The Goat Pen

Are you suggesting that freedom of the press isn't a right that conservatives should prize as well?

Conservatives normally prize all the rights in the Constitution, including the freedom of the press. Although recently some Republicans seem happy to trade away individual liberties (especially search and siezure) as long as it's for anti-terrorism and anti-crime.

Liberals like some amendments and hate others. They love freedom of the press, hate the right to keep and bear arms, love free speech as long as it mostly applies to liberal speech, distrust freedom of worship, and never heard of the tenth amendment.

Professor Tiger wrote:

Are you suggesting that freedom of the press isn't a right that conservatives should prize as well?

Conservatives normally prize all the rights in the Constitution, including the freedom of the press. Although recently some Republicans seem happy to trade away individual liberties (especially search and siezure) as long as it's for anti-terrorism and anti-crime.

Liberals like some amendments and hate others. They love freedom of the press, hate the right to keep and bear arms, love free speech as long as it mostly applies to liberal speech, distrust freedom of worship, and never heard of the tenth amendment.

Honestly, this isn't true at all. The only amendments that conservatives seem to value are the 2nd and the 10th. All others can be compromised or scaled back. Conservatives consistently advocate restrictions on the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments, suggesting that it's necessary for a) The War on Drugs and 2) The War on Terror. All one need do is read opinions written by Justice Scalia to see examples of a conservative relishing in fresh powers given to the police and other law enforcement agencies. I heard numerous people on Fox and elsewhere bashing the Obama administration for not treating the Boston bomber as a stateless enemy combatant with no rights at all to a trial, despite his US citizenship status. In other words, they apparently have no issues with the govt having the power to summarily strip any individual of all of his rights at any time, so long as it can claim some national security justification (i. e. you're a Muslim).

Speaking of which numerous conservatives have suggested in the wake of Boston that the govt should consider religion as part of its selection process for new immigrants. The 1st amendment can be trashed so long as national security is invoked.

I have seen conservatives suggest the 14th amendment goes too far and takes too much power from the states; that the clause granting citizenship through birth needs to be eliminated. I have seen conservatives argue that the 16th Amendment should be eliminated and that the 17th amendment should be axed to return control of the Senate to (currently-Republican dominated) state legislatures. Angry over their lack of popularity I have seen conservatives on this board argue that the 19th (women's suffrage), 23rd (poll taxes), and 26th (18 as voting age) also be eliminated.

So no, conservatives do not "prize" very many amendments at all. They view the majority as impediments to "law and order" or clauses inserted simply to allow liberals to unfairly dominate (when everyone knows conservatism is far, far more popular).

You can solve those problems by voting against any incumbent first and third party second. Throw out the scumbags that have put us in this shitty position, and replace them with someone that isnt a part of the machine.

"Liberals like some amendments and hate others. They love freedom of the press, hate the right to keep and bear arms, love free speech as long as it mostly applies to liberal speech, distrust freedom of worship, and never heard of the tenth amendment."

Did IB hack into your account? You sound like a paranoid unibomber. Get a grip on yourself...

There is zero difference between R's and D's - save campaign rhetoric. I was so ready for the positives of an Obama presidency - like the repeal of the Patriot Act. Hell, he signed an extention before U-Haul had pulled all of the Bush's belongings out of the White House driveway.

It's a sham, a theater of folly, to discuss the actual differences in the parties.

Conservatives consistently advocate restrictions on the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments, suggesting that it's necessary for a) The War on Drugs and 2) The War on Terror.

Thank you for almost quoting me. I said the same thing:

Although recently some Republicans seem happy to trade away individual liberties (especially search and siezure) as long as it's for anti-terrorism and anti-crime.

I heard numerous people on Fox and elsewhere bashing the Obama administration for not treating the Boston bomber as a stateless enemy combatant with no rights at all to a trial, despite his US citizenship status. In other words, they apparently have no issues with the govt having the power to summarily strip any individual of all of his rights at any time, so long as it can claim some national security justification (i. e. you're a Muslim).

That creeped me out too, and I said so at the time.

