I truly appreciate your candor and advice...but American politics are not quite that simplistic. It's very much a complicated, bullshit affair... The fact of the matter is that President Obama does NOT have control of the debate totally. It's very much in the hands of the Congress and Senate (as per the Constitution of the United States). Obama is an executive in the public branch but does not control, completely the Congress and certainly not the Senate. The US is a Constitutional Democracy (at least it's supposed to be) and one man, even a President, does not have complete rule over legislation. Negotiation...I'm afraid, is part of the bargain with such a democracy as ours. Good or bad...we're stuck with that fact for now.

The problem is he doesn't call out the repugnantans on their bullshit. I'm so tired of it. They've proven beyond any shadow of any doubt how little they actually care about America's future and its people, but Obama's still trying to act the centrist and bipartisan he promised he'd be. He needs to tell the rightwing to stop repainting the lines and learn to treat him with some god damn respect.

Oh I agree with you more than you know! It's so true. It angers me that our Congress (yes the Republicans) would hold their people hostage and sell them out to big interest groups and their own greed. It's like a nightmare from which one cannot escape! Congress is in the pocket of special interest and very rich men.

IAWTP. Trying to help Obama and the Dems develop a hint of a spine against this scorched-earth Republican insanity may well be a lost cause. But wouldn't it be even worse if it actually wasn't, but lost anyway just because everybody assumed that it was? Good luck you guys.

No can do. i hate Obama with a passion. Besides, Social Security was meant to only be a temporary thing. Sixty -years- ago.

So, you'd rather the Republicans lie through their teeth over and over and over and over and over and over while across the country they're stealing away workers' rights, education funds, senior aid, and trying to get rid of medicare and medicaid all in these thinly veiled coverups of budget balancing that is instead putting the burden on OUR fucking backs while they give MORE breaks to the wealthiest and big money corporations?

Dislike Obama all you want, but these political fucking terrorists need to be dragged into the street and shat on until they know what it feels like to be middle class America these days.

Haaa... spoken like the truly ignorant... You know what happens when you tax the rich? They spend less. And the more you try to tax them for their money, the more you're telling people that America punishes success. Add to that, the more they get taxed, the less they invest. So by taxing the rich more, you're hurting the economy overall.

You seem to be under the impression that you're being targeted as an individual, when in actuality you don't make a great deal of difference. We're in a fuckton of debt (thanks largely to Obama i might add) and it's going to take a lot of cutting back to get us out. But you're too concerned with yourself to see what's good for America.

And i suppose you want the government to control everything too, like a typical democrat. Nevermind that giving the government all the power is going against the very constitution that this country was founded upon. So if you want to be a communist, move somewhere else.


...meh, this is why i hate politics... nobody ever wins...

And who actually spends money in America's economy? The Middle Class. A couple new yachts, expensive Italian cars, and $20,000 jewelry isn't going to do a thing for our overall economy. The people who buy the cars, the TVs, go to the bars, go to Disney World, buy hoagies from the local deli, go to Home Depot, and etc. etc. etc. are the ones who make this economy truly flourish because we're the consumer of our own products. The rich are not somehow such a significant part of the economy as to suggest they're the entire thing. And we've been seeing investments drop because they're all moving over seas, like to China. And this is ALL despite their tax levels, some of the lowest in our history, REMAINING AS BUSH ERA. So much for "Lower taxes on the wealthy and the country flourishes" crap, especially given the obnoxious amount of loopholes and other archaic aspects of the tax code that lets the ultra rich pay less in taxes than you or me.

Also, we're in a fuckton of debt for a lot of reasons. To put so much blame on Obama is to be so grossly unfair that you might as well accuse Hilary Clinton for being the cause of Bill's affair. Our economy was looking pretty damn strong at the end of the Clinton administration, too, regardless of what you may agree or disagree with its politics or leadership, and it went to shit because of two wars and wealthiest American tax cuts. To claim cuts are the only real way to fix things, also, is to be just as unfair and it smacks of utter misinformation.

And you're literally an idiot. Independent moderate here who fucking dies a little inside voting all democrat EVERY. FUCKING. TIME. But I wouldn't vote repugnantan if I was given a billion dollars to do it.

Nobody wins in politics because there's no room for moderates anymore. You crying communist like a fucking Beckerhead is proof enough of that.

Well there's no arguing with some, that's for damn sure. They paint themselves right and ignore all facts to the contrary. Because if something disagrees with them, then it must be a lie, right? Well forget that, i'm done with this political bull shit.

i'm just going to pretend this never happened, i don't know why i cared anyway, i'm not republican or democrat. They can all burn in hell for all i care, as well as those who insult others who disagree with them.

Then don't paint labels. Calling me a Democrat and then a fucking Communist? You should feel lucky I didn't lose my cool. No arguing with some, indeed <_<

More along the lines of implying questions than accusations. This is why i usually try to avoid these things, i always get myself worked up and say things i shouldn't. Sorry big guy...

Apology accepted. I know this can be something that gets emotions flared, but that's exactly the problem these days. This Us Vs Them mentality, this vitriolic hate that we've seen build up... I don't trust nor like the left and the dems very much, but just listening to comparisons in debate, listening and watching to what each side says and claims, there is no doubt in my mind it's been the Republicans controlling every aspect of every argument and they keep winning because the dems let them like the spineless pussies they are and it's been the repubs spilling the most mongering of hate and fear. We see them accuse the left daily of doing everything they do, and it's closing off the right wing from acknowledging the left as human beings let alone Americans. Fox News needs to die a horrible, horrible death and maybe things can start to change, or maybe some repubs will finally wake the fuck up and take their party back from the fringe that's become such a main stream.

i'd disagree with you, but i don't trust myself to debate such a matter. As we've both seen, i don't handle politics very well...

