9 Reasons Why Eric Cantor’s Primary Defeat Is Very Bad News for Everyone
While following the social media reaction to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary defeat Tuesday night, I couldn’t help but wonder why anyone outside of the tea party was celebrating this bizarre turn of events. By any measure, David Brat’s victory was really, really bad news for just about everyone, especially and specifically Normals in both parties. I hate to be Debbie Downer, but here’s why Cantor’s loss is everyone’s loss.
1) David Brat is a hardcore, extreme-right-wing John Calvin-admiring Christian Reconstructionist, which, among other things, endorses theocratic government. And we totally need more of those people voting on laws that impact the entire nation.
2) Brat is an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, VA. He once co-published a paper titled, “An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand.” Yep, another tea party libertarian on his way to enrolling in a government-run healthcare plan while collecting a government paycheck drawn from redistributed tax revenue.
3) Even though the GOP would do well to jettison the crazies, Brat’s surprise victory will force the party further to its right, making it even more unwilling to bargain with the Democrats or even moderate Republicans. It doesn’t seem possible the GOP could be less amenable to compromise, but any remaining wiggle room will be dashed away as more tea party candidates like Brat are sworn in.
4) Cantor has been in lockstep against the White House every step of the way, having voted with his party 95 percent of the time, outpacing the most radical members of the caucus, such as Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-WI) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA). And yet Cantor wasn’t hardline enough for his district.
5) The Republicans have a serious polling problem. Maybe this is the only ray of sunshine for the Democrats. Ever since the GOP was totally flummoxed by polling in 2012, it clearly hasn’t ironed out its math skills two years later. Going into Tuesday’s primary, one poll showed Cantor up by 13 points, while an internal Cantor poll showed the incumbent leading by 34 points. You could say Brat [cough] unskewed the polls… READ MORE
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go
Billy boy June 11th, 2014 at 10:24
Bob. You need to stop playing with yourself and chill a little.
Tea party conservatives are moving up. Get over it.
TiredOfThemAll June 11th, 2014 at 11:08
Actually, it’s pretty much the opposite.
They are at the lowest approval since Big Business and their lobbyists founded them.
Billy boy June 11th, 2014 at 16:12
Rubbish. Teas are mainstream.
Shades June 11th, 2014 at 16:27
Mainstream what? Every time Gallup polls their popularity, it drops. Last one was about 20%. Funny thing though, the “Teas” are so delusional, they actually believe people back them, hence the claim 10-30 million people were going to support Col Riley’s takeover of the government last month. There’s only about 25 of them, too.
Billy boy June 11th, 2014 at 16:30
The polls are skewed. The teas are in. Wait until November for some real action.
mea_mark June 11th, 2014 at 17:38
LOL, best chuckle of the day.
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 20:27
November 2012 past more’n a year ago. WTF is the point of bringing it up now?
Chinese Democracy June 12th, 2014 at 22:57
Im still waiting for the Romney landslide .. the polls where skewed then too right?
Billy boy June 12th, 2014 at 23:21
I followed the polling in 2012. I don’t remember a poll that had Romney winning by a landslide.
Obewon June 13th, 2014 at 00:14
Dick Morris, Karl Rove, et al swore up & down their “Polls” showed Romney winning by a landslide & by 3:2 in the Electoral Collage via 300+ even on election night! Repubs dismissed statistically accurate polling & handicapping by belching “Skewed!” It was clear GOP merely inverted the best most accurate actual statistical polling and substituted Romney as their winner.
Nate Silver’s final pre-election-day median EC forecast of (D) 332 to (R) 206 was the actual 2012 result via 51%-47% popular vote, on the heels of Silver’s 538.org most accurate 2008 340 EC vote forecast that Obama won 365-173 via 53% to 47% popular vote. So where is GOP TV’s Dick Morris now? Fired from Fox, a nearly impossible task but preceded by Glenn Beck’s early 2011 contract cancellation after increased insanity, while losing 1 M+ viewers. Twitchy Michele Malkin was last seen screaming on FNC Aug 28, 2013.
TiredOfThemAll June 11th, 2014 at 16:30
Show me one poll where they are anywhere close to the majority on any issue.
May 21, 2014, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-support-hits-new-lows-poll/
Today, just 15 percent of Americans say they are supporters of the tea party movement – the lowest since CBS News began asking about the tea party in February 2010.
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 20:24
perhaps in their own creek – which in my neck of the woods dropped from %0.078 of registered voters to %0.0778. Of course, you could say they retained 99.98% of their base, (local media pointed that out more than enough times to even make Sara bored limp) – but I sense most folks are catching on to their Kochsucking media shenanigans, as was reflected by the Tebagger contributions that put Romney under the top in 2012.
Simply stated, folks in my area that were on to the Kochsucking Klan from the get go are still on to them. (not much of a change in this area of the country). Like the local shrinking hard line churchgoers has become fond of saying … ME and god ARE THE MAJORITY. (plays real good for self inflicted delusion).
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 14:30
not nearly as high or as fast of Mitt Romney, Bb. (sometimes it’s good to leave the compound-to kinda get a feel for how things are ‘outside’).
Foundryman June 11th, 2014 at 10:24
The GOP is not going to jettison the crazies, it’s taken them to long create them. A far right wing, absolutist, fundie christian party is exactly what they want…just go back and look up Lee Atwater….
Billy boy June 11th, 2014 at 10:24
Bob. You need to stop playing with yourself and chill a little.
Tea party conservatives are moving up. Get over it.
OldLefty June 11th, 2014 at 11:08
Actually, it’s pretty much the opposite.
They are at the lowest approval since Big Business and their lobbyists founded them.
Billy boy June 11th, 2014 at 16:12
Rubbish. Teas are mainstream.
Shades June 11th, 2014 at 16:27
Mainstream what? Every time Gallup polls their popularity, it drops. Last one was about 20%. Funny thing though, the “Teas” are so delusional, they actually believe people back them, hence the claim 10-30 million people were going to support Col Riley’s takeover of the government last month. There’s only about 25 of them, too.
Billy boy June 11th, 2014 at 16:30
The polls are skewed. The teas are in. Wait until November for some real action.
mea_mark June 11th, 2014 at 17:38
LOL, best chuckle of the day.
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 20:27
November 2012 past more’n a year ago. WTF is the point of bringing it up now?
Chinese Democracy June 12th, 2014 at 22:57
Im still waiting for the Romney landslide .. the polls where skewed then too right?
Billy boy June 12th, 2014 at 23:21
I followed the polling in 2012. I don’t remember a poll that had Romney winning by a landslide.
Obewon June 13th, 2014 at 00:14
Dick Morris, Karl Rove, et al swore up & down their “Polls” showed Romney winning by a landslide & by 3:2 in the Electoral Collage via 300+ even on election night! Repubs dismissed statistically accurate polling & handicapping by belching “Skewed!” It was clear GOP merely inverted the best most accurate actual statistical polling and substituted Romney as their winner.
Nate Silver’s final pre-election-day median EC forecast of (D) 332 to (R) 206 was the actual 2012 result via 51%-47% popular vote, on the heels of Silver’s 538.org most accurate 2008 340 EC vote forecast that Obama won 365-173 via 53% to 47% popular vote. So where is GOP TV’s Dick Morris now? Fired from Fox, a nearly impossible task but preceded by Glenn Beck’s early 2011 contract cancellation after increased insanity, while losing 1 M+ viewers. Twitchy Michele Malkin was last seen screaming on FNC Aug 28, 2013.