There may not be much difference between Rs and Ds on the federal level, but when you get down to the states the gap can be huge. And here the gap is between moderate Rs and the swelling ranks of the Tennessee Taliban. Apparently other southern red states are seeing similar divides between the reasonable and the totally outrageous.

Can't speak for the hilljacks of Tinnysee, but Scott Walker and what he's accomplished in a blue state also shows the diff between R and D.


Same for Bobby Jindal getting La on the road to recovery from generations of D mismanagement.

Thanks, Jindal is a good example of a reasonable R awash in a sea of rwnjs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... by-jindal/

In recent months, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has cut an increasingly visible national profile, implenting bold policy reforms while chiding "stupid" elements of the GOP. In the early 2016 jostling, he's rising. Back home, he's, well, not.

Another bastion of progressive sustainability run by FOBs (Friends of Barracky)


First milk, butter, coffee and cornmeal ran short. Now Venezuela is running out of the most basic of necessities – toilet paper.

Blaming political opponents for the shortfall, as it does for other shortages, the government says it will import 50m rolls to boost supplies.

That was little comfort to consumers struggling to find toilet paper on Wednesday.

"This is the last straw," said Manuel Fagundes, a shopper hunting for tissue in Caracas. "I'm 71 years old and this is the first time I've seen this."

One supermarket visited by the Associated Press in the capital on Wednesday was out of toilet paper. Another had just received a fresh batch, and it quickly filled up with shoppers as the word spread.

"I've been looking for it for two weeks," said Cristina Ramos. "I was told that they had some here and now I'm in line."

Economists say Venezuela's shortages stem from price controls meant to make basic goods available to the poorest parts of society and the government's controls on foreign currency.

"State-controlled prices – prices that are set below market-clearing price – always result in shortages. The shortage problem will only get worse, as it did over the years in the Soviet Union," said Steve Hanke, professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University.

Pennsylvania teabaggers continue war on women....you know Pelosi/Feinstein/Barracky are already working his pardon.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/13/justice/p ... index.html

No difference. None.

No difference in what?

Stifle, cuckold.

Education Trumps Gender in Predicting Support for Abortion

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127559/educa ... rtion.aspx

Nothing new here. Educated people are pro-choice and the dim bulbs..not so much.

Unless I am reading this incorrectly, 69% of college graduates disapprove of legal abortion under "any circumstances". Now, I assume the majority of college graduates are for abortion under "certain circumstances", but there is not a graph for that. I don't seem to see anything that defines "certain circumstances" or that they defined it to the ones being polled. Does "certain circumstances" mean in the case of rape or incest? Does it mean in the first two trimesters or does "any circumstances" automatically assume two trimester limit?

Because that's where we are at right now under law, abortion under any circumstances within the first two trimesters. Are the majority of graduates more conservative than current law?

Still, you’ll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices.



Barracky Obama at OSU commencement two weeks ago.

sardis wrote:Unless I am reading this incorrectly, 69% of college graduates disapprove of legal abortion under "any circumstances". Now, I assume the majority of college graduates are for abortion under "certain circumstances", but there is not a graph for that. I don't seem to see anything that defines "certain circumstances" or that they defined it to the ones being polled. Does "certain circumstances" mean in the case of rape or incest? Does it mean in the first two trimesters or does "any circumstances" automatically assume two trimester limit?

Because that's where we are at right now under law, abortion under any circumstances within the first two trimesters. Are the majority of graduates more conservative than current law?

Surely "legal under certain circumstances" covers where things are now trimester-wise, and with mandatory waiting periods, parental notifications and consent, mandatory counseling etc .

I'm thinking "legal under any circumstances" means do away with all restrictions/ "no-holds-barred".

Well, this pole back in January shows a majority want to only have abortions in the first trimester.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/major ... ision.aspx

This pole splits the "under certain circumsatances" into "under most circumstances" AND "only under a few circumstances". Looks like the combined "under few circumstances" and "under no circumstances" are the majority. Still do not know what that means.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162374/ameri ... trial.aspx