20 Examples of What Liberalism REALLY Is

Townhall, by John Hawkins

(John Hawkins thought of everything. Almost. Uncle (and Grandpa (congratulations kiddo)) Gary fills in some of the definitions of liberalism that Hawkins missed. In red (Thanks Gary)):

1) Liberalism is college professors and documentary filmmakers accumulating vast fortunes in a capitalistic system by decrying the evils of capitalism.
2) Liberalism is claiming that the "border is secure" while saying we shouldn't deport anyone who illegally crosses the border.
3) Liberalism is "environmental activists" flying across the world to ride together in SUVs to posh environmental conferences where they call for everyone
4) Liberalism is spewing hatred and profanity at conservative women, calling for gun control that leaves women defenseless against rapists and murderers, and celebrating misogynistic pigs like Bill Clinton while accusing OTHER PEOPLE of being engaged in a "war on women."
5) Liberalism is people who say that asking for voter ID is racist while claiming that black Americans are too uniquely stupid and lazy to get IDs.
6) Liberalism is forcibly taking money you don't deserve from the people who earned it and calling THEM greedy for not wanting to give you even more.
7) Liberalism is saying that the government should confiscate guns from NRA members and kill them if they resist and then claiming that you have no idea why they think that they need guns to defend themselves.
8) Liberalism is people who sneer at displays of the American flag, tell the world America isn't exceptional, and criticize the country non-stop while getting offended if their patriotism is questioned.
9) Liberalism is calling for higher taxes while you cheat on your own taxes.
10) Liberalism is bitter, race-obsessed people who see EVERYTHING in racial terms, accusing OTHER PEOPLE of being racists.
11) Liberalism is saying you're for "choice" because you support abortion while opposing giving Americans choices about their health care, schools, whether they want to bake cakes for gay weddings, or even the light bulbs they have in their houses.
12) Liberalism is calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist, bigoted, homophobic Nazi and then calling OTHER PEOPLE hateful.
13) Liberalism is considering yourself compassionate for wanting to forcibly confiscate other people's money to give away to constituent groups you hope will vote for you in exchange for the loot.
14) Liberalism is saying George W. Bush is a monkey who started the war in Iraq to "steal their oil" while becoming furious if anyone criticizes Obama.
15) Liberalism is pretending that Christians are dangerous while Islamists chanting "Death to America" and advocating Sharia law are harmless little lambs.
16) Liberalism is calling for guns to be taken away from Americans while you're protected by armed guards
17) Liberalism is millionaires who have more money than they could spend in a lifetime railing against the horrors of "income inequality."
18) Liberalism is "animal rights activists" who eat meat and wear leather shoes screaming profanity at women who hunt. Liberalism is for animal rights activists who decry even humane animal testing on medications while they ignore the plight of human children who would suffer if those drugs were unavailable then pretend they are compassionate because of their warped priorities. Ian is a member of PETA, but not that PETA. The PETA he belongs to is “People Eating Tasty Animals.”
19) Liberalism is black pundits who got their jobs solely because they're black and willing to call other people racists going on TV and claiming that white gas station attendants and fast food workers are benefitting from "privilege" because of their race.
20) Liberalism is thinking of yourself as an independent, open-minded free thinker for mindlessly parroting whatever the Democrat Party line is on every issue.

Jim, you forgot to mention that Libtardism is also being an avowed Nova Scotian Athiest who conveniently plucks Biblical quotes and uses them in a dishonest attempt to quell Conservative, Christian, or Jewish opinion.

And let's not forget that Libtardism is also the mentality, or lack thereof, which supports the killing of innocent unborn babies and sparing the lives of soul-less condemned murderers.

oh, and all these years i thought liberalism was understanding the philosophy and wisdom found in the old and new testaments of the holy bible...

well, i guess grandma was wrong when she once said: if you need an answer to a difficult question, ask yourself what would jesus do... and if you still need an answer, then ask yourself what would moses do...

and of course, if you still need an answer, then follow you gut...and cross your fingers before you jump!

Your grandma sounds like a wise person, Ed, but confronted by difficult situations requiring a response I ask myself, Who am I?

Friend, father, husband, neighbour, citizen? The question answers itself. As a liberal, I believe each is responsible to everyone for everything.