OldLefty June 11th, 2014 at 16:30
Show me one poll where they are anywhere close to the majority on any issue.
May 21, 2014, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-support-hits-new-lows-poll/
Today, just 15 percent of Americans say they are supporters of the tea party movement – the lowest since CBS News began asking about the tea party in February 2010.
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 20:24
perhaps in their own creek – which in my neck of the woods dropped from %0.078 of registered voters to %0.0778. Of course, you could say they retained 99.98% of their base, (local media pointed that out more than enough times to even make Sara bored limp) – but I sense most folks are catching on to their Kochsucking media shenanigans, as was reflected by the Tebagger contributions that put Romney under the top in 2012.
Simply stated, folks in my area that were on to the Kochsucking Klan from the get go are still on to them. (not much of a change in this area of the country). Like the local shrinking hard line churchgoers has become fond of saying … ME and god ARE THE MAJORITY. (plays real good for self inflicted delusion).
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 14:30
not nearly as high or as fast of Mitt Romney, Bb. (sometimes it’s good to leave the compound-to kinda get a feel for how things are ‘outside’).
Foundryman June 11th, 2014 at 10:24
The GOP is not going to jettison the crazies, it’s taken them to long create them. A far right wing, absolutist, fundie christian party is exactly what they want…just go back and look up Lee Atwater….
mea_mark June 11th, 2014 at 10:43
I am not nearly as pessimistic. I think there is a good chance the democrats can put up a good fight. It looks like 20-30 % of the voters like Brat’s extreme views. That leaves a lot of people out there that can possibly be convinced to vote for someone else, even if that person isn’t who they would really like to see get elected. A moderate voice could possibly win against such an extreme voice. What the Democrats shouldn’t do is roll over and play dead, conceding the seat.
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 11:16
according to the information I can find, Romney won the district by 57%. so I agree that Democrats have a chance to swing 8 or 9 points from voters who want no part of Bratt’s far right wing views.
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 14:26
gulp,
57%, arc?
no wonder RepubliKlans in Cantor’s district are reacting like a whistling tea pot!
why that thieving “Hawaiian” Obama did steal their Romney landslide victory! – good thing they now have a for real Brat to ‘take their victory back!’?
Now, if this Brat can go to Washington, convince the majority of Americans that he is, in the flesh, the actual voice of God, then overly WHITE RACIST Konservative Krissin RepubliKlans will take back the WHITE House and take America back to it’s founding KLAN!
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 16:35
just to clarify, Romney did not win by 57 points. the information I saw indicated he won 57% of all votes cast, meaning the President’s share would be a maximum of 43%, so a 14 point edge for Romney.
kind of hard to piece this together since I am not finding sources which tally the 2012 election for President by Congressional district.
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 20:09
just reflecting on the cause of so much disbelief by supporters in various congressional districts, arc. They must be re-enforcing each other on a daily basis with the belief that THEY are the voice of America. Perhaps in the next Presidential Election (nationwide) the networks could do like a satellite map pan from their brain cell to their district, to state, to national comparison? (just so they could figure out how the Hawaiian won, without really stealing the election out from under Romney).
mea_mark June 11th, 2014 at 10:43
I am not nearly as pessimistic. I think there is a good chance the democrats can put up a good fight. It looks like 20-30 % of the voters like Brat’s extreme views. That leaves a lot of people out there that can possibly be convinced to vote for someone else, even if that person isn’t who they would really like to see get elected. A moderate voice could possibly win against such an extreme voice. What the Democrats shouldn’t do is roll over and play dead, conceding the seat.
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 11:16
according to the information I can find, Romney won the district by 57%. so I agree that Democrats have a chance to swing 8 or 9 points from voters who want no part of Bratt’s far right wing views.
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 14:26
gulp,
57%, arc?
no wonder RepubliKlans in Cantor’s district are reacting like a whistling tea pot!
why that thieving “Hawaiian” Obama did steal their Romney landslide victory! – good thing they now have a for real Brat to ‘take their victory back!’?
Now, if this Brat can go to Washington, convince the majority of Americans that he is, in the flesh, the actual voice of God, then overly WHITE RACIST Konservative Krissin RepubliKlans will take back the WHITE House and take America back to it’s founding KLAN!
arc99 June 11th, 2014 at 16:35
just to clarify, Romney did not win by 57 points. the information I saw indicated he won 57% of all votes cast, meaning the President’s share would be a maximum of 43%, so a 14 point edge for Romney.
kind of hard to piece this together since I am not finding sources which tally the 2012 election for President by Congressional district.
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 20:09
just reflecting on the cause of so much disbelief by supporters in various congressional districts, arc. They must be re-enforcing each other on a daily basis with the belief that THEY are the voice of America. Perhaps in the next Presidential Election (nationwide) the networks could do like a satellite map pan from their brain cell to their district, to state, to national comparison? (just so they could figure out how the Hawaiian won, without really stealing the election out from under Romney).
Roctuna June 11th, 2014 at 12:01
Who’s to say Prof. Brat didn’t get the Dem crossover vote purely to displace Cantor? I know that’s typically a gop tactic but…..? In just one day he’s taken a flying leap onto the crazy train. The local Dems may be smarter than we think and willing to take a gamble that a sane Dem can beat a crazy talibagger.
Roctuna June 11th, 2014 at 12:01
Who’s to say Prof. Brat didn’t get the Dem crossover vote purely to displace Cantor? I know that’s typically a gop tactic but…..? In just one day he’s taken a flying leap onto the crazy train. The local Dems may be smarter than we think and willing to take a gamble that a sane Dem can beat a crazy talibagger.
Dwendt44 June 11th, 2014 at 13:42
His Democratic challenger is well thought of as a professor, but will that translate to voters is such a conservative district? We can only hope. Apparently Jack Trammell removed much or all of his website info. If he can stay moderate he has a chance. Brat, so far, hasn’t actually taken many positions on current political matters, and time will tell if he ‘moderates’ them for the election or starts throwing fire bombs.
Dwendt44 June 11th, 2014 at 13:42
His Democratic challenger is well thought of as a professor, but will that translate to voters is such a conservative district? We can only hope. Apparently Jack Trammell removed much or all of his website info. If he can stay moderate he has a chance. Brat, so far, hasn’t actually taken many positions on current political matters, and time will tell if he ‘moderates’ them for the election or starts throwing fire bombs.
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 14:12
Don’t buy the tears for Eric theory one bit. Even if another Brat (like in overly pampered privileged class) sits in Congress it’s not like the 114th (if Republican) would have been 5% closer to not sitting on their lazy do nothing butts saying NO (with or without POTUS Obama)? The Democrats are suppose to ‘tremble in fear’, turn tail, run away, stand mute in disbelief that there are “worse” Republican beings than Cantor that will attempt to stall out the US Government if they don’t get what they want? I submit that the present ‘swelling’ of new faces in the Republican chairs are merely the same media hype that the alleged ‘liberal’ media was pumping about Romney being the unstoppable Republican last GREAT WHITE HOPE – just like they’re pumping up a little Brat in his very well protected ‘hole in the wall’ corner of Virginia.
The more change in the RepubliKlan musical chairs , the more confused and disorganized their base, the more likely they will be to say ‘no’ to POTUS Obama is all the RepubliCONs have – ‘like it’s some WTF BREAKING NEWS’ ?