I try my best, but I've slipped, as well. *offers a lick*

*gets licked and offers a little meep* ^///^

In fact, on that note of closing off the rightwing from seeing the left as American, anyone not as right leaning as they are automatically get painted as communist like you just did. The arrogance and presumptions are astounding. Hate or love Obama for whatever reason, but it turns my stomach knowing that America's arguably most centrist president in history is being painted as the God of communism and all this other disgusting shit.

I'm trying to remain calm here, Deioth, but really?
You yourself have called Republicans terrorists and then Teapartiers racists, and are now complaining about Democrats being called communists?
Personally, I don't believe in any of these labels, and understand that Americans have a right to have a difference of opinions and still be Americans. I had hoped that you felt the same way, but you're making it difficult to believe so.

I know very few who call Obama a communist, and even when such claims are made, they are quickly shot down.
What most actually feel, is that his policies have a Socialist agenda, which is the truth. Not just Obama, but pretty much every president over the last 20 years, who has been working to give more control over people's lives to the Federal Government. The Constitution clearly states that any rights not specifically given to the Federal Government by that document, is delegated to the States. Every time a new law is passed that overrides State control and gives it to the Federal Government, that is an advance toward Socialism. That's a simple fact of politics. Argue for or against it, but Obamacare is a prime example of a Socialist program.

The terrorist thing was a response in kind to what was being said to me. I'm quite sick of people (in my mind, one side in particular) working endlessly to paint things into this Us Vs Them fight and closing off hopes for discussion before the debate even begins. I have no doubt in my mind that many are good, patriotic Americans, but I have zero doubt that there is a racial aspect to Tea Partiers in particular. Not all may be racist, but the kind of stuff said against Obama while being pushed as main stream conservatism smacks of irrational, hatefilled bigotry.

Our country is also a very mixed economy and mixed government. Socialism itself is, to use an example, the "center" between capitalism and communism. Just as pure liberalism and pure conservatism would destroy this country, there's a center that can comfortably lean one way or another and still ensure prosperity. If nothing else, I want our government there as a sort of referee, ready to step in when the greater America, the majority America, or its future as a competitive global power is at risk. I want regulations to ensure your ignorant every day average Joe doesn't get stuck with a loan or a mortgage they actually cannot afford because he didn't know better, that dirty energy companies have to keep up a standard of real safety and real prevention (no more oil rig explosions and coal mine cave ins), that we have things in place to ensure those who do not abuse our systems can rest assured they'll be there if they need them (like unemployment).

States should delegate as necessary, but the federal government needs to be there to not only support the states but ensure that they all can provide for their citizens. This goes doubly for states that would break the federal constitution themselves, like those with anti-gay marriage regulations and anti-abortion regulations. It really makes me wonder what a big government actually means. It's only big when it's not them doing it, it seems.

As for Obamacare, I don't see how something intended to retain our privatized for-profit health care industry while ensuring more people can get health insurance and proper health care without worry of being ditched the moment they really need it is socialist in any way. Quite frankly, health care is the kind of thign that shouldn't be for-profit at all and would fully support a single-payer system, but knowing we're a very capitalist society I happen to think a national exchange with a government insurance program to at least cover basics for all people (Medicare For All, as things were being labled at one point) would be a perfect balance. America has always been a progressive country. I bet people are more frightened of change than anything else, even if it would be better for them.

I don't like what conservatism is doing and standing for these days. It doesn't sound like capitalism anymore. It sounds like corporatism. Tack on their abusive use of faith and Jesus and we've got a theocratic corporatist movement in America and that's scary as hell.

A short look back on Bush's presidency would clearly show a full reversal of what's happening now. Where the Republicans are attacking Obama and the Democrats today, the Democrats were doing the exact same thing to Bush and the Republicans, with the same level of vile and hatred. It is not any worse now. The problem is, the media has always been more liberal biased, so they did not report about it as frequently and vehemently when it was Democrats attacking Bush and the Republicans. But trust me, the Hitler and Satan references, along with the death to Bush outcries, were daily and rampant. Everyone is always wearing blinders when it's their side making the offenses.

Every political party has racists as members, and I know far, far more racists who are Democrats and Republicans, than Tea Partiers.

Despising our 2-party system, I had actually voted for Ross Perot the first time he ran in 1992 (which I joke that all Democrats should thank me for, since if Perot did not take 19% of the votes, Bush Sr. would have creamed Clinton), because I believe someone with a business background and not a political one, is required to fix our nation. Because of this, I always research other parties for myself, and although I find the Libertarian Party still a better option over the Tea Party (just a few too many extreme ideas out of Libertarians to make them viable); the misinformation about the Tea Party is astronomical.

For instance, before last year's elections, the main stream media was proud to display images of racist banners being displayed at their rallies. What they don't tell you is that at least 4 of those were proven to be Democratic plants. Where these individuals were identified, and when their backgrounds were checked, they were found to be Democratic supporters. The MSN won't report about that. Nor will they show you all the instances where people holding up any racist signs, were ejected from the Tea Party rallies.

Tea Partiers are Americans who are fed up with the Government (both parties) no long obeying the Law of the Constitution. They believe the U.S. needs to return to being the Constitutional Republic, that the Constitution mandates it being. Their argument is that the Constitution is quite clear in the powers of the Federal Government, and does not need to be 'interpreted' or 'modernized'. That is what Congressional Amendments are for, and not the courts to decide.

Unfortunately, they have become counter-productive to themselves. Both Democrats and Republicans label them as extremists and fanatics, but instead of rationally debating their stance, they let their emotions get the best of them and become angry and hateful. But, their underlying goal is still legitimate. They do not want to overthrow the Government or destroy the country. They simply want the politicians to be held responsible for failure to obey the Oaths they each took to uphold the Constitution. The exact reasons Democrats gave for impeaching Bush for breaches of the Constitution, are now equally being applied to Obama.