Here is an explanation of how liberals manage to rise to the top of their profession. A bit long, but enlightening.

http://conservativevideos.com/2014/08/comedian-hilariously-explains-liberals-reach-tops-professions/

Really King? And just how many poor wretches have you taken in to provide food, medical care, comfort, and money? We all know you think we are, or should be, "responsible to everyone for everything", even irresponsible behaviors... and you are very good at pressing for other folk's labors to be taxed to pay for it all... but what are you doing on a personal level yourself... besides running your mouth and making self-righteous Liberal Socialist noise?

I'll bet Jesus would never torch color a gun, or display it with the top lever partially open, just to make a sale. Nor would Moses.

Quote K Brown:
"Friend, father, husband, neighbour, citizen? The question answers itself. As a liberal, I believe each is responsible to everyone for everything"

This as far as I'm concerned is the dumbest statement ever made on this forum. I cannot even conceive of someone who is NOT retarded thinking this is true.
Jim

"love thy neighbor as thy self"...

and, "do as i say, not as i do"...

It's what I believe, Jim, a difference from many conservatives.

King you're entitled to believe whatever you want.
However; The facts point to your liberal "beliefs" as a catastrophe for the United States.
Virtually every aspect of our economy and society is worse off now than it was in 2008.
And the blame is being placed squarely where it belongs. Either that or the major voter polls are all wrong.
The only Democrat President the didn't cause an economic disaster in the Country going back to Johnson was Clinton. Of course he'll NEVER take the responsibility for the housing meltdown.
And the reason for that is Clinton was smart enough not to tinker with the policies put in place by the Reagan administration.
The economic recovery that took place under Clinton was universally agreed to be due to the steps taken during the Reagan administration.
We will be years in digging out of the mess created by Obama and his cohorts.

It's what you say you believe Burger King. Now tell us what you are doing on a personal level for the poor miserable lower class wretches who struggle to eat and keep warm in the cold Nova Scotia winter... aside from pressing an agenda that calls for our labors to be taxed and redistributed to Welfare cheats and people who broke the law to enter our country.

I can only hope there is a sub-basement in Hell reserved for Athiests who use lies and the Bible to propagate their own dishonesty.



Oh ed, "do as I say, not as I do" is not from the Bible. That would be one of King Brown's credos.

Comrade King,

Once again, you're the gift that keeps on giving.

"As a liberal, I believe each is responsible to everyone for everything".

What a sociopathic, sanctimonious, subjective, load of Horse Manure. Your capacity for pseudo-elitist self delusion is amazing. You may believe such subjective claptrap and mumbo-jumbo about yourself, but you anti-intellectually use it as a rationalization to sociopathically inflict your beliefs on others. Does in occur to you that your beliefs are purely Collectivist in nature? Does it occur to you that you have no right to declare that "each" is responsible to "everyone" and is simply Religious Statism, where the concept of the individual (as well as individual freedom) does not exist?

"Friend, father, husband, neighbor, citizen". No doubt the average guard at Auschwitz or one of the Soviet Gulags thought the same way about themselves.

You Comrade King, are the disease, and freedom from pseudo-elitist statist religious sociopaths like you is the cure.

Old and kind of cute, Doug. Pity Diaz doesn't understand meaning of the word. Without context, racists are all whites who vote for whites and all blacks who vote for blacks.

A majority of Americans with first opportunity in more than 200 years to vote for a black presidential candidate chose Obama twice because they felt he was preferable to the alternative.

Blacks voted en masse for him not from a sense of racial superiority but on the chance a member of a repressed minority would see more clearly the need for greater equality. That is not racism.

Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:


1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

The term "poor" is completely subjective. Poverty statistics DO NOT include any government money or monetary equivalents disbursed through "anti-poverty" programs. Welfare recipients receive much more money/value via programs than most could ever hope to receive through entry level free market jobs. Why would you work? They're essentially "Professional Democrat Voters". Throw in the entitlement victim mentality (an indoctrinated statist religious belief) along with the belief that whatever you get is never enough, and you have the philosophical basis for Democrat power. All unconstitutional under both the "Establishment" as well as the "Equal Protection" clauses of the Constitution, and the result is that you have statist religious neoslavery. All based upon the involuntary exchange of goods and services. Religious Deification and Demonization. America is now much like the Confederacy, where whole segments (statist religious sub-cults) of the population live and feed off of the oppression of others.

So, in context, 1) the majority voted black based on feelings, and 2) blacks voted black because they 'need' greater equality. Isn't it kind of sad that your 'nonracist' point of view only recognizes skin color, not the man, his qualifications, or his abilities. Are you saying that only pc politicizors can define racism.

