The Tea Party Strikes Again.

[WanderngFool]

Well since you're not willing to say it, I will.

The revolutionary idea that we, the 99-percenters should have some rights and even a little power is a liberal idea. I'm not saying the Constitution is entirely liberal or that all the founding fathers were liberals so please don't exaggerate my words or take them out of context.

The fact is that liberals contributed greatly to the founding of this country and have contributed greatly throughout it's history. The bad mouthing of liberals is yet another problem conservatives need to work on. It makes you look bad.

 

[cheri1122]

LOL I like the Obama is left of Moscow line.

Have you ever given even a moment's thought to the fact that the Constitution wasn't written to give power to the one-percenters? One-percenters already had all the power and have had all the power in every country since the dawn of time.

There might be a test on this later. If the Constitution didn't give power to the one-percenters, who did it give power to?

Thank you. That's something I find ironic: the people who are all about the Constitution, and can cite Amendments till the cows come home, never seem to grasp the single most important part: the first three words.
It wasn't just a new country they were creating, or a new kind of government, it was a way to prevent those with power [generally the hereditary monarchy & their favored minions, the nobility] from abusing it against those without power [everyone who wasn't in Burke's Peerage, lol].
It was a pretty radical concept, and they needed to be pretty persuasive to get it supported by the rest of the world, or at least the part that counted: England, Spain, France, & the Netherlands. All ruled by hereditary monarchies, BTW.
They chose Jefferson to write what they'd devoted blood sweat and tears to creating, and Jefferson chose to write the most important principle first: that we, the people, believe that all men are created equal.
They weren't forming a protectorate for the ruling class, or for the profit potential of the capitalists - they were forming a place where abuse of power would not be permitted or tolerated.
That's what the Constitution is all about. Not just government, but human nature.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well since you're not willing to say it, I will.

The revolutionary idea the we, the 99-precenters should have some rights and even a little power is a liberal idea. I'm not saying the Constitution is entirely liberal or that all the founding fathers were liberals so please don't exaggerate my words or take them out of context.

The fact is that liberals contributed greatly to the founding of this country and have contributed greatly throughout it's history. The bad mouthing of liberals is yet another problem conservatives need to work on. It makes you look bad.

Excuse me, I bad mouth EVERY politician. I bad mouth EVERYONE who votes to TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS, I don't give a flip WHAT they say they are. To say that I ONLY bad mouth LiBeRaLs is to have NEVER read anything I have written. Remember it's the DeMoNcRaTs and the RuMbUmLiCaNS. I have NO use for career politicians, I have NO use for ANYONE who wants to control MY rightfully earned private property or ANYONE who tries to forbid me the RIGHTS that are my birthright as a human being.

When someone STEALS my hard earned wages, takes away my ability to provide for my wife, FORCES me to buy a product that I have NO use for, NO need for, that costs 130% MORE than what I had, that DID meet our needs, they can go suck a rotten egg. That is NOT freedom.

I have paid my own way through life, and it was HARD. I expect everyone else to do EXACTLY that. THAT is TRUE freedom. When you are dependent on government you are a slave OF government. I want what I earned, nothing more, nothing less. I expect that EVERY contract I signed, to be fulfulled. ANYONE who tries to interfere with my ability to EARN, is just IN MY WAY and in violation of MY RIGHT to self determination.

I have EVERY RIGHT to control the government and NOT to be controlled BY that government. THAT is why the Constitution was written, so the People COULD control the Government.

 

[Humble2drive]

I have EVERY RIGHT to control the government . . .

Huh? As an individual, you have no right to control our Government.

You have the right to vote for a representative.
You have the right to run for office.
You even have the right to become President but even then you would not
have the right to control the Government.

 

[layoutshooter]

Huh? As an individual, you have no right to control our Government.

You have the right to vote for a representative.
You have the right to run for office.
You even have the right to become President but even then you would not
have the right to control the Government.

The PEOPLE have the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY to control the government. The power resides FIRST with the People, THEN the states and LASTLY with the federal government. I meant to use that "I" in the general sense of the People, I did not make that very clear. MY FAULT!