And it is this point of theirs, which is exactly against what you are looking for. Unless it is specifically stated in the Constitution, the Federal Government has 'zero' say or control over the States. This is exactly the situation that was warned against by the Founding Fathers. They wanted the States to hold the supreme rights of their people, with the Federal Government meant to defend the country. There is no provision in the Constitution to deal with gay rights. That is a State-level decision, where each State has the right to decide for themselves, what the people of that State want. As for abortion, the exact opposite can be argued as being the case. It is a goal of the Federal Government to uphold the "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" for every citizen. The conservative argument is that abortion kills life, and thus is a crime that the Government cannot condone.

Employment is another instance. Based on the Constitution, it is not the Federal Government's job to make sure everyone has a job. It is only the Federal Government's role to make sure everyone is ensured the opportunity to find a job. Democrats will argue that taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, constitutes providing opportunities for those people, while most Republicans and all Tea Partiers will argue that this is not for the Federal Government to use taxes for, but instead it is an issue that State Governments are supposed to address.

Based on the Constitution, the Government does not have the right to force its citizens to purchase anything, yet this is exactly what Obamacare is doing. You either buy it, or you pay a fine. There is no opting out. That is 100% socialism. As I said, you can argue for or against it all you want, but even if it turned out to be the best thing ever for this country, it is still socialism.

Now, for this next part, please realize that I've been an atheist my entire life, though I have been subjected to many relatives who are conservatives, and I've had to listen to their endless rants for countless hours at any family gathering.

You're 100% right about how far and extreme conservatism has gone, but rather than just use labels to pan them, the reasons for this change to such an extreme stance should be understood. I've already covered how they feel the Constitution has been trodden upon and ignored/abused, but that's only half the issue.
For years now, liberalism has been looking to undermine what conservatives feel are the religious foundations of this country. At first, it merely started with such minor things as forcing communities to allow non-Christian displays at Christmas time (a Christian holiday). This then spread to disallowing any religious displays on government property. Next it was the attempts to remove "In God We Trust" from money and "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance. Finally, we see things such as only Muslim women being waived from searches when they get on a plane. Conservatives are seeing their religious rights being stricken from them, while other religions are ignored from similar attacks.

There is no denying that the U.S. was founded under Christian principles, and conservatives are finding themselves in a fight to retain these principles. They do realize that the world is changing and the religious freedoms of others must be maintained as well. But to them, the only way to keep America strong is to maintain those original, conservative principles; and the only way to do this, is to uphold the Constitution. Because so many politicians never uphold their promises or values once they've been elected, the conservatives are pushing more and more extreme conservatives onto the ballets. They honestly feel that they are fighting for the survival of this country, by trying to bring back the conservative values from 200 years ago.

So, agree or disagree with their ideology, but they are not lunatics and they are not going away. The harder they are pressed and the more they are attacked and chastised, the greater their resolve is going to be to fight back. And they are winning ground. Since 9/11, patriotism has been on the rise, and they are using that to portray today's government (both republican and democratic) as corrupt and misguided, and reminding people of the fundamentals of our Founding Fathers; and people are listening. The problem is, it's not the current politicians in control who are doing the listening, which is why they have started to fall to Tea Party candidates. Today's politicians are so entrenched in the corrupt, status quo, that they are blind to what's happening around them and why.

This is a LOT to respond to, and we're getting huge (you just replied in two separate areas) so I'll try and cover what I can. I also am feeling rather done with this as I'm willing to bet we've both essentially said what we stand for and believe and it's clear that you're not going to convince me of Conservatism's, the Republican's, Bush's, and the right-wing's in general positive and defensible positions, actions, and activities and it seems pretty clear I won't convince you of the opposite. This has gone on long enough for a simple cry to those who'd pay attention enough to click and be willing to help because I am 100% convinced on grounds of purely individual concept, reason, and critical thought that the Republicans are prioritizing their electability in 2014 (and likewise, and primarily through, their attempts to claim the Democrats' unelectability) over the wants and needs of the greater America and of America's future to such an extent that I truly cannot see myself ever voting Republican again given the path they've chosen and continue to remain on.


Regarding Bush and Iraq:

What was pushed the most as reasons from what I can remember were two big things (beyond, perhaps, humanitarian reasons since Hussein was a tyrant): 1. NUCLEAR weapons (chemical included as WMDs or not), and 2. relations with Al Qaeda and connections to 9/11. Two of the most espoused reasons for us to go to war unprovoked in a Muslim country that was going through government sanctioned sectarian violence were nukes and Al Qaeda. Both lies. And we left Afghanistan to rot in order to go to Iraq, allowing the insurgents there to continue to gain power and support and allow Osama bin Laden to escape (and it was still Obama who got him). Even if, however, Bush never lied about our gathered intelligence and reasoning, he'd still have been ripped into and rightfully so for how botched both wars ultimately were. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a fucking blowjob. Bush et al have gotten away with lying about our reasons to go to WAR. The rationale behind the vitriol of either side, from pundits and publicists, to the politicians themselves, and the average joe lefties and righties, when comparing that against Bush VS Obama is a difference of night and day. I have no doubt in my mind some very wrong stuff had been said against Bush and have no doubt that some on the left actively lied. However, when you look at what the right has done, what their media outlets have said, what their politicians have said, what their supporters have said, etc. etc. etc., there is flat out no comparison. It's not even apples to oranges anymore. You're not comparing fruit let alone food. In the end, if there was some real reason to permit hostility against Iraq, it should have been U.N. lead and NOT lead by us.