I and a majority of Canadians have chosen a way to live as a multicultural experiment, a federation of prudent governance, sharing our labour and natural riches for a national social standard that is the envy of the world. Conservatives and liberals contribute equally according to ability, individually and collectively, by province and federally, as regional economies change.

The result seems more satisfactory than a neighbour of dysfunctional governance, paying the Chinese in interest annually enough for its entire military program, where winning the Senate "to tie-up government for the next two years" is a proud sentiment of patriotism expressed by members here. An united political party makes a difference; individualism goes only so far.

Dictionaries define racism adequately, Craig. The American majority, mostly white, voted for a president it considered preferable to the alternative, as it does in every election, only this time he was black.

His colour didn't get in the way.

Qualifications certainly entered into it: the choice of a plutocrat who didn't appear to know who he was (railing against the 47 per cent) and a Chicago community organizer who might represent better their interests.

Stronger candidates and united party was consensus for GOP victories of our leading conservatives here this week.

Quote:
"Dictionaries define racism adequately, Craig. The American majority, mostly white, voted for a president it considered preferable to the alternative, as it does in every election, only this time he was black."

Wrong as usual. Two factors got Obama "Re-Elected".**
1. Massive voter fraud that of course the DOJ has ignored.
2. Christians who did not vote as they felt they couldn't support a Mormon.

BTW: I'm using the term "re-elected" for description purposes only as Obama is no more eligible to occupy the White House then V. Putin.

Jim

Some say it's civil and correct to prove a point. Is it civil to disregard facts. Just kidding, heck what's his appointed activist atgen say about tolerance. Some call it a do nothing congress, some call the peoples representatives racists. Who's supposed to question, and who's playbook do they follow.

All citizens are supposed to question. Where there isn't a continuous controversy about important issues, totalitarianism is just around the corner.

You make the US sound like a banana republic, Jim: a country ignoring massive voter fraud, a party choosing a candidate majority Christians couldn't support.

More likely a majority had enough of Bush's abortive adventures that had cost so many lives and treasure, and voted for Obama's's promise to bring the military home.

They still feel the same way, according to polls. Only the conservative right and Maliki want to sacrifice Americans to a lost cause.

Why you sink in a ditch, just kidding. We are not a banana republic, it's only window dressing to to make us feel better like we can feel their pain. Or maybe it's part of a fundamental transformation, thanks for noticing.

I thought you weren't a big fan of polls. Funny thing though is that they aren't all that flattering right now to bo-n-his crew. Maybe you misread them. As demonizable as they are, fact remains, the conservative right does not command the military. Even on a 'limited' basis, why's bo sending military footnote pawns back into harms way.

Too funny. Now, the resident Totalitarian is warning about the dangers of Totalitarianism. Not only sociopathic, but pathological.....

Quote:
"You make the US sound like a banana republic, Jim: a country ignoring massive voter fraud, a party choosing a candidate majority Christians couldn't support."

Boy it doesn't take much to get you off course. In a "banana republic" they just shoot the candidte they don't want.
You can deride and belittle whatever you want but the facts speak for themselves. Romney lost due to significant voter fraud and the reluctence of some Christians to vote for a Mormon. Like it or not that's what happened.
The Protestants voted en-masse against John Kennedy in 1960 because of his religion and not much has changed since then.
I personally twice voted against the Muslim b@stard now occupying the White House illegally.
Jim

"Tying up the government for the next two years" is a perfectly acceptable and Constitutional strategy which comes under the Founders Separation of Powers, and the rationale they had in forming a tripartate government. The people have every right to tie the hands of a branch of government which has run amok. But they don't have the right to vote multiple times, a fact that the liar from Nova Scotia will never admit.

For Conservatives to win back the Senate and maintain a majority in the House would forestall a lot of the "Fundamental transformation of the United States" that King finds so appealing. Of course, we could still expect Obama to ram through as much Liberal Socialistic unconstitutional crap as he can via Executive Orders. Obama and King both lie about our "do-nothing Congress". There are at least 195 House bills stalled in the Senate that Democrat Harry Reid won't allow being brought up for a vote. Obama and the Democrat controlled Senate have been the greatest impediment to any bipartisan accomplishments.