WTF is the big difference between a Cantor ‘nay’ and a Brat ‘nay’ to this POTUS’s SUCCESSFUL VISION for AMERICA? I say let the Republican beings tear into their own red meat self all they want.
(seems to me that the Greedy Bishop has been ‘foiled’ again).
Wells June 11th, 2014 at 18:49
May I borrow your term “Republiklan” to use where deserved?
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 19:57
I have no more control over or claim to any speech sounds that communicate a meaning than Sara does when having her excessive baggage squeezed through the door of a rented Cessna -as far as I’m concerned, have at it – only remember the circled c @ the bottom of the page. Tributes we all pay to the host – no doubt for another weekly mega paycheck (JIC somebody does hit a home run while strolling through LL)?
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 14:12
Don’t buy the tears for Eric theory one bit. Even if another Brat (like in overly pampered privileged class) sits in Congress it’s not like the 114th (if Republican) would have been 5% closer to not sitting on their lazy do nothing butts saying NO (with or without POTUS Obama)? The Democrats are suppose to ‘tremble in fear’, turn tail, run away, stand mute in disbelief that there are “worse” Republican beings than Cantor that will attempt to stall out the US Government if they don’t get what they want? I submit that the present ‘swelling’ of new faces in the Republican chairs are merely the same media hype that the alleged ‘liberal’ media was pumping about Romney being the unstoppable Republican last GREAT WHITE HOPE – just like they’re pumping up a little Brat in his very well protected ‘hole in the wall’ corner of Virginia.
The more change in the RepubliKlan musical chairs , the more confused and disorganized their base, the more likely they will be to say ‘no’ to POTUS Obama is all the RepubliCONs have – ‘like it’s some WTF BREAKING NEWS’ ?
WTF is the big difference between a Cantor ‘nay’ and a Brat ‘nay’ to this POTUS’s SUCCESSFUL VISION for AMERICA? I say let the Republican beings tear into their own red meat self all they want.
(seems to me that the Greedy Bishop has been ‘foiled’ again).
Wells June 11th, 2014 at 18:49
May I borrow your term “Republiklan” to use where deserved?
granpa.usthai June 11th, 2014 at 19:57
I have no more control over or claim to any speech sounds that communicate a meaning than Sara does when having her excessive baggage squeezed through the door of a rented Cessna -as far as I’m concerned, have at it – only remember the circled c @ the bottom of the page. Tributes we all pay to the host – no doubt for another weekly mega paycheck (JIC somebody does hit a home run while strolling through LL)?
SteveD June 11th, 2014 at 19:00
‘redistributed tax revenue.’
“No!”. Indeed, the logic must run from CREATION to REDEMPTION. One cannot redeem oneself from sin or debt unless that sin or debt has been first created (by the currency sovereign). Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending.
On David Brat:
[1] No one wants to cut federal spending. In fact, Tea Party clowns are the biggest advocates of increased spending. They just want less spending on social programs that help the middle class/average people, and more spending on war, on Wall Street, on Tea Party policies.
[2] Nor does anyone want “smaller government.” Libertarians like Brat want a tyrannical, militarized police / surveillance state to “guard individuals’ freedoms.” The bigger the better. For these idiots, the definition of “big government” is whatever slows the acceleration of the gap between the rich and the rest.
[3] So the ultra-right-wing Eric Cantor lost his re-election bid to even farther-right-wing Dave Brat, who hates immigrants. For average Tea Party types, “big government” is whatever de-legitimizes their hatred of brown people.This was in Virginia, a state full of federal employees that feed at the public trough. These “takers” are fat and comfortable, and don’t want anyone else to be.
[4] David Brat says the (non-existent) “free market” is “morally superior.” He says the financial world needs more deregulation.
[5] He worships Ronald Reagan.
[6] He champions “Christian” capitalism with its ever-worsening inequality. He wants more austerity for the masses, calling it “fiscal responsibility.”
[7] He says that if churches don’t become even more radical in their support for the rich, then “a Hitler-like figure could rise to power.” He calls himself a “Calvinist,” meaning he believes that the rich are rightly privileged because it is “God’s will.”
[8] He opposes gay marriage and women’s reproductive rights.
[9] He is also a Randroid (a cult devotee of Ayn Rand, who was herself an atheist who despised religion, especially Christianity).
[10] This scary sad case would use the Bible to justify slavery if he lived in antebellum Virginia. He is Virginia’s version of Rick Santorum, and would make a fool of himself if the corporate media would actually question him.
Unfortunately Brat will likely be elected in the November general election,
SteveD June 11th, 2014 at 19:00
‘redistributed tax revenue.’
“No!”. Indeed, the logic must run from CREATION to REDEMPTION. One cannot redeem oneself from sin or debt unless that sin or debt has been first created (by the currency sovereign). Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending.
On David Brat:
[1] No one wants to cut federal spending. In fact, Tea Party clowns are the biggest advocates of increased spending. They just want less spending on social programs that help the middle class/average people, and more spending on war, on Wall Street, on Tea Party policies.
[2] Nor does anyone want “smaller government.” Libertarians like Brat want a tyrannical, militarized police / surveillance state to “guard individuals’ freedoms.” The bigger the better. For these idiots, the definition of “big government” is whatever slows the acceleration of the gap between the rich and the rest.
[3] So the ultra-right-wing Eric Cantor lost his re-election bid to even farther-right-wing Dave Brat, who hates immigrants. For average Tea Party types, “big government” is whatever de-legitimizes their hatred of brown people.This was in Virginia, a state full of federal employees that feed at the public trough. These “takers” are fat and comfortable, and don’t want anyone else to be.
[4] David Brat says the (non-existent) “free market” is “morally superior.” He says the financial world needs more deregulation.
[5] He worships Ronald Reagan.
[6] He champions “Christian” capitalism with its ever-worsening inequality. He wants more austerity for the masses, calling it “fiscal responsibility.”
[7] He says that if churches don’t become even more radical in their support for the rich, then “a Hitler-like figure could rise to power.” He calls himself a “Calvinist,” meaning he believes that the rich are rightly privileged because it is “God’s will.”
[8] He opposes gay marriage and women’s reproductive rights.
[9] He is also a Randroid (a cult devotee of Ayn Rand, who was herself an atheist who despised religion, especially Christianity).
[10] This scary sad case would use the Bible to justify slavery if he lived in antebellum Virginia. He is Virginia’s version of Rick Santorum, and would make a fool of himself if the corporate media would actually question him.
Unfortunately Brat will likely be elected in the November general election,
Robert Merrill Taylor June 11th, 2014 at 20:54
One must remember that a Jew will never be an acceptable candidate to the Teapubliklans.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:07
Nonsense. I’m a Jew and I’m happy as hell that Cantor is gone. But hey, I can totally get what you’re doing. When all else fails, play the anti-Semitism card.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 08:07
With the Teapubliklans, we are discussing the elephant in the room. Antisemitism is a part of the ideology of the American extreme right. All you have to do is read it. They want to cleanse America of Jews by getting them all to move to Israel. And then, they must all convert to Christianity (rather, Churchism) under threat of nuclear annihilation.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 18:53
So, I ask you this. If your assertion is correct, then the BDS movement is being run primarily by the Right in this country. It’s the right that wants Israel destroyed. Is that what you’re sticking with? Hey, that’s ok if you are, I’m just trying to pin you down to one stance. You’re saying on college campuses across the country, right wing professors have gotten right wing kids to buy into the whole anti Israel movement.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 19:41
The destruction of Judaism and the mass conversion of its adherents to “Christianity” is part of the un-Christian wrong’s ideology. I don’t particularly like Benjamin Netanyahu’s crypto-fascist regime but I don’t deny the right of Israel to exist within secure borders.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 18:55
By the way, Robert. Are you Jewish? Because I am. And I fear the Left far more than the Right when it comes to anti Semitism. How any Jewish person who loves Israel can continue to back the very people calling for its destruction is baffling to me.