Regarding Wisconsin:

A bill, marketed to the people as a financial bill, one intended to balance the budget, was split into a financial side and a non-financial side. So, right there, we have have the government willfully lying about the intents of their bill. Since in Wisconsin law it's easier to pass a non-finance bill with less votes, they split it apart, putting among other things the collective bargaining rights into the now separate non-finance bill. On top of that, there is a strong case that they broke the Open Meetings law by rushing this split legislation through the state congress. I don't know the details enough to get into them, but apparently the state Supreme Court deemed the legislature exempt from said law. That makes... no damn sense to me... Even if an argument could be made against union and worker related state spending, the government lied and arguably broke laws to deal with it. All while ignoring a large majority of their constituents. So much for representation by the people and for the people, eh?


Regarding The 10 Violations (and this will cover a fair bit in general):

10. The part of Article 1 Section 8 being addressed reads as follows: 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; - There is nothing there to suggest that individuals or specific groups are in some way excluded, and that therefor "general welfare" must apply to the majority of America. While it can be argued there's a gray here because of the very specific few, but for such people as the 9/11 responders I'd be more than happy to make an exception for. Keeping in mind, this man is making such a claim as the Republicans wore 9/11 as robes while draped in a cape of the American flag throughout not only much if not all of the Bush presidency, but also the elections, and still have instances of trying to cling to it. The disgusting flip flops on the part of the right wing regarding 9/11 Heroes is enough to make me vomit. And that's me putting it lightly.

9. The U.N. doesn't count because it's not a foreign state but in fact an international organization. No "King, Prince, or Foreign State" was giving Obama Chairmanship of a foreign entity. The pertinent part of 2.2 reads, btw: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." Besides, its headquarters are stationed ON American soil! Certainly within American borders, at least! It would take quite the, shall we say, interpretation? to suggest the UN constitutes a foreign state enough such that Obama was in breach of the Constitution.

8. I don't know enough about the whole net neutrality thing. I also cannot figure out what part of 1.8 is being violated. This needs more information.

7. Ironically, found this from Fox News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFoLlSWI2I - I think that should about cover it. If he is, others have done it, too, as has Bush.

6, 5. I'd point you back to my response to #10. There's nothing to suggest that "general welfare" cannot be limited to certain groups or entities in any way. Even interpreted in the most literal sense possible, 1.8 is extremely open ended (it could be argued Congress has the power to tax anything and everything they want excepting exclusions in 1.9) so this guy is stretching things extremely thin.

4. I could have lumped this into 5 and 6, but I didn't Why? It was under BUSH that TARP happened. They were signed in October, by Bush, while Obama was still President-Elect. Also, if Obama could be blamed, while president, for anything regarding the automobile bailouts (which also were Bush signed), it makes me wonder why TARP was chosen and NOT the GM & Chrysler stuff because it's most relatable to Obama beyond the initial Bush signing.

3. I can't comment accurately enough on the merits and legality of the Arizona immigration law, however the word choice of this man leaves much to be desired in an actual argument. I've heard enough and thought enough to believe that it was a political ploy of a bill and one that rationalizes bigotry and prejudice against legal citizens.

2. He's making nothing more than a statement, one of political grandstanding at that. There is no argument here whatsoever, but merely an opinion rather than any claim of fact, so I'm not bothering.

1. A LOT of what he says is not sourced and is unquoted, so I can't make a proper rebuttal. However, with regards to the individual mandate, here's word for word the final passed and signed bill regarding the penalty:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The penalty provided by this section
shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and
except as provided in paragraph (2), shall be assessed and
collected in the same manner as an assessable penalty under
subchapter B of chapter 68.
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULES.—Notwithstanding any other provision
of law—
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section,[b] such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or PENALTY (emphasis mine) with respect to such failure.
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’

So... the penalty is... no penalty? So much for the individual mandate. As to his 10th amendment claim, again, it is left so damn open that to interpret it literally would still provide argument to allow the healthcare reform laws, especially when you consider the preamble and the first bullet point of Article 1 Section 8 with that whole part about "general welfare". If improved healthcare for the ENTIRE NATION isn't a "general welfare" thing, then what does one look like? If failed, miserable policies, politics, strategy, reasoning, and rationale can constitute Vietnam, Iraq, or any other number of piss-poorly handled wars and military activity as "common defense", improving our healthcare system constitutes as general welfare. In fact, pure socialism could be argued as Constitutional because the points could be made that it would be better for our common defense and/or general welfare! A pure single-payer system would be 100% constitutional. All this guy did was move goalposts and change definitions as he saw fit.

You need to find new reading material, if this was one of your talking points.


Regarding the Tea Party, Democratic plants, etc.:

The Tea Party was originally a Ron Paul creation, and he was laughed at. The whole damned thing was, because it was Ron Paul's. Then, it gets taken over by corporate lobbying firms disguising themselves as grassroots movements, such as the Koch brothers' "Americans for Prosperity" (Oh! speaking of the Koch brothers, ever get a chance to hear Wisconsin Governor Walker "talk" to one of them? You cannot say with a straight face it was purely over fiscal responsibility after hearing that) or Dick Armey's "FreedomWorks", among plenty others. The Tea Party itself, at its base, in its general message I am rather approving of. The problem is where their anger is pointed to and how their energy and effort is manipulated by those seeking to turn what could be a legitimate movement into a herd of sheep shepherded by wolves. A LOT of what the mainstream Tea Party actually says sounds SO fringe and SO insane to me because it literally sounds like they are against their own best interests and America's best interest. It literally sounds like anarchy to me, because it sounds like they want government to be in such a position as to be nothing more than a vestigial part of our country and history, left to be as pointless and weak and meaningless to the grand scheme of things as the Royal Family in Britain, to be so powerless as to be unable to provide anything for America whatsoever (except an army I guess?). As to the Democratic plants and racism (and really, disgusting bigotry period) how do you explain the slurs, spitting, and heckling of black democratic members of congress and openly gay congressman, Barney Frank? I don't doubt there have been cases on both sides of plants one way or another (hell, when I actually was hired on by my district's Democrats as a full-time canvasser (NEVER thought I'd see the day, holy crap!), some volunteers from out-of-state very stupidly started to steal Republican lawn signs. Idiots!), but there is without a doubt a racial element, and the punditry and politicians exploit it. They've race baited, they've fear-mongered, they've hate-mongered, and done everything they can to paint Obama as not only a non-America, not only unAmerican, but ANTI-American. From the calls of him being an Arab or a Muslim (WHY does that even matter?), to the whole nonsensical birther movement, to cries of death panels, to claims of anti-colonial Kenyan sentiment, to calls of communist and marxist and maoist and nazi and so much more... I mean, fuck, Bush got called a nazi a few times, sure... but the comparison of vitriol, the thickness of it, the amount of it, the mindboggling and stomach churning intensity of it, it's comparing a god damn paper cut to a quartering! If the democrats planting anybody, they're wasting their time, because the whole current mainstream of Conservatism is doing enough damage to themselves.