I'll bet the Burger King didn't see any problem when Obama and the Democrats had the majorities in the House, Senate, and also held the White House. There was no spirit of compromise or willingness to work with the other side. They just rammed through a very flawed ObamaCare... but not much else. They could have, and should have, done so much more in the midst of a severe recession that Democrats caused. But they spent too much time carving out ObamaCare exemptions for their Union cronies and feathering their own nests.

That bring us to another point. It could be understood that blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama the first time, thinking he might understand their needs and right some wrongs, real or imagined. But all he did was to placate them with more Welfare as he screwed their collective eyes out. He spent more time working on a new constituency, the illegal aliens and Hispanics, than he did helping blacks. Keeping illegals here and permitting millions more to come in during a severe recession only injured the blacks and their families by creating competition for very scarce jobs. Black unemployment was still over double that of the rest of the population when the dumb-asses went back to the polls in 2012 and re-elected him... not because of anything good that he did for them (unless you call being kept on the Democrat Welfare Plantation good)... they re-elected him in the same large numbers because they were racist and saw any black man, even an incompetent liar, as a better choice than a white Mormon successful ex-governor and businessman. Many of them voted for him multiple times.

I agree completely with Ken61 that excessive taxation to support a Welfare State for purely political ends, and income redistribution, is just another form of involuntary servitude or slavery... something that King Brown will never acknowledge, and something that he would not stomach if the same cancer affected his Canada in his lifetime.

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/communism-white-privilege-coming-genocide/

Some highlights:

Governments are actually responsible for the senseless deaths of millions upon millions of people. In fact, governments, in time of peace, have murdered more people than the combined deaths of all of mans wars in history. This is especially true of the twentieth century with the rise of communism. Over one hundred million people were brutally murdered by communist regimes in search of Utopia between 1900 and 2000. From Lenin and Stalin to Mao Tse Tsung, to Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Brutal Regime of North Korea, the quest to create a perfect society where people accept total state domination has been nothing but bloody.


I believe that here in the United States we are witnessing this gradual process unfold before our very eyes. Gregory H. Stanton has identified an eight-stage process that generally occurs in the conditioning of a people to prepare them for genocide. In this article I intend to give a brief analysis of each of the eight steps (if applicable because we have not completed all of them) and how they apply to the situation we currently face in the United States.

The first step is classification. This simply means classifying people into different groups and intentionally dividing people along ideological lines. Once this is accomplished, stark contrasts can be made between different cultural groups and these differences can be used to incite hatred and create discontent. The job of community organizers is essential here because one group of people will be convinced they are being oppressed by another.

In the United States today, right-wing Americans have been classified as potential terrorists because of their willingness to defend their rights under the Constitution. White males have been classified as being “automatically racist simply for being white” through the fallacious White Privilege ideology. These ideas are meant to work on the collective level and once they are seated they are nearly impossible to alter or eradicate. This is especially true when aided by the rabble rousings of a community organizer whose job is specifically targeted at creating discontent.

The next stage is known as “dehumanization.” I personally can’t think of anything more dehumanizing than being assumed to be a racist simply because I am white. By teaching students that white men are privileged and racist, our universities are dehumanizing nearly every white male in the country, at least in the eyes of the minorities that white allegedly oppress. This is why we are constantly being called racist for opposing anything proposed by the left.

The next stage is “organization.” The political left is the master of organization. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is the organizing bible for the left and they have mastered the art of teaching minorities that they are oppressed by America’s evil white men. They have the schools, the government agencies, the non-profit organizations, and the message that America’s rich white men are intentionally keeping them down for financial gain is constant and relentless.

We saw in 2010 the formation of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and the lengths they are willing to go to make a point. This is a testament to how well the left can organize a political movement. These folks are Lenin’s useful idiots and they should not be underestimated. They would likely follow any charismatic leader on a genocidal march across the land if they believed it would bring about the utopian Promised Land.

Jim, are you sure Protestants voted en masse against Kennedy in 1960? I was with him in the primaries--- Americans believing a Catholic would take his orders from a pope attracted world-wide attention---when he broke through in Wisconsin and next in heavily Protestant (97 per cent?) West Virginia with 60 per cent of the vote.

