucracy" and would stifle the country's entrepreneurial spirit. She asked those in the crowd to support the Republican ticket to preserve the "uniquely American system that our founding fathers created."

"Sometimes in politics it's those candid little moments that give us the whole picture," Palin said at a second rally on the Penn State campus in State College, PA last night. "But our opponent's ideological commitment to spread your wealth around has been tried in other societies, and the only thing it ever spreads is scarcity and poverty and bureaucracy, and it stifles the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country the greatest country on Earth."

The comments were similar to remarks Palin made at rallies this weekend in Iowa, where the Republican vice presidential nominee seemed to move from accusing Obama’s economic plans of having elements of socialism to also allude to the problems faced by communist systems.

[Puckstop31]

Okee Dokee, Sometimes I think you are channeling this women.

Sigh... Typical Liz. Deflect and avoid a real answer.

You asked me for evidence. I provided some. THIS is what I get.

Again, please tell me what YOU think he meant by those comments?

[RICHARD]

lol,

Bill Bratton, the uber general of the LAPD, did broach the idea of having more cops on board for election night in case there was social unrest due to the results of the election.
Many police chiefs across the country have already stated this concern....
I think that it may be a thinly veiled racist desire to keep the peace.

And on the female front?

In West Hollywood a hanging effigy of Sarah Palin hangs on the side of a home- Now, where are all the women that should take exception to this show of woman hatred-there was an interview with the two men that put it up as 'installation art".


I love El Lay!

[jennielynn1970]

In West Hollywood a hanging effigy of Sarah Palin hangs on the side of a home- Now, where are all the women that should take exception to this show of woman hatred-there was an interview with the two men that put it up as 'installation art".

How does someone do that?? That would be like hanging a dummy of a black person from a noose in a tree.

I may not be pro-Palin, but geez... that's going a little too far.

[RICHARD]

How does someone do that?? That would be like hanging a dummy of a black person from a noose in a tree.

I may not be pro-Palin, but geez... that's going a little too far.

They spoke to the gents who seemed a little "effete"-they probably were upset about SP having more money to dress up and nicer than they do.
I think it was the FBI or SS that were parked outside the residence and I guess they were in for a visit and intelligence BBQing (grilling) from them.

----------

Now,

There was a cardboard BO that was hung from a tree outside a school. Someone hung him with fishing string from a tree branch and put a sign on it that said something about rejects.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,305246,00.html

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/54960.html

Here are two links to the story.

Now, It you want to look at the 'racist' side of the story, you can conjure up
white sheets, burning crosses and lynching.....

Or you can see the hanging of the cutout with a piece of fishing string, something not as obvious and probably not as offensive . What if they had hung it by the ears? Or punched a hole thru his head?

The AHs that see evil behind every bush and under every rock are the same people that won't hesitate to blow something out of proportion for their cause-or to improve a "victim status".
I laugh when I see Al Sharptongue and the rev Jerkson jump thru hoops to prove that world is full of hate - instead of trying to bring people together they only jump the gap to prove there is a chasm between everyone.

It's all in bad taste. The Palin hangers have the same right to 'clown' on her, but it's only a crime when your skin, religion or race is involved.

Being obvious with a noose is one thing, fishing string is stretching it.

--------------

I also saw a sports report on a white sports writer that did a story about a coach who was on a black athlete's case. He wrote something like 'Coach X is tightening the noose on Player Y"

That turns out to be a "racist" commentary because a black player was involved.

Supidity is alive and well in America.

[jennielynn1970]

It's all in bad taste.

That's about the size of it.