As to the Whole Christian Thing:

Founded by Christians? Mostly, maybe, given there were a good handful of deists and dissenters of Christianity amongst out Founding Fathers. On Christian values? Maybe, possibly, but I'd argue human values that Christianity has no monopoly on. I think a good exercise for you would be to look at liberalism and conservatism in the context of their time. Also, to consider that if liberals are to progressives, then conservatives are to traditionalists. In the 1960's, during the Civil Rights movements, it was traditional to be segregated and consider colored people as lesser than whites and deserving of less rights. The progressive thought was that they were equally Americans, equally skilled, equally competitive, and so much more if they'd follow the American dream, and that segregation was unconstitutional. What happened? Progressives won. Prior to that, Womens' Suffrage! Again, the conservative side deemed women as less than men and not deserving of the right to vote. Again, liberals thought differently, and again, the progressive machine won. Prior to that, it was slavery and the Civil War. Need I detail who were traditional and who were progressive? The Confederacy is dead and long gone (and I wish more people accepted that...). Going all the way back to our country's founding, it was traditional to follow the whims and government of the Theocratic Monarchy of the Catholic British Empire. Our intensely PROGRESSIVE founders thought differently, such as religious freedom, and representation of the people. And now, today, we can see the right-wing's efforts against the LGBT community in general and gay marriage in particular losing to the ever churning progressive machine. Want to know who the last great minority is coming out of the closet demanding their equal rights and treatment? Atheists, agnostics, and the non-religious.

You also do know what the 1st Amendment says, right? Just to make sure we're both on the same page: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The insertion of "Under God" in our pledge and the official changing of our de facto national motto of "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" during the 1950's among the fear of communism was all done by Congress. Want to know what they're specifically and Constitutionally obligated NOT to do? Establish religion. Inserting God into our government and painting God as American by these two rulings of Congress is a brazen infringement on the First Amendment. It's no wonder, by the way, that Muslim countries deem us in their propaganda as Christian because of such crap as this. As well, if we're to also understand what the founders said (in particular, Thomas Jefferson) in relation to the First Amendment and the idea of separation of church and state, there are far too many instances of potential, if not outright, infringements across the country by Christians who don't realize what they're doing. And yet... as soon as someone speaks up, THEY are the ones being ostracized? Targeted? Made the victim? As they all, quite vocally, including a FUCKING FORMER PRESIDENT, consider Atheism itself to be anti-American, and for Atheists to NOT be Americans. DO NOT get me started on our supposed "Christian Foundations" and them somehow superseding the very Founders and the Constitution they wrought that demanded equality and liberty to freedom FROM religion, as well! I FUCKING am god damn SICK of seeing the Constitution being hidden behind whenever it suits them, yet gladly ignore it when it comes to OUR rights. Do NOT get me started, because I will NOT be able to keep my cool.

Well, four+ hours later, I think that covers it. I'm getting dinner and going to bed. Hopefully, this posts out ok.

The simple fact is, reducing taxes on the rich has always generated more tax income for the government. But the Democrats don't want you to hear those facts, the main stream media, who support the Democrats, keep people ignorant of these facts.

The taxes on US corporations is not low. It is still one of the highest in the world, which along with the free trade agreements, is why corporations are moving their businesses to other countries. Tariffs on foreign goods were designed specifically to compensate for the fact that other countries paid their workers almost nothing, and thus could charge far less for goods, than producing them here in the US. By reducing or removing these tariffs, the free trade agreements have destroyed American competition. So, unless you volunteer to ignore the minimum wage laws in this country and work for only $2 an hour, there's no reason at all for a manufacturing company to remain in the US.

The fall of the American yacht industry is a prime example of where the Democrats got it wrong. In 2008, the Democratic congress included a 10% luxury tax on yachts. The rich did not stop buying yachts, but rather than pay the tax, they instead bought their yachts from other countries. So, by adding this tax, they not only lost all of the taxes they would have received by the sale of yachts, but there were also hundreds of job losses when these yacht companies went out of business here in the US.

Throughout history, higher corporate taxes has always generates less revenue for the government. Higher taxes means the company will charge more for their product, causing fewer people to buy the product, thus lower sales tax revenue. With lower sales, these companies lay off workers, thus less revenue from payroll taxes. Producing less product uses less raw material, which means that the companies and jobs further up the chain of production are also adversely affected, costing more jobs and less revenue for the government.

On top of this, the higher the taxes are, the more money the rich and large corporations move into non-US assets. While more costly at lower levels, if the tax rate is too high, it becomes more profitable to do this. What they pay out in order to put their money elsewhere, becomes less than what they would otherwise pay in taxes. Rather than pay a lower tax rate, they circumvent the taxes altogether, thus once again, resulting in less money for the federal government. These are historical facts. The higher the taxes on the wealthy, the less revenue the federal government ends up with.