This also from the American Journal of Sociology by Jeff Manza, Penn State University, and Clem Brooks, Indiana University, titled The Religious Factor in US Presidential Elections 1960-1992:

With regard to the third thesis under examination, our results imply that claims about the dealignment of Catholic voters have been significantly overstated. Like Greeley (1985, 1990), we conclude that with the exception of the unusual 1960 election Catholics have maintained slightly above-average support for the Democratic Party since 1952, once we control for change or decline in the popularity of Democratic presidential candidates among all religious groups. Our results for Catholics also show that taking 1960 as a baseline would yield biased estimates of political trends among this segment of the electorate. The religious political cleavage was especially high in 1960, not because it was also high in preceding elections of the 1950s, but instead because Catholics became momentarily more Democratic in their party identification and presidential voting preferences.

"The single most important source of change in the relationship between religious group membership and political behavior discovered in this study relates to liberal Protestants’ eroding support for Republican candidates. Given the historical context covered by our analyses, our findings present a highly consistent portrait of the mechanisms explaining this voting trend. Since the 1960s, liberal Protestants have been under pressure from a clergy that has grown considerably more receptive to calls for a variety of social changes, first stemming from opposition to the Vietnam War and general concerns with civil liberties, to more recent struggles to bring women into the clergy and to allow the equal participation of gays and lesbians in the church.

"Likewise, since the pivotal Goldwater campaign of 1964—coinciding with the origins of the liberal Protestants’ voting trend—socially conservative activists have made considerable inroads into the Republican Party (Brennan 1995). Opposition to Civil Rights legislation coupled with strong Republican opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and the increasingly partisan struggle over abortion appear to have provided liberal Protestants with sufficient reason to move away from their traditional alignment with the Republican Party."

Throw in demographics, Hispanics, immigration, a sharper perspective on GOP challenges in the 21st century.

The single most dramatic "Religious Shift" occurred in 1932 with the election of FDR. Electing a statist religious sociopath willing to follow Marxist religious dogma and create government programs/dependency by extorting economic freedom (money via unconstitutional taxation) from free and equal citizens and then use it to buy votes. All that has happened since, and Obama is merely following the same sociopathic religious dogma, was predictable. The big difference is the willingness of the Obama cabal to actually attempt to destroy the Free Market system, while other Democrat Statists (like Republican Statists) tried to work within it in order to enrich themselves and their supporters in order to insure their own personal political power.

Wishful thinking is fun, Ken, and doing your country's thinking for it is hilarious. Your "all that has happened" since FDR doesn't relate to Liberalism--- or anything other than Hobbesian notions of greed.

You ignore that in a democratic society the function of political leadership in the old tradition of Bentham and Mills is to do what the people want, and the test of performance is at election time.

In that sense, what every president has done is smart policy. It is politic. It may not be good for the country. It's what we have, and all we've got. Please tell us how you would stop citizens from voting in their interests.

Hey, I've got a wishful thought. How about requiring valid ID's for proof of citizenship. I've heard it may work. Haven't 310k ocare enrollees just received their drop notices because they can't prove citizenship.

So cold and heartless by the administration when the stroke of a pen could've spread the compassion. Hmmm, it's infectious, perhaps signs of a do nothing pres., maybe fighting the national disarray with reverse psychology.

I dunno, maybe it's time for another wild west stunt to bring things back into focus. I wonder if things will still look the same if I sober up.

Comrade King,

Once again, you miss my point.

Preposterous, sociopathic pseudo-elitism is fun, is it not? Especially when you're able to "bleat along" with the rest of your sociopathic religious congregation.

"Liberalism" is really a reactionary and oppressive form of Religious Statism. In America's case it's still in a transition phase, and will only be complete once Totalitarianism is achieved. To accomplish this, the Constitution must be abolished or neutralized (currently happening) by simply ignoring it.

Political leadership in a free society is still (in America's case) supposed to be bound by the Constitution in order to protect individual freedom and equality. According to your dogma, majority rule overrides individual freedom, it's what the "people want". What a comically anti-intellectual rationalization for "Mob Rule".

People voting "in their own interests" is still supposed to be constrained by the Constitution, 51 people are not supposed to be able to vote to take the other 49 people's freedom/stuff away and reward it to themselves. All it requires it to have politicians sociopathic enough to ignore their fellow citizens freedom and equality and to vote in the interest of their own totalitarian political power.

Hobbes was just another advocate of "Enlightened Despotism". The same theme followed by Hegel, and eventually morphing into Marxism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and all the other forms of Religious Statism. I suggest that if you desire a differing contemporary view from his time, you read John Locke.

Still waiting for your notion of better system than democracy.