Chinese Democracy June 12th, 2014 at 21:38
is this guy on the far left?
Ron Paul has in the past published writing suggesting that Jews should be stripped of certain civil rights…. Gruner [and other leaders] have for over two decades promoted claims that a global conspiracy of wealthy “apostate Jews” and Freemasons—who are alleged to have financed Hitler and the Nazis and hold a “Hitler-like doctrine of exterminating the gentile races and repopulating the Earth with their own kind”—is plotting to institute a “New World Order” global government under the command of the anti-Christ.
http://goo.gl/GLXKNz
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 22:22
He ain’t on the far Right either.
Chinese Democracy June 12th, 2014 at 22:56
he aint?
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 23:17
Bit of slang.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 19:48
I am a lapsed Christan, now atheist raised in the United Church of Canada,
Robert Merrill Taylor June 13th, 2014 at 09:59
Here is the opinion of a Teapubliklan saint: http://www.alan.com/2014/06/12/ted-nugent-compares-republicans-only-jewish-congress-member-to-nazis/
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:09
Also, since when are Democrats Jew lovers lately? The hatred towards Jews and specifically Israel comes only from the Left these days. Tell me, how many right wingers are in the BDS movement? I have many Christian friends and they are way bigger supporters of Israel than any Leftists out there who want to see the state of Israel destroyed.
Chinese Democracy June 12th, 2014 at 21:33
Colmes is a jew and we just LOVE him
Robert Merrill Taylor June 11th, 2014 at 20:54
One must remember that a Jew will never be an acceptable candidate to the Teapubliklans.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:07
Nonsense. I’m a Jew and I’m happy as hell that Cantor is gone. But hey, I can totally get what you’re doing. When all else fails, play the anti-Semitism card.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 08:07
With the Teapubliklans, we are discussing the elephant in the room. Antisemitism is a part of the ideology of the American extreme right. All you have to do is read it. They want to cleanse America of Jews by getting them all to move to Israel. And then, they must all convert to Christianity (rather, Churchism) under threat of nuclear annihilation.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 18:53
So, I ask you this. If your assertion is correct, then the BDS movement is being run primarily by the Right in this country. It’s the right that wants Israel destroyed. Is that what you’re sticking with? Hey, that’s ok if you are, I’m just trying to pin you down to one stance. You’re saying on college campuses across the country, right wing professors have gotten right wing kids to buy into the whole anti Israel movement.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 19:41
The destruction of Judaism and the mass conversion of its adherents to “Christianity” is part of the un-Christian wrong’s ideology. I don’t particularly like Benjamin Netanyahu’s crypto-fascist regime but I don’t deny the right of Israel to exist within secure borders.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 18:55
By the way, Robert. Are you Jewish? Because I am. And I fear the Left far more than the Right when it comes to anti Semitism. How any Jewish person who loves Israel can continue to back the very people calling for its destruction is baffling to me.
Chinese Democracy June 12th, 2014 at 21:38
is this guy on the far left?
Ron Paul has in the past published writing suggesting that Jews should be stripped of certain civil rights…. Gruner [and other leaders] have for over two decades promoted claims that a global conspiracy of wealthy “apostate Jews” and Freemasons—who are alleged to have financed Hitler and the Nazis and hold a “Hitler-like doctrine of exterminating the gentile races and repopulating the Earth with their own kind”—is plotting to institute a “New World Order” global government under the command of the anti-Christ.
http://goo.gl/GLXKNz
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 22:22
He ain’t on the far Right either.
Chinese Democracy June 12th, 2014 at 22:56
he aint?
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 23:17
Bit of slang.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 19:48
I am a lapsed Christan, now atheist raised in the United Church of Canada,
Robert Merrill Taylor June 13th, 2014 at 09:59
Here is the opinion of a Teapubliklan saint: http://www.alan.com/2014/06/12/ted-nugent-compares-republicans-only-jewish-congress-member-to-nazis/
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:09
Also, since when are Democrats Jew lovers lately? The hatred towards Jews and specifically Israel comes only from the Left these days. Tell me, how many right wingers are in the BDS movement? I have many Christian friends and they are way bigger supporters of Israel than any Leftists out there who want to see the state of Israel destroyed.
Chinese Democracy June 12th, 2014 at 21:33
Colmes is a jew and we just LOVE him.. well I do anyway cant say as much for some of his callers heh
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:10
Why are Liberals always talking about the Republicans going to the far right but have no problem with Leftists calling for an end to Capitalism. Isn’t that a pretty far Left view?
Um Cara June 11th, 2014 at 22:28
Which ‘leftists’ are calling for an end to Capitalism? I’m a lib, and a big fan of capitalism – so point out a few of these leftists you are referring to, and if your characterization is accurate, I will happily state my problem w/ them.
I suspect you are either full of beans, or referring to fringe kooks I haven’t heard of, or who are completely irrelevant to the national political scene. But I’m all ears, please educate me re: these leftist kooks.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:32
Yes, you’re right. No one at the Occupy rallies were calling for the death of Capitalism. I’ll just post the links proving it.
Um Cara June 11th, 2014 at 22:44
So you are referring to anarchist goobers? OK, I have a problem with anarchist goobers, and I’m a big fat hairy lib.
The difference between ‘leftist’ kooks and right-wing kooks is leftist goober kooks don’t win national political office like right wing goober kooks do, lol.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:50
Sure they do. Want me to post the dumb goober like statements from people like Sheila Jackson-Lee? You see, I don’t make statements I can’t back up with fact. If I’m tossing something out there, I can always post links to what I’m talking about. usually with Liberals, this never works anyway because they’ll just deny or marginalize anything I say or show. Which is to be expected when arguing anything with a big fat hairy Lib.
Um Cara June 11th, 2014 at 22:57
I’ll see your Sheila Jackson-Lee and raise you a Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, and 80% of the Republican side of the House of Representatives 8^)
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 23:07
See that and I’ll re-raise with Luis Gutierrez, John Conyers, Keith Ellison, and Maxine Waters, Not to mention bat shit crazy Nancy Pelosi.
Chinese Democracy June 13th, 2014 at 01:23
American “capitalism” didnt do the middle class any good at all its sucking it dry
a .. Since the Reagan era global corporations have followed the path of least resistance to profit; they’ve swallowed up their competitors and created monopolies, which have produced humongous bureaucracies
b…Corporate executives don’t care about the success or failure of any particular country, only the growth and profitability of their global corporation. (Many large corporations pay no U.S. income tax;
c…global corporations are modern outlaws, living outside the law. There is no invisible hand that regulates multinationals.
the last five years have demonstrated that there is no “invisible hand” — unregulated markets have spelled disaster for the average person. The “recovery” of 2009-10 ensured that “too big to fail” institutions would survive and the rich would continue to be rich. Meanwhile millions of good jobs were either eliminated or replaced by low-wage jobs with poor or no benefits.
d… global corporations are ruining our natural capital. Four of the top 10 multinational corporations are energy companies, with Exxon Mobil leading the list. But there are many indications that our oil reserves are gone. Meanwhile, other forms of natural capital have been depleted — arable land, water, minerals, forests, fish, and so forth. Multinational corporations have treated the environment as a free resource.