 

[Turtle]

Not all of it. It was too long and boring. Why? did he admit to bias in the Q and A?

Very much so. And everything he said was colored by the fact that he has a vested interest in Fox News.

 

[muttly]

Not all of it. It was too long and boring. Why? did he admit to bias in the Q and A?

From link:
BRIAN LAMB: What this – let me stop for a second and ask you about this. David Brinkley, Dan Rather, John Chancellor, Jane Pauley, Barbara Walters and Nina Totenberg and others, are they all objective?

BRIT HUME: None of us is objective. You can’t be objective. But what you can try to be is fair. I mean, David Brinkley, as I recall, is one of the first people I ever heard say that. You can’t be objective. You’re a sentient, thinking, human being. You’re going to have views in reaction to things. But I’ll say this about it. I believe that fairness begins with an awareness that no, you’re not objective. And it is your professional duty and responsibility to be aware of that. And to carry that with you into the work that you do so that you can be fair. So, you could screen out. You can be – you can think if you go to a hearing and you think that the politician whose running the hearing is obstreperous personality, whether it’s Phil Graham or Barney Frank, that you think, I got to be careful here, because I don’t particularly cotton to this person. I need to make sure that I play this straight. That I’m fair. I think that’s where it begins. I’ve always thought that. And it’s not that hard to do. I mean, think of the people in the professions that we – other professions that we – in the practice of law. Lawyers represent clients they disagree with. They even represent viewpoints they disagree with. They do it all the time. And they do a good job of it, because they’re professionally trained to do it. We as journalists are or should be professionally trained to do that as well. To go out and assess a story based on its news value and to order it and prioritize what we see in such a way as to reflect news values and report it that way.

 

[muttly]

That's the conservative narrative. "If it ain't conservative, it's socialism," because you're either with us and believe like us, and are therefore conservative, or you are against us and therefore are liberal. While there are certainly a lot of things that liberals want to do that are similar or coincide with socialism, liberalism isn't socialism at all.

You should probably bone up on the definition of of the word, and get a better background of what it means in modern America.

Obama, on the other hand, goes beyond Liberalism in his thinking and is closer to Socialism than Liberalism.


"CNN and other mainstream public media certainly has a bias, but for the most part, except the ones on the extreme who also are there specifically to provide a partisan take on the news, they are fact-driven and let the facts guide the story. These media outlets clearly don't always succeed at objectivity, but at least they make the effort."


Not according to the guy who invented it.

The liberal position 'If you ain't with us, you don't deserve to be heard or win an award. And if you do, we'll pull a hissy fit'
From link:BRIAN LAMB: Let me go back to February the 1st, 2004, and read you a Peter Johnson story. I know you remember this in ”USA TODAY.” And I want you to parse this. The headline is, ”Brit Hume Honors – Honor Triggers Protests.” Is Fox News fair and balanced as its motto claims? The National Press Club Foundation’s plan to honor Brit Hume angered Geneva Overholser, who says, Fox practices ”ideologically connected journalism.” Let me just stop there for a moment. When you read that, what was your reaction?

 

[Turtle]

You're trying to use the words of someone at Fox News who admits to not being objective to somehow show that Fox News is objective?

 

[LDB]

someone at Fix News

When did the New York Times enter the discussion?

 

[muttly]

When did the New York Times enter the discussion?

The 'Award Winning' New York Slimes. Their slogan: 'All the news that's FIT to Pimp. (Their agenda)

 

[jimby82]

Thank you. That's something I find ironic: the people who are all about the Constitution, and can cite Amendments till the cows come home, never seem to grasp the single most important part: the first three words.
It wasn't just a new country they were creating, or a new kind of government, it was a way to prevent those with power [generally the hereditary monarchy & their favored minions, the nobility] from abusing it against those without power [everyone who wasn't in Burke's Peerage, lol].
It was a pretty radical concept, and they needed to be pretty persuasive to get it supported by the rest of the world, or at least the part that counted: England, Spain, France, & the Netherlands. All ruled by hereditary monarchies, BTW.
They chose Jefferson to write what they'd devoted blood sweat and tears to creating, and Jefferson chose to write the most important principle first: that we, the people, believe that all men are created equal.
They weren't forming a protectorate for the ruling class, or for the profit potential of the capitalists - they were forming a place where abuse of power would not be permitted or tolerated.
That's what the Constitution is all about. Not just government, but human nature.