If you somehow think America is a Democracy, you couldn't be more wrong. "Plato's Republic" was a democracy, pure mob rule. America is a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives and President. Government power is limited in theory, but obviously the statist religious sociopaths have found various ways to circumvent the Constitution. This is the best system, when adhered to.

Okay, okay, not just the ID thing, but how about a representative republic with respect for the rule of law. If you don't like a law, change it legally rather than by ideological spin or selective enforcement.

We had a better system that worked quite well for almost 200 years. It was our Constitutional Republic. Not perfect, but it was a whole lot better than the massive failures of the Great Society, and the ability to bribe an ignorant majority into voting en masse into slowly destroying their nation.



King, why can't you admit that you weren't "with" JFK when he made his run for the White House? You try to make it sound like you were an advisor, press secretary, or confidant to him. There must be some photo of you having lunch dates with Jackie Kennedy... why don't you show us one you bloviating resume inflating fool? You were just one of thousands of reporters who covered that event. You got no closer to him than thousands of other reporters who got to ask a question or take a photograph. You were nothing but a mid-level field reporter for the CBC when its' total market was smaller than most large U.S. cities. Not even close to a Peter Jennings or Morely Safer. I saw a video of your short interview with your good buddy Dr. Martin Luther King. He was dispassionate and his body language was quite distant and aloof to you. Hardly a discussion of Civil Rights between good pals. From that contact, it appears you invented a relationship similar to the one John Hinkley created in his sick mind with Jodie Foster. Why did you quit so early in your illustrious career if you were so great? Enquiring minds want to know. And no, West Virginia wasn't 97% Protestant at the time, but at least you covered your lie with a question mark. Who do you think you're fooling King?

You were "with" JFK like I was "with" Clinton or Romney or Paul Ryan. I attended their rallies... yelled at Clinton and held up a protest sign concerning his anti-gun attitudes...got to ask Ryan a question... but was no closer to them than thousands or even millions of other folks who followed the campaigns.

What a complete fraud you are. Why, I'll bet you think you were at Woodstock too... just because you happened to be in the Northern Hemisphere at the time.

Woodstock, I might believe, because you sound like someone who spent the entire time in the LSD overdose tent.

Maybe King was "organizing" Chicago. He spent his time convincing dead people to vote for JFK...

I have friends who are Protestant and were told in their churches not to vote for Kennedy because of his religion as he'd bring the pope here to help him run the United States.
Conversly as a practicing Catholic at the time we were told by the priests that we had to vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic.
Kenedy's religion was a major issue in 1960 and it may in fact been the primary issue of that election. It also was one of the first documented instances of major voter fraud and it's widely believed today that Mayor Daley of Chicago swung the vote there to Kennedy and therfore stole the election.


Exerpt from the Roosevelt Papers:

By early spring, the issue of Kennedy's religion had entered the electoral discussion, splitting the Wisconsin vote along religious lines and resulting in a steady erosion of support in West Virginia. Four weeks before West Virginia primary day, the tide had turned against JFK and he found himself trailing Humphrey by 20 points. When the campaign asked the county chairs why the voters had switched allegiance, they replied, "No one know you were a Catholic" when the poll was taken. Kennedy responded by moving his key campaign aides to West Virginia, calling on close friends to volunteer their time, and training county campaign chairs in 39 of the state's 59 counties to staff phone banks, host receptions, and go door to door to distribute literature. He changed his schedule to campaign throughout the state and brought Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. there to endorse his candidacy. On April 25th he decided to attack the anti-Catholic bias head-on, telling audiences across the state, "I refuse to believe that I was denied the right to be President the day that I was baptized." Finally, on May 8th, two days before the election, in a broadcast paid for by the campaign, FDR, Jr. asked JFK how his Catholicism would effect his presidency. Kennedy replied that taking the oath of office required swearing on the Bible that the president would defend separation of church and state and that any candidate that violated this oath not only violated the Constitution but "sinned against God."

I added the bolding.
Jim

I can see what those Priests and Pastors were concerned about Jim. Now we have a Muslim president that is "flexible" with Vladimir Putin and takes orders from the Grand Ayatollah, except when he's golfing!