Global corporations have ravished the world and citizens of every nation live with the consequences: dirty air, foul water, and pollution of every sort
http://goo.gl/zDIwS
American capitalism is just a buzzword used by conservatives that dont even know what it really means
Ron Krandle June 13th, 2014 at 06:00
And most kids on college campuses around the country are being well schooled in what Socialism means.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyDdGygtCF0
MorganLaFay June 13th, 2014 at 07:06
Do you know what that means??
Is it different than;
Tom Perkins’ big idea: The rich should get more votes
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/
Or;Tea Party congressman suggests only property owners should vote
05/21/14 09:07 AM—UPDATED 05/21/14 04:11 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/tea-party-congressman-ted-yoho-voting-suggestion
David
Frum said, “Republicans have been Fleeced, Exploited And Lied To’ by a Conservative Entertainment Complex”This is why
And And William Kristol said, on Conservativism becoming a racket;
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:37
I’m neither full of beans, or referring to just “fringe” kooks. These people are pretty big in the movement.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ7a5IcvmtI
MorganLaFay June 13th, 2014 at 06:59
What are they actually saying??
Do you know?
How do you define capitalism??
By Adam Smith or Ayn Rand?
There is a reason why you have to to cherry pick bits and pieces.
They are recalling the tenant protests and farm foreclosure protests of the 1930’s.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:10
Why are Liberals always talking about the Republicans going to the far right but have no problem with Leftists calling for an end to Capitalism. Isn’t that a pretty far Left view?
Um Cara June 11th, 2014 at 22:28
Which ‘leftists’ are calling for an end to Capitalism? I’m a lib, and a big fan of capitalism – so point out a few of these leftists you are referring to, and if your characterization is accurate, I will happily state my problem w/ them.
I suspect you are either full of beans, or referring to fringe kooks I haven’t heard of, or who are completely irrelevant to the national political scene. But I’m all ears, please educate me re: these leftist kooks.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:32
Yes, you’re right. No one at the Occupy rallies were calling for the death of Capitalism. I’ll just post the links proving it.
Um Cara June 11th, 2014 at 22:44
So you are referring to anarchist goobers? OK, I have a problem with anarchist goobers, and I’m a big fat hairy lib.
The difference between ‘leftist’ kooks and right-wing kooks is leftist goober kooks don’t win national political office like right wing goober kooks do, lol.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:50
Sure they do. Want me to post the dumb goober like statements from people like Sheila Jackson-Lee? You see, I don’t make statements I can’t back up with fact. If I’m tossing something out there, I can always post links to what I’m talking about. usually with Liberals, this never works anyway because they’ll just deny or marginalize anything I say or show. Which is to be expected when arguing anything with a big fat hairy Lib.
Um Cara June 11th, 2014 at 22:57
I’ll see your Sheila Jackson-Lee and raise you a Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, and 80% of the Republican side of the House of Representatives 8^)
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 23:07
See that and I’ll re-raise with Luis Gutierrez, John Conyers, Keith Ellison, and Maxine Waters, Not to mention bat shit crazy Nancy Pelosi.
Um Cara June 11th, 2014 at 23:26
Such language! I’m afraid there can be little doubt as to who the king kooks in kongress are, and it 90+% republican/libertarian/teepartian.
We libs prefer to keep our kooks in occupy protests to get a rise out of potty mouthed blog commenters, rather than electing them to office.
Our kooks are the fringe, your kooks are the base. But not all Republicans are kooks, thankfully the party is tearing itself apart and will be irrelevant within another presidential election cycle or so. We only have to put up with your nonsense for another half decade, max.
The gun fetishists & tee kooks will destroy the party, leading to nothing but ‘lib’ (what passes for liberal in America that is) wins for a couple decades. We’ll then be able to repeal the 2nd, implement single payer health care, etc… Goodness and light shall prevail!
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 05:46
Everything the Liberal touches turns to shit. I wouldn’t trust them to run a lemonade stand. As for repealing the second amendment? Good luck with that.
OldLefty June 12th, 2014 at 07:45
Everything the Liberal touches turns to shit. I
_________
That’s EXACTLY what THEY say about you.
Why can’t you guys ever come up with some original material?
William June 12th, 2014 at 21:27
Our kooks are the fringe, your kooks are the base.
Would give that statement 10 likes.
Chinese Democracy June 13th, 2014 at 01:23
American “capitalism” didnt do the middle class any good at all its sucking it dry
a .. Since the Reagan era global corporations have followed the path of least resistance to profit; they’ve swallowed up their competitors and created monopolies, which have produced humongous bureaucracies
b…Corporate executives don’t care about the success or failure of any particular country, only the growth and profitability of their global corporation. (Many large corporations pay no U.S. income tax;
c…global corporations are modern outlaws, living outside the law. There is no invisible hand that regulates multinationals.
the last five years have demonstrated that there is no “invisible hand” — unregulated markets have spelled disaster for the average person. The “recovery” of 2009-10 ensured that “too big to fail” institutions would survive and the rich would continue to be rich. Meanwhile millions of good jobs were either eliminated or replaced by low-wage jobs with poor or no benefits.
d… global corporations are ruining our natural capital. Four of the top 10 multinational corporations are energy companies, with Exxon Mobil leading the list. But there are many indications that our oil reserves are gone. Meanwhile, other forms of natural capital have been depleted — arable land, water, minerals, forests, fish, and so forth. Multinational corporations have treated the environment as a free resource.
Global corporations have ravished the world and citizens of every nation live with the consequences: dirty air, foul water, and pollution of every sort
http://goo.gl/zDIwS
American capitalism is just a buzzword used by conservatives that dont even know what it really means
Ron Krandle June 13th, 2014 at 06:00
And most kids on college campuses around the country are being well schooled in what Socialism means.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyDdGygtCF0
MorganLaFay June 13th, 2014 at 07:06
Do you know what that means??
Is it different than;
Tom Perkins’ big idea: The rich should get more votes
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/
Or;Tea Party congressman suggests only property owners should vote
05/21/14 09:07 AM—UPDATED 05/21/14 04:11 PM
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/tea-party-congressman-ted-yoho-voting-suggestion
David
Frum said, “Republicans have been Fleeced, Exploited And Lied To’ by a Conservative Entertainment Complex”This is why
And And William Kristol said, on Conservativism becoming a racket;
“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:37
I’m neither full of beans, or referring to just “fringe” kooks. These people are pretty big in the movement.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ7a5IcvmtI
MorganLaFay June 13th, 2014 at 06:59
What are they actually saying??
Do you know?
How do you define capitalism??
By Adam Smith or Ayn Rand?
There is a reason why you have to to cherry pick bits and pieces.