Throughout the first 6 years of Bush's presidency, the economy was not doing as horrible as the Democrats try to claim, by using the figures at the end of his 8-year term (after the Democrats took control of Congress for the last 2 years of his terms).
- Unemployment was at 4.5%
- The DOW as over 14,000
- Regular gas was at $2.19 a gallon
- Consumer confidence was at a 2 1/2 year high and people were spending money (thus generating a lot of tax income for the government)

No, this isn't an endorsement of Bush, but rather factual statements about the state of the economy under a Republican congress. Then, because everyone despised the wars Bush had us in, they took it out on Congress, and put the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress.

It was then that the housing market bubble broke, which was a 'credit' issue and not an 'economic' one. Laws that Clinton put into place, requiring banks to allow people with poor credit to buy a house, all came crumbling down. To 'fix' this problem, the Democratic Congress decided that bailouts were needed to save the banks that Congress caused this problem for in the first place. Instead of stopping there, they then decided that other, select companies needed bailouts, such as the auto industry. This wasn't to repair bad policies of the past, but to reward companies that were poorly managed. Congress managed pulling this by putting fear and panic into Americans, that did not actually exist. The economy was still strong. It was this false fear-mongering that freaked everyone out and allowed the Democratic Congress to begin passing bad stimulus bills, which resulted in compounding the problem, not fixing it.

What most people fail to realize is that even today, large corporations are sitting on a ton of money and assets. The problem is, they fear what new laws and restrictions Obama and the Democrats are going to throw at them next, so they are sitting on this money, rather than investing it. Right now, the States that are doing the best economically, are those under Republican control. Why? Because they understand that less government control is better for a capitalist economy. These Republican State governments are giving incentives to corporations, which is resulting in jobs. Democrats on the other hand, believe in more government control and involvement over corporations, and thus, corporations take their jobs and money to other countries.

The government is the problem, not the solution, and as long as the Democrats keep fostering their lies about this, they will continue to convince people that they know what they're doing, and that you'll be better off with them in control. Well, they were in control for 4 years, making things worse and worse, yet somehow still able to place the blame on everyone but themselves.

Understanding that two wars were a contributing factor, big tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans has been a comparable at the least contributor to debt, and we haven't seen those breaks make much of any difference. In fact, in keeping them, we haven't seen much positive impact as a direct result. Furthermore, since Republicans took control of the house, we've seen unemployment rising and our economic recovery nearing a standstill. Take from that what you will, but I don't see them getting up and doing anything of their own beyond slamming the Dems and Obama mercilessly while providing nothing of substance (and the money's changing of pockets at the expense of Medicare in the Ryan plan doesn't count). I've yet to hear any kind of cogent argument from the likes of them (and even the crickets got tired of chirping on the Democrats' side, so the deafening silence of their message is equally maddening). And that's not to mention the merciless abuse of the filibuster in the Senate since Obama took office. Mitch McConnel said he wants Obama to be a one-term president and I'm convinced he and Beohner and all the rest would rather prioritize that over helping America and its people because they want all the praise for any recovery as they continue to paint arguably the most centrist and compromising president we've ever had as this un-American Muslim Communist.

As to the corporate tax, we have problems in not only many corporations taking advantage of loopholes and other legal evasion tactics (like the overseas stuff), we're also providing them subsidies. If it would turn out that our tax rate on corporations is in fact too high should they be made to pay all of it, then so long as the loopholes are closed and subsidies are appropriately dealt with I'd be quite happy with that being lowered. I have no problem with lowering their on-paper tax rates if it means normalizing their real tax rates and I sincerely doubt there are enough democrats who'd disagree, but not even any of them (let alone Repubs) seem to be making such an argument and instead it's all "taxes are too high blah blah" from the right. Even MSNBC ripped into GE, their parent company, for having paid less in federal taxes than most every single American did, and if there's any truth behind what I can remember it was something along the lines of $0. I've also been under the impression such free trade bills, at least of late, have held mostly Democratic dissent as opposed to Republican like Democrat Patrick Murphy who was my district's rep up until 2010's election and who is sorely missed (fucking Fitzpatrick and his television swear in, what a disgrace).

I wouldn't know anything about the yacht industry and I am not about to defend Democratic stupidity if excess taxes damaged it. The fall of the steel industry, though... I'd like to know why we offer the kinds of subsidies we do and the loopholes we do instead of bringing back our manufacturing sector. Doesn't seem like either party is doing much to bring jobs back here and keep them here, though the stimulus has in fact helped reduce the impact of unemployment and bring in some fresh investments. There's now a biotechnology center in my county that's here for certain in no small part due to the stimulus and the work of our old rep, Murphy. Oh, and let's not forget the countless Repubs that denounced the stimulus as this horrendous anti-American job killer as they make requests for stimulus money by describing how much it will help jobs before they go back to their constituents with those comically giant checks from the government stimulus they just finished claiming is destroying America because Obama is a Marxist. While on the subject of investment at American based companies, it's also mindboggling to me that we aren't investing in new energy, clean energy, and green energy to monopolize as much as possible on it in the global market with USA based companies. You'd think the Republicans would jump on such a thing, but no, green energy means global warming means Jesus will hate you if you believe in science.

And again, if we could close loopholes, update the tax code, address subsidies appropriately, and ultimately discover the tax rate is too high then I'm all for lowering it. Again again, no one seems to be making such an argument, it's just, "We have subsidies and loopholes we can deal with" being whispered on the one side and the other like a broken record "TAXES ARE HIGH".

We also had a budget surplus under Clinton. Even if his policies could be argued against and disagree or not with them we had an economy that was really on its feet. If it was the Clinton administration's initial spark that set up for the housing bubble collapse, I didn't see anything coming from the Republican side to try and fix things, and they seemed to be the ones truly spearheading all the bailout stuff, minus the automaker one. They suddenly washed their hands of all of it and blamed the Democrats entirely right as the sugar-coated racism and extreme demagoguery of the Tea Party shows up acting like Bush never existed. People may disagree with bailouts in general too, but you still have to hand it to Obama for saving an American business and workforce, and they've not only paid the money back but have paid off most if not all their interest on top of things (in fact, most of the bailout money that was used seems to have already been paid back).