Religious influence is even stronger today. Think of all the statist temples where congregations are admonished to vote for statist religious sociopaths: The temple of the union hall. The temple of the teacher's lounge. The Black church. The temple of the Welfare office. The temple of the HUD office. The temple of the Food Stamp office. The temple of the Green Energy company. The temple of the Trial Lawyer's office. The temple of the non-profit business. The temple of the Social Security office. The temple of the Medicaid office. The temple of the Medicare office. The temple of Affirmative Action. The temple of Feminism. The temple of Obamacare. Need I go on? All are statist religious sub-cults that directly benefit from the involuntary exchange of goods and services that occurs when the State takes away a fellow citizen's economic freedom and gives it to them in reward for their votes. Or, grants their sub-cult an economic advantage at the expense of their fellow citizens. Statist Neoslavery.

youse guys are incredible...you have so much energy...you make me feel old and tired...which i am...

Nuff' said.....

Not much accomplished with all that spent energy & effort. Have they converted anyone to their way of thinking? I suspect not.

Conversion require's a degree of Intellectual Objectivity. Since the whole purpose of a faith-based religious belief is to suspend intellectual objectivity in order to believe in it's mythology and dogma, religious fanatics are the hardest to convert. Denial of objective reality, especially when you receive an economic benefit at the expense of your fellow free and equal citizens is an easy choice for Religious Statists. They are, in effect, paid for their sociopathic beliefs. All it requires is the worship of religious statism, in the temple of the voting booth and before the altar of the ballot box.

Glad you said 'not much'. Sounds like you do admit that talk of kumbaya, tolerance, fairness and all inclusiveness is, ta-da, cow pies.

Anyone who watched Greta Van Susteren's special on the atrocities being committed by Muslims against Christians got a hideous dose of a sociopathic culture in action last night:
Jim

"faith-based religious belief is to suspend intellectual objectivity in order to believe in it's mythology and dogma, religious fanatics are the hardest to convert"

Jim

Translation: You can't fix "stupid". I just Googled "FUBAR" and found Jagermeister's picture.

I don't often look at this section as you politics and ours are vastly quite different , how ever the 20 points made seem to describe what we in the UK would call socialists . Tony Blair being a prime example .
You could also ad to the list " content to spend every penny of other peoples money "

Interesting also, comments here nearly always define political ideology within tax distribution---money and sharing---without mentioning (1) we don't live by bread alone and (2) corporate welfare eclipses public welfare, a perk of privilege.

It's fundamentally a moral issue of what kind of society we want to live in. A distinguishing mark of the most advanced countries in terms of health, education, overall happiness, is sharing with others, even laggards who are always with us.

Those advanced countries comprise conservatives and liberals of a cultural difference from what emanates from the conservative US right on exhibit here. The difference is consensus of sharing for a common good. In Misfires, its all radical objectification of others with different views from their own.

Jim, by apparently agreeing with Ken's take on suspension of objectivity in order to believe in mythology and dogma---say, materializing after death in a sound body to live happily forever---you seem to be abandoning your faith. What goes?

Ken's generous salting of politics with analogies of religious and temples involving everything (except gated communities, country clubs and Wall Street) tends to confuse. Surely you're referring to politics, not "faith-based religious belief."

Re Greta Van Susteren's piece, current The Economist cover story says Obama's cautious handling Middle East is on the right track.

The great and brilliant King Brown apparently still does not comprehend what you mean when you refer to Religious Statists Ken61. You have explained it in great detail, yet one of the greatest adherants to blind faith in the Nanny State, Welfare for "Laggards", and Government intervention still thinks you are talking about real churches and traditional religions.

If he's really that dense, what chance does he have to understand that a goodly portion of the corporate welfare he rails on about is voted on by Liberal Democrats who wish to subsidize job creations by taxpayers for non-laggards. Also, corporations in the U.S. are paying much more in corporate income taxes than their foreign competition. But the Burger King will always take the Socialist path... always finding a justification for confiscating the fruits of our labor so that liberals can use our money to buy votes. Unfortunately, Exxon-Mobil does not have a vote... but many of the lazy laggards King defends get multiple votes apiece.

It will never get through his skull. He must have consumed great quantities of the crude brandy that Nova Scotians make from fermented lichens, wood pulp, and permafrost.

Comrade King,

You really are a hoot.

Comments here in Misfires typically define political ideology within the context of Individual Freedom and Equality, vs. the growing power of the Totalitarian State. What a typical Marxist attempt to insert class warfare by attempting to define it as merely an income and taxation issue. Demonization is implied in your anti-intellectual statement, as obviously those who object to paying taxes that are then used for Statist vote-buying are "greedy and evil".