They are recalling the tenant protests and farm foreclosure protests of the 1930’s.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:12
I’d be amenable to compromise, but I will not compromise my way into Marxism. If you want to play within the framework of the Capital economy we’ve always been, I’d be more open to listening to views I could meet in the middle with.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 08:12
In other words, your idea of compromise is total capitulation to your ideology.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 18:58
No, compromise to me, what I’d be willing to work with, is staying within the framework of what political and economic system brought us here from 1787. I will never work with anyone who seeks to change us from a Capital economy with free markets to a Marxist led society.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 19:46
That puts you to the left of the Republican Party.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 20:20
I don’t see it that way, but please tell me why you do,
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 20:40
Because you are willing to work within the constitutional framework. Most Republicans only mouth this sentiment.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 21:06
I believe strongly in that document as do many of my Conservative friends. It bothers me to hear President Obama and some Liberal Democrats say it’s an imperfect document because it’s the blueprint, the foundation, for every principle which has guided this country for over 200 years.
arc99 June 12th, 2014 at 21:45
The fact that the Constitution has been amended 17 times since the ratification of the Bill of Rights by definition indicates that it is not perfect.
Yes it is the blueprint for the principles which govern us. One of those principles is that sometimes the Constitution needs to be changed. I do not understand why that principle should bother anyone. Recognizing imperfection does not mean a lack of respect for the principles.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 22:27
I see your point, but say this as a comment to it. The original bill of rights was never changed and that to clarify, is what I was referring to. Yes, amendments have been added over the years so that’s a point well taken. And it my belief that if given the opportunity, certain elements on the Left would change or alter the bill of rights. I make that claim because I have seen it spoken about by some. I have yet to see one person with Conservative principles argue for that.
arc99 June 12th, 2014 at 22:50
It may be your belief about some elements of the left, but we have specific examples where conservatives, while not physically altering the Constitution, openly advocated denying rights of religious freedom.
GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain advocated denying article 6 protections to Muslims.
And here is an element of the right, openly declaring that the first amendment does not apply to Muslims.
From where I sit, it is conservatives who pose the biggest threat to the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all. Let us not forget that it is conservatives who have recently advocated holding a Constitutional convention. Perhaps they are not aware that in such a convention, everything is on the table for revision or outright repeal.
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/08/19/why-islam-is-not-protected-under-the-us-constitution/
Why Islam is NOT Protected Under the US Constitution!
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 23:19
Well, I don’t have to think very hard to figure out what Progressive Liberals want repealed from the bill of rights.
arc99 June 12th, 2014 at 23:43
I assume you have specifics to present to the discussion or do you have only unsubstantiated assumptions? When I accuse some conservatives of advocating denial of Constitutional freedoms, I provided specific factual examples to support my opinions.
That your rebuttal consists only of hypothetical what-ifs without any factual substantiation is duly noted.
Ron Krandle June 13th, 2014 at 05:57
No, when I say something I can usually back it up with facts, so let’s start it off with Dianne Feinstein’s comment about gun confiscation, a total violation of the second amendment. Now, before we start, let’s not argue the whole militia thing. You asked me for evidence to back up my conclusion, and I’m giving it. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2981990/posts
MorganLaFay June 13th, 2014 at 06:45
Ron Krandle
No, when I say something I can usually back it up with facts, so let’s start it off with Dianne Feinstein’s comment about gun confiscation, a total violation of the second amendment.
______
Spare us the high drama;
Saying, “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” – Diane Feinstein is very different than than even attempting to make that a reality.
What the founders meant by “well regulated militia”;
Militia
how to be arranged, and
That
within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective
states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and
companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division,
brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record
made of such numbers in the adjutant-general’s office in the state; and when in
the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment
shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or
lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade
shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each
battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates.
by
whom officered.
That the
said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each
division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to
each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also
as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one
lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company
one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one
drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to
consist of
1803, ch. 15, sec. 3.
one
adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one
surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one
fife-major.
From Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide
for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the
United States.
Approved,
May 8, 1792.
arc99 June 14th, 2014 at 00:06
Sen. Feinstein was talking specifically about the firearms loosely referred to as “assault weapons” as was the entire piece on 60 Minutes. In no way was she advocating a wholesale confiscation of all firearms.
Even Justice Scalia has stated on the record that the right to own firearms is not absolute.
The only evidence you have provided is that Sen. Feinstein supported legislation that is entirely in keeping with the federal regulation of firearms ownership that has been in place for generations.
Remember in the 2nd amendment, the words “well regulated” do appear.
Ron Krandle June 14th, 2014 at 00:14
And it’s been my experience in following this issue that you have to look beyond just the federal laws. I live in NY and State Democrats here have proposed all new laws on TOP of the so called “SAFE” act which Governor Cuomo got passed through the legislature. That to me shoots down the theory that Democrats just want “common sense” gun laws. To them, the end goal in my opinion, is the total elimination of all guns. One bill would force all gun owners to carry a million dollar liability policy. That would cost gun owners $1500-2000 a year. What happens if you can’t afford it? Your guns would have to be turned in. By the way, I believe a state legislator in California proposed that as well. In fact I think they were first and NY copied it.
arc99 June 12th, 2014 at 23:51
another factual example of the threat conservatives pose to our Constitution. not just some element of conservatives, but a man who is now a sitting United States Senator
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/10/repeal-17th-amendment/
Utah Republican Mike Lee said Friday that he favors changing the way senators are elected, even as he seeks his own seat in that body.
Speaking on CNN’s John King, USA, Lee said that the 17th Amendment was a mistake, and that while he wouldn’t focus on repealing it, he does “think that we lost something when we adopted it.”
William June 12th, 2014 at 22:21
It bothers me to hear President Obama and some Liberal Democrats say it’s an imperfect document .
It was. The so called “founding fathers” that right wing wacko land likes to talk about even claim to know what they were “thinking”, were for the most part, rich white guys who didn’t want to pay taxes. Prior to changes, blacks, women, and native Americans could not vote. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he’d likely be in jail, or at the very least a registered sex offender.
http://youtu.be/ImTi03FPBr8
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 23:15
You’re exactly the kind of person I cannot relate to because you want this country brought to its knees and destroyed and rebuilt again in in image which is completely different than what it was intended. By showing such a distaste for the people who founded this country and built the framework for a government which has, warts and all, worked for over 200 years, you obviously would like us to get away from that form of government and over to…… Well, I would be interested for you to tell me what you think we should go to.
William June 12th, 2014 at 23:19
I cannot relate to because you want this country brought to its knees and destroyed .
You got all that from my observation of the changes (IE bill of rights), and a Joe Pesci film huh?
Get some help.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 23:22
The so called “founding fathers” that right wing wacko land likes to talk about even claim to know what they were “thinking”, were for the most part, rich white guys who didn’t want to pay taxes.” Doesn’t sound to me like you’re a fan of them either. I then am left to conclude you’re not a big fan of the government they set up. or am I wrong. Am I wrong about that, William? Are you a big fan of the Constitutional Republic they set up? Or is there a different form of government you favor. You tell me. I’m listening.
William June 12th, 2014 at 23:35
What gives you insight into what I think about the so called “founding fathers”. I merely stated facts. They were rich, and they didn’t want to pay taxes. Thomas Jefferson slept with his 14 year old servant. These are simple facts. I’m going to go ahead and stand on my 36 years in uniform as an indication of what I support, you can just go on getting your history lessons from Glenn Beck, and living in your delusional world were you are able to ascertain the political opinions of strangers over time and space.
..and no I am not a fan of a Government that denies native Americans, women and people of color the right to vote. Nor did I like the fact that it took 13 amendments to finally dissolve the “founding fathers” notion that it was ok to own human beings.