Maybe Bush wasn't doing as bad as the end of 2008 would have left people to believe economically, but two badly planned wars (one that SHOULD HAVE LEAD TO IMPEACHMENT) sure as hell wasn't helping worth a single damn and it fell on the backs and lives of the American middle class majority.

For the record, Pennsylvania's been doing rather well compared to most states given the economy. While we're still teetering near 9% unemployment, our budget and our debt has been relatively sound while under a Democratic governor, in fact I think I've heard we've a surpluss. Half a year later, we've got Corbett slashing education funds to help subsidize natural gas companies. The hell!!? Even though it is jobs, there are MUCH better investments than environmentally disastrous fracking. It could also be compared, however, to some predominantly Republican controlled states doing terribly. I know New Jersey's been pretty bad under most Democratic rule, though, from what I hear. But, it should still be said, that currently we see a LOT of really fucked up stuff going on in the recently Republican dominated state governments. Wisconsin has got to be the strongest example. It would seem to me that, if the Republicans really ARE trying to make America a more corporate and business friendly place, they're trying to bring the middle class down to a level comparable to the countries where my hourly wage of $15 is their workers' weekly. I'd say exchanging education funds for dirty energy and trying to rip away workers' rights is some indication of that. And on that subject, the company I work at now in a contract just opened an India branch as they lay off some people here at mine. Meanwhile, work just piles up beyond control. In fact, while on THAT subject, there have been a lot of instances of layoffs to save money despite increased workloads by the very people those Bush era tax cuts being extended were supposed to appease. And then there are the multi-million dollar bonuses to the very corporate leaders responsible for the collapse and the spark to the fire of fearmongering leading to the bailouts. But now I'm getting rambly.

I've honestly heard little from Democrats themselves, and certainly not from the oh so liberal main stream media, that Government is somehow the solution to all of our problems, but I only ever hear it IS the problem from the right wing when that statement is just as false as to claim it's the solution. What we need the most is a moderate movement in this country, but you'd have a better chance at seeing a successful herding cats. The extremist rhetoric from one side spawns rhetoric from another and we see nothing getting done of what needs to be. Still, it needs to be said, IMO if the Republicans gave the slightest of a damn about America they would learn to give Obama some god damned respect already, stand up against their own fringe (or at least STOP PANDERING TO THEM and ignore them instead like I see Dems do lately for their side, one I guess I'm too young to have witnessed much), and actually be willing to compromise as much as Obama does. All I've seen is Obama and the dems get spat in their eyes while during the Bush years (and even now) the dems just went along with everything, even when it was clear they should fight it. I mean, seriously... Death panels? And the Demos just sat and took it like a sponge. Idiots.

The Stimulus program has not worked. This is something the right has been saying for many months now, and Obama's own economists have finally admitted to it in a report they just released on Friday. So far, the Stimulus has cost $278,000 for every job it created or saved. As one reviewer put it, if the government simply gave a $100,000 check to each of those 2.4 million people, it would have saved the US citizens over $400 Billion in new debt. On top of this, the report also states that more jobs would have been saved or created, if the Stimulus did not exist.

As for taxes, over the past decades, there have been at least 6 attempts by Republicans to introduce tax overhaul legislation that would create a Fair or Flat taxation system, which eliminates those loopholes. Unfortunately, none of these have ever made it to the floor for a vote, being shot down by both Republicans and Democrats, who have their pockets in the wrong place.

On Bush's impeachment, it is still debatable if there were any grounds to have even considered it. I do believe Bush should have waited and given the U.N. teams more time, seeing as all eyes were on Iraq and there was no way they could have done anything offensively.

But that doesn't make Bush's actions illegal or impeachable. Yes, Bush did strong-arm other countries with threats toward trade agreements, but tell me one President who doesn't try to sway other countries by use of such treats. They have all done it in one way or another. Bush never lied to congress about WMDs. He was using the information given to him by the CIA, as well as the intelligence organizations of England, Israel and even Spain, who all said he still had WMDs. And WMDs were in fact, found. No, they weren't nuclear weapons, but they did find chemical weapons that are classified by the U.N. as WMDs.

Also, Iraq was in defiance of several U.N. resolutions, which allowed for the use of force. Bush won the support of other U.N. member countries (though by far, not all of them), and he went to congress to get their approval. Congress gave Bush the go-ahead with the attacks, as the British Parliament authorized England to send in troops as well. If the other U.N. member countries stood up to Bush and all told him to wait, and if our Congress had the balls to do the same, there would have been no war in Iraq at that time.

Now, consider Obama's actions in Libya, without ever consulting Congress for approval of the military actions he's implemented, and it's easy to see why many people are requesting his impeachment. Add to this the fact that he's even now considering bypassing Congress again, in order to raise the debt ceiling himself, and it's makes his oath to uphold the Constitution, even more tenuous.

As with Bush, there are many actions performed by Obama that are arguably unconstitutional and worthy of him being impeached. A 10 second search on google revealed the following: http://jayforde.com/the-top-10-viol.....11th-congress/

I don't know Pennsylvania, but I had lived in New Jersey for 40 years, and in Wisconsin for 7.
Right now, both Governors are doing exactly what is needed to get their economies under control. Unions in different states each have their own regulations and guidelines already in place, and those in New Jersey and Wisconsin had pretty much free reign to do whatever they wanted, and they were sucking those states dry. Reform was needed, and I am delighted by the steps taken to do so.