Think you might be confusing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson had very little, if any thing to do with writing the Constitution.

 

[Pilgrim]

Are you serious? You find an opinion that agrees with you and cite it as the definitive "correct" version of the differences? The above isn't a description of the differences, it's a political rant. Articles on DifferenceBetween.net are given a rating as to the quality of the factual analysis presented. Anything less than a 3 is considered to be sorely lacking in facts or heavily biased. This article garnered a whopping 1.65 rating. The comments below the article tell the tale. Certainly, no one will accuse you of being objective when it comes to your facts.

We're talking about opinions and interpretations of socio-economic issues, and you're using "ratings" or "likes" (the opinions of public readers) to establish facts or credibility?? Did you actually read any of those comments? Most are just as biased and uninformed and they claim the author of the article to be, and only offer their opinions. Since when did anonymous raters and commenters become regarded as experts?

Maybe the author had the policies of the Obama administration in mind when he/she wrote this, because the first two sentences in the quote box describe almost perfectly the direction of our country has taken since he took office.

 

[Turtle]

We're talking about opinions and interpretations of socio-economic issues, and you're using "ratings" or "likes" (the opinions of public readers) to establish facts or credibility?? Did you actually read any of those comments? Most are just as biased and uninformed and they claim the author of the article to be, and only offer their opinions. Since when did anonymous raters and commenters become regarded as experts?

They aren't experts at all, which is why it's doubly ridiculous that you'd use such a ridiculous quote to make your case and prove your point. It's just another variation of argumentum ad populum - "See? Other people agree with me, AND it's in the Internet, so it MUST be true!"

 

[layoutshooter]

"AND it's in the Internet, so it MUST be true!"


And then there are those who believe that if it NOT on the internet it CAN'T be true!

 

[muttly]

You're trying to use the words of someone at Fox News who admits to not being objective to somehow show that Fox News is objective?

Turtle wrote: 'Not according to the guy who invented it.' (It being Fox)
So you can you his words to argue your point, but I can't to argue mine? Hehe.

 

[cheri1122]

Think you might be confusing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson had very little, if any thing to do with writing the Constitution.

You are correct, and I stand corrected. I do have a tendency to get them muddled, as they have equal importance, involved many of the same Founding Fathers, and enshrined the same attitudes towards liberty.
Jefferson did say that the men who hammered out the Constitution were "demigods", though, so he clearly approved.
My point was that it wasn't an endeavor to create a profitable enterprise, but a collective one, with a balance of power, deliberately designed to prevent abuse of power.

 

[layoutshooter]

Related to all that "stuff" that went on in here:

[h=1]Confidence in US news media keeps sinking[/h]

"Washington (AFP) - Americans' confidence in the news media has tumbled to fresh lows -- and it doesn't much matter whether the source is newspapers, television or the Internet."

http://news.yahoo.com/confidence-us-news-media-keeps-sinking-234847056.html

 

[davekc]

On a positive note, NBC Nightly (Brian Williams) did cover the IRS scandal & Immigration disaster in their first five minute block. Spent roughly one minute on each and five minutes on the weather and how "climate change" is affecting us.

 

[layoutshooter]

On a positive note, NBC Nightly (Brian Williams) did cover the IRS scandal & Immigration disaster in their first five minute block. Spent roughly one minute on each and five minutes on the weather and how "climate change" is affecting us.

The news media would be better as a replacement for the 3 Stooges, they have become total jokes. Their continuous shilling for that huckster in the White House would be funny if it were not so sickening.