Ron Krandle June 13th, 2014 at 05:50
You seem to dislike what you think is me assuming things about you, then you assume I listen to Glenn Beck. Hardly even see or listen to him at all. This country surely has had it’s bad events, and this spares no one really as FDR, a Democrat, agreed to lock up Japanese- American citizens in WWll. But as with any discussion I have with Liberals, it always seems to end badly with someone calling me crazy or delusional. I looked back at the last statement I made and didn’t see where I had insulted you or called you any names so I can’t see why you got nasty with me. Would this be an example of how I’m supposed to find common ground or compromise with someone from the Left?
William June 13th, 2014 at 09:57
1.You want to talk about FDR now because it applies to this thread in what way?
2.” it always seems to end badly with someone calling me crazy or delusional.”
….I think you’re on the verge of self awareness.
3.” Would this be an example of how I’m supposed to find common ground or compromise with someone from the Left?
”
Nope.
THAT would be an example of someone (me) calling out a troll (you), for idiotic ramblings. IE the ol’ founding fathers and the Constitution shtick.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 13th, 2014 at 09:46
The U.S. Constitution is an imperfect document. That is why the founding fathers provided for an amending formula. It was intentionally made difficult to make sure that there was a great general consensus on the need for change. That is why the number of amendments is remarkably small. This showed great foresight in realizing that things would not always be the way they were in 1785. I have a bit of familial interest in the Constitution as my fore-bearer Nicholas Gilman was a delegate from New Hampshire to the Constitutional Convention. I am actually a direct descendent of his brother, John Taylor Gilman who was the first Governor of the post-revolutionary state of New Hampshire. After the Convention, John and Nicholas worked hard to get New Hampshire to ratify the new Constitution.
MorganLaFay June 13th, 2014 at 06:38
Ron Krandle
I’d be amenable to compromise, but I will not compromise my way into Marxism
________
Most people who throw the word “Marxism” around don’t know the difference between Karl and Groucho Marx.
This is the same crowd who called Eisenhower a communist.
Ron Krandle June 13th, 2014 at 23:34
OK. So I’ll ask you. If the Left is calling for the death of Capitalism…..what system are they pushing us towards?
MorganLaFay June 14th, 2014 at 07:06
My point is that you not shown that a few bits of edited tape of a few people questioning capitalism is not “the left “calling for the death of Capitalism” any more than , ‘Tea Party congressman suggests only property owners should vote’ is the right calling for feudalism or “Tom Perkins’ big idea: The rich should get more votes” is the right calling for an end to one person one vote.
You have yet to define what they mean by “capitalism”;
Laissez faire?
Well regulated capitalism?
The combination of socialism/capitalism that we and every nation except Somalia has?
Adam Smith or Ayn Rand?
Your argument is a straw man.
Ron Krandle June 14th, 2014 at 16:28
Ahhhhhh the old Liberal “straw man” argument. I know it very well from my time on Huffington Post. They use it there all the time. And if I show people calling for the death of Capitalism, just ignore it. Either my eyes are deceiving me, they don’t really mean it, or they’re not representative of all people on the Left. At a Tea Party rally though, if one sign, just one, happens to be a questionable or downright racist sign, or if there’s a Confederate battle flag present, the whole movement is tainted. They’re all racist.
Ron Krandle June 11th, 2014 at 22:12
I’d be amenable to compromise, but I will not compromise my way into Marxism. If you want to play within the framework of the Capital economy we’ve always been, I’d be more open to listening to views I could meet in the middle with.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 08:12
In other words, your idea of compromise is total capitulation to your ideology.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 18:58
No, compromise to me, what I’d be willing to work with, is staying within the framework of what political and economic system brought us here from 1787. I will never work with anyone who seeks to change us from a Capital economy with free markets to a Marxist led society.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 19:46
That puts you to the left of the Republican Party.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 20:20
I don’t see it that way, but please tell me why you do,
Robert Merrill Taylor June 12th, 2014 at 20:40
Because you are willing to work within the constitutional framework. Most Republicans only mouth this sentiment.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 21:06
I believe strongly in that document as do many of my Conservative friends. It bothers me to hear President Obama and some Liberal Democrats say it’s an imperfect document because it’s the blueprint, the foundation, for every principle which has guided this country for over 200 years.
arc99 June 12th, 2014 at 21:45
The fact that the Constitution has been amended 17 times since the ratification of the Bill of Rights by definition indicates that it is not perfect.
Yes it is the blueprint for the principles which govern us. One of those principles is that sometimes the Constitution needs to be changed. I do not understand why that principle should bother anyone. Recognizing imperfection does not mean a lack of respect for the principles.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 22:27
I see your point, but say this as a comment to it. The original bill of rights was never changed and that to clarify, is what I was referring to. Yes, amendments have been added over the years so that’s a point well taken. And it my belief that if given the opportunity, certain elements on the Left would change or alter the bill of rights. I make that claim because I have seen it spoken about by some. I have yet to see one person with Conservative principles argue for that.
arc99 June 12th, 2014 at 22:50
It may be your belief about some elements of the left, but we have specific examples where conservatives, while not physically altering the Constitution, openly advocated denying rights of religious freedom.
GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain advocated denying article 6 protections to Muslims.
And here is an element of the right, openly declaring that the first amendment does not apply to Muslims.
From where I sit, it is conservatives who pose the biggest threat to the American ideal of equal protection under the law for all. Let us not forget that it is conservatives who have recently advocated holding a Constitutional convention. Perhaps they are not aware that in such a convention, everything is on the table for revision or outright repeal.
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2011/08/19/why-islam-is-not-protected-under-the-us-constitution/
Why Islam is NOT Protected Under the US Constitution!
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 23:19
Well, I don’t have to think very hard to figure out what Progressive Liberals want repealed from the bill of rights.
arc99 June 12th, 2014 at 23:43
I assume you have specifics to present to the discussion or do you have only unsubstantiated assumptions? When I accuse some conservatives of advocating denial of Constitutional freedoms, I provided specific factual examples to support my opinions.
That your rebuttal consists only of hypothetical what-ifs without any factual substantiation is duly noted.
Ron Krandle June 13th, 2014 at 05:57
No, when I say something I can usually back it up with facts, so let’s start it off with Dianne Feinstein’s comment about gun confiscation, a total violation of the second amendment. Now, before we start, let’s not argue the whole militia thing. You asked me for evidence to back up my conclusion, and I’m giving it. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2981990/posts
MorganLaFay June 13th, 2014 at 06:45
Ron Krandle
No, when I say something I can usually back it up with facts, so let’s start it off with Dianne Feinstein’s comment about gun confiscation, a total violation of the second amendment.
______
Spare us the high drama;
Saying, “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” – Diane Feinstein is very different than than even attempting to make that a reality.
What the founders meant by “well regulated militia”;
Militia
how to be arranged, and
That
within one year after the passing of this act, the militia of the respective
states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and
companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division,
brigade and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record
made of such numbers in the adjutant-general’s office in the state; and when in
the field, or in service in the state, each division, brigade and regiment
shall respectively take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first or
lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade
shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each
battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates.
by
whom officered.
That the
said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each
division, one major-general and two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to
each brigade, one brigadier-general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also
as brigade-major, with the rank of a major; to each regiment, one
lieutenant-colonel commandant; and to each battalion one major; to each company
one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one
drummer and one fifer or bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to
consist of
1803, ch. 15, sec. 3.
one
adjutant and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one
surgeon, and one surgeon’s mate; one sergeant-major; one drum-major, and one
fife-major.