What I do not agree with, is the actions by the State Democrats in Wisconsin, all fleeing the state in order to stall a vote that they knew was inevitable, in order to give thousands of people from outside of Wisconsin to flood the capital and cause havoc. Any other job in the world, if you fled in order to do the job you were hired to do, you would be fired. There is no excuse and sets a horrible precedent of cowardice.

On top of this, you have the "illegal" strike that was being perpetrated by school teachers during this period, where they were receiving false doctor's notes in order to protest for the unions. Doctors who were hired by the unions to go to Madison and pass out these illegal notes.

And the results of all of this? The laws passed and the Governor signed a balanced budget that has not been done in years, under the previous, Democratic Governor. One school district already says that the new bill will send their budget from a $400,000 deficit, to a $1.5 million surplus. Teacher salaries will be staying the same. The biggest change is because the school is no longer being forced by the Unions to use WEA Trust for health insurance. By allowing competition, WEA Trust immediately stated it will rescind the rate increase it was going to force upon the school systems. The rules now force the hardship of making a teacher be at the school for 40 hours a week, instead of 37 1/2, but these extra hours results in the benefit of allowing the class sizes, which is something Democrats have always complained about.

In regard to Paul Ryan's budget plan, I recommend you research all the myths and lies being told about it.
http://www.heritage.org/research/re.....se-budget-plan

It is not the perfect solution, but it is far, far better than anything the Democrats have proposed (which as I've said previously, has been absolutely nothing, since Obama has taken office), and far better than continually giving blank checks to Obama, which his own economists have now just said is not working. You can't keep borrowing money, to buy yourself out of debt. You have to STOP SPENDING.

Bah. Living in Wisconsin caused my emotions over all the lies and misinformation being spread about the situation there, to result in bad typing on my part, so re-wording that here, since there's no editing features:

What I do not agree with, is the actions by the State Democrats in Wisconsin, all fleeing the state in order to stall a vote that they knew was inevitable, in order to give thousands of people from outside of Wisconsin the time to flood the capital and cause havoc. Any other job in the world, if you fled in order to avoid doing the job you were hired to do, you would be fired. There is no excuse to their actions and sets a horrible precedent of cowardice and betrayal to the people who elected them.

And the results of all of this? The laws passed and the Governor signed a balanced budget that has not been done in years, under the previous, Democratic Governor. One school district already says that the new bill will send their budget from a $400,000 deficit, to a $1.5 million surplus. Teacher salaries will be staying the same. The biggest change is because the school is no longer being forced by the Unions to use WEA Trust for health insurance. By allowing competition, WEA Trust immediately stated it will rescind the rate increase it was going to force upon the school systems. The rules now force the hardship of making a teacher be at the school for 40 hours a week, instead of 37 1/2, but these extra hours results in the benefit of allowing the class sizes to be small, which is something Democrats have always complained about.

Is this even replying to you correctly? I've managed to post it out twice now but I don't think in response to you. Just go find them before I clog my journal even further ]X8D

I've already contacted my representatives, telling them to not cave in to the Obama Administration's fear-mongering.

Yes. Fear Mongering.
The government already takes in more than enough money to cover our debts. The expenses and interest on our debt, as well as the payment of social security, medicare and military funding, all combine for a total of about 55 percent of the taxes already being collected. The government has more than enough money coming in every month to pay the $18 billion in interest on the debt.

The problem is, Obama and his democratic cohorts refuse to cut spending. The number one, most important job of the House of Representatives every years is to create a federal budget. Under Nancy Pelosia (while Obama was in office) the House did not create a single, federal budget. They didn't even try. They did however, write endless blank checks for Obama to use on a wild spending spree.

Now that republicans are in control of the House and trying to fix that reckless and dangerous spending habit, Obama is fighting it every step of the way. The simple fact is, if the debt limit is raised, it will fix nothing. All it will do, is give Obama more money to spend, putting us right back in this same situation a year from now.

There is a solution to this problem, and it is not raising the debt limit or raping Americans of more of their money in the form of taxes. The solution is to STOP THE SPENDING.

Raising taxes and raising the debt ceiling will only result in one consequence... giving Obama more of our money to spend. He does not want a budget, because that would cap his spending, and so he refuses to negotiate on an actual budget, and simply wants congress to raise the limit.

He has no desire to cut spending, and is fighting tooth and nail to make sure his blank checks keep coming. He hadn't even gotten involved in these negotiations until this past Monday, having instead been spending his time on another golfing vacation (his 72nd since being elected) and holding fund raisers for his re-election campaign. Both of which he finds more important than actually doing his job 'now'.

And instead of actually sitting down and working on the problem... he instead goes on TV to further frighten the ignorant masses. If the damage he was doing to this country wasn't frightening enough, his presidency would be mockery.

And if I could even half believe any of that, it wouldn't change the fact we've got Republicans across the country (including on the Federal level with Paul Ryan's horrible plan) "balancing budgets" by moving education funding into corporate tax breaks, taking away collective bargaining and other union/worker rights (that they admit aren't even budget issues), gutting Planned Parenthood from the moral high horse of ending abortion yet all they do is screw the poor over, fill state houses with anti-voting fraud bills that puts undue restrictions and regulations on every demographic that statistically votes Democratic, and continue to spit on science and the First Amendment.

If they gave a single crap about spending, they'd have done it during the Bush years. If they gave a single crap about jobs, then they wouldn't introduced the 2nd and 3rd house bills as health care reform repeal and anti-abortion. if they gave a single crap about the debt, they'd acknowledge revenues. If they gave a crap about America over their own political careers whatsoever, Obama and the democrats wouldn't have been the only side making any kind of compromises or deals since he was elected while extending olive branch after olive branch only to be spat in their eyes.

Don't take me the wrong way, I wouldn't trust the democrats with a doorstop, but I'd sooner give some of those fucking assholes on the right-wing a black eye before I'd even give them the time of day.