From Chap. ⅩⅩⅩⅢ.—An Act more effectually to provide
for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the
United States.
Approved,
May 8, 1792.
arc99 June 14th, 2014 at 00:06
Sen. Feinstein was talking specifically about the firearms loosely referred to as “assault weapons” as was the entire piece on 60 Minutes. In no way was she advocating a wholesale confiscation of all firearms.
Even Justice Scalia has stated on the record that the right to own firearms is not absolute.
The only evidence you have provided is that Sen. Feinstein supported legislation that is entirely in keeping with the federal regulation of firearms ownership that has been in place for generations.
Remember in the 2nd amendment, the words “well regulated” do appear.
Ron Krandle June 14th, 2014 at 00:14
And it’s been my experience in following this issue that you have to look beyond just the federal laws. I live in NY and State Democrats here have proposed all new laws on TOP of the so called “SAFE” act which Governor Cuomo got passed through the legislature. That to me shoots down the theory that Democrats just want “common sense” gun laws. To them, the end goal in my opinion, is the total elimination of all guns. One bill would force all gun owners to carry a million dollar liability policy. That would cost gun owners $1500-2000 a year. What happens if you can’t afford it? Your guns would have to be turned in. By the way, I believe a state legislator in California proposed that as well. In fact I think they were first and NY copied it.
arc99 June 12th, 2014 at 23:51
another factual example of the threat conservatives pose to our Constitution. not just some element of conservatives, but a man who is now a sitting United States Senator
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/10/repeal-17th-amendment/
Utah Republican Mike Lee said Friday that he favors changing the way senators are elected, even as he seeks his own seat in that body.
Speaking on CNN’s John King, USA, Lee said that the 17th Amendment was a mistake, and that while he wouldn’t focus on repealing it, he does “think that we lost something when we adopted it.”
William June 12th, 2014 at 22:21
It bothers me to hear President Obama and some Liberal Democrats say it’s an imperfect document .
It was. The so called “founding fathers” that right wing wacko land likes to talk about even claim to know what they were “thinking”, were for the most part, rich white guys who didn’t want to pay taxes. Prior to changes, blacks, women, and native Americans could not vote. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he’d likely be in jail, or at the very least a registered sex offender.
http://youtu.be/ImTi03FPBr8
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 23:15
You’re exactly the kind of person I cannot relate to because you want this country brought to its knees and destroyed and rebuilt again in in image which is completely different than what it was intended. By showing such a distaste for the people who founded this country and built the framework for a government which has, warts and all, worked for over 200 years, you obviously would like us to get away from that form of government and over to…… Well, I would be interested for you to tell me what you think we should go to.
William June 12th, 2014 at 23:19
I cannot relate to because you want this country brought to its knees and destroyed .
You got all that from my observation of the changes (IE bill of rights), and a Joe Pesci film huh?
Get some help.
Ron Krandle June 12th, 2014 at 23:22
The so called “founding fathers” that right wing wacko land likes to talk about even claim to know what they were “thinking”, were for the most part, rich white guys who didn’t want to pay taxes.” Doesn’t sound to me like you’re a fan of them either. I then am left to conclude you’re not a big fan of the government they set up. or am I wrong. Am I wrong about that, William? Are you a big fan of the Constitutional Republic they set up? Or is there a different form of government you favor. You tell me. I’m listening.
William June 12th, 2014 at 23:35
What gives you insight into what I think about the so called “founding fathers”. I merely stated facts. They were rich, and they didn’t want to pay taxes. Thomas Jefferson slept with his 14 year old servant. These are simple facts. I’m going to go ahead and stand on my 36 years in uniform as an indication of what I support, you can just go on getting your history lessons from Glenn Beck, and living in your delusional world were you are able to ascertain the political opinions of strangers over time and space.
..and no I am not a fan of a Government that denies native Americans, women and people of color the right to vote. Nor did I like the fact that it took 13 amendments to finally dissolve the “founding fathers” notion that it was ok to own human beings.
Ron Krandle June 13th, 2014 at 05:50
You seem to dislike what you think is me assuming things about you, then you assume I listen to Glenn Beck. Hardly even see or listen to him at all. This country surely has had it’s bad events, and this spares no one really as FDR, a Democrat, agreed to lock up Japanese- American citizens in WWll. But as with any discussion I have with Liberals, it always seems to end badly with someone calling me crazy or delusional. I looked back at the last statement I made and didn’t see where I had insulted you or called you any names so I can’t see why you got nasty with me. Would this be an example of how I’m supposed to find common ground or compromise with someone from the Left?
William June 13th, 2014 at 09:57
1.You want to talk about FDR now because it applies to this thread in what way?
2.” it always seems to end badly with someone calling me crazy or delusional.”
….I think you’re on the verge of self awareness.
3.” Would this be an example of how I’m supposed to find common ground or compromise with someone from the Left?
”
Nope.
THAT would be an example of someone (me) calling out a troll (you), for idiotic ramblings. IE the ol’ founding fathers and the Constitution shtick.
Robert Merrill Taylor June 13th, 2014 at 09:46
The U.S. Constitution is an imperfect document. That is why the founding fathers provided for an amending formula. It was intentionally made difficult to make sure that there was a great general consensus on the need for change. That is why the number of amendments is remarkably small. This showed great foresight in realizing that things would not always be the way they were in 1785. I have a bit of familial interest in the Constitution as my fore-bearer Nicholas Gilman was a delegate from New Hampshire to the Constitutional Convention. I am actually a direct descendent of his brother, John Taylor Gilman who was the first Governor of the post-revolutionary state of New Hampshire. After the Convention, John and Nicholas worked hard to get New Hampshire to ratify the new Constitution.
MorganLaFay June 13th, 2014 at 06:38
Ron Krandle
I’d be amenable to compromise, but I will not compromise my way into Marxism
________
Most people who throw the word “Marxism” around don’t know the difference between Karl and Groucho Marx.
This is the same crowd who called Eisenhower a communist.
Ron Krandle June 13th, 2014 at 23:34
OK. So I’ll ask you. If the Left is calling for the death of Capitalism…..what system are they pushing us towards?
MorganLaFay June 14th, 2014 at 07:06
My point is that you not shown that a few bits of edited tape of a few people questioning capitalism is not “the left “calling for the death of Capitalism” any more than , ‘Tea Party congressman suggests only property owners should vote’ is the right calling for feudalism or “Tom Perkins’ big idea: The rich should get more votes” is the right calling for an end to one person one vote.
You have yet to define what they mean by “capitalism”;
Laissez faire?
Well regulated capitalism?
The combination of socialism/capitalism that we and every nation except Somalia has?
Adam Smith or Ayn Rand?
Your argument is a straw man.
Ron Krandle June 14th, 2014 at 16:28
Ahhhhhh the old Liberal “straw man” argument. I know it very well from my time on Huffington Post. They use it there all the time. And if I show people calling for the death of Capitalism, just ignore it. Either my eyes are deceiving me, they don’t really mean it, or they’re not representative of all people on the Left. At a Tea Party rally though, if one sign, just one, happens to be a questionable or downright racist sign, or if there’s a Confederate battle flag present, the whole movement is tainted. They’re all racist.