"Corporate Welfare" is a subjective term, especially when defined by your sociopathic religious beliefs. Relief from obscenely high taxes (highest rates in the world) is not "Welfare", as it's the corporation's money, not the governments. Real welfare is in terms of direct disbursements of taxpayer money, such as subsidies and guarantees for failed loans, either corporate or individual. Then, you have the entire class of statist religious companies exempt from taxation all together, such as the non-profit and union sectors. All business taxes raise the cost of "doing business" and result in higher costs to the consumer. They are, in effect, back-door taxes on the citizenry. Corporate and capital gains taxes should be eliminated completely. This would create a massive influx of investment capital into America, resulting is incredible growth and wealth creation. This would dramatically create economic opportunity for everyone. This will never happen with sociopathic statists in power, as it would reduce or eliminate dependency on government programs used for Democrat vote-buying.

Your societal morality is that of sociopathic Neostatist slavery, dependency, and vote-buying. My societal morality is that of Individual Freedom and Equality.

Sociopathic religious fundamentalists (in Comrade King's case) do not understand that their beliefs are faith-based. They think that they know "absolute truth and goodness". This enables them to rationalize their unconstitutional, sociopathic, pseudo-elitism.

I'm not describing anyone in particular or passing judgements, but it is far easier to rationalize for sociopathic atheist fundamentalist. Remember religion was once described as "highly addictive drug" for the masses. Simple minds need to rationalize "pot of gold at end of the rainbow" in order not to get depressed or to go loco.

Marx once said that "Religion is the Opium of the People". Most think that it was a bust on Christianity. What it really is an illustration of it how you can control a society through indoctrination of faith based belief and the resulting societal morality. In the Soviet Union's case, Marxist-Leninist Totalitarianism was a form of Religious Statism. The same process is being used in America, creating millions of unconstitutionally sociopathic religious fundamentalists that believe that they are "Righteous and Good".

I've said many times that your typical self-described Atheist is really an anti-Christian, sociopathic religious statist. Bill Maher is in excellent example. That's why in America there is no "War on Religion", but a "War OF Religion"...

My belief concerning a civil society isn't faith-based, Ken, in the sense of religious faith without proof. The evidence is empirical, plain to see: countries, communities, peoples who share in a liberal sense do immeasurably better than those which govern selfishly, as "I'm alright, Jack, to hell with the rest."

Comrade King,

Any time you sociopathically inflict an involuntary exchange of goods and services on others is an example of the subjective morality of a faith-based statist belief. That is your "religious faith without proof".

Empirical evidence? No, it's preposterously subjective. You mean Detroit? China? Zimbabwe? Canada? Greece? Oh please, give me a specific example of your Liberal Utopia where paradise exists without Statist Neoslavery.

What you really mean is "I'm alright, Jack, along with all my fellow religious sociopaths, to hell with the rest".

Quote:
"faith-based religious belief is to suspend intellectual objectivity in order to believe in it's mythology and dogma, religious fanatics are the hardest to convert"

I can't speak for others but no one in my church has been asked to suspend intellectual objectivity. If the Pastor of our church said for example: "The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination so go out and beat up every one you can find" He'd rightfully be greeted with derision.
That type of warped "dogma" IMO is what cults like Islam use to justify carring out their atrocities.
Jim

Religion requires a suspension of intellectual objectivity. You have to have "Faith" to believe in what cannot be proven. All religions are controlled by the clerics who come up with the dogma. This is a method of societal control that has always been a part of human history.

In America, religious freedom is protected by the "Free Expression" clause of the Constitution. Americans are free to believe in whatever religion they choose. It is when they attempt to impose their religion upon others that the second clause comes into play, the "Establishment" clause. This is the clause that is being violated by the Religious Statists. They are imposing their sociopathic faith-based dogma on all Americans on a "de facto" basis, declaring that Americans are not "Equal" and are subject to economic deification and demonization via taxation and welfare/entitlement programs. They are demonizing one part of the society, confiscating their economic freedom, and then awarding it to their political/religious followers in order to buy their votes.

Here's another example: How about a pastor preaching that evil rich people are responsible for members of his congregation not having as much wealth as they'd like. He convinces his flock to vote for politicians that will go out and "punish" the rich evil-doers, take away their wealth, and give it to members of his congregation. They deserve it because they have been victimized by the rich, making them "righteously entitled" to their money. Sounds preposterous, right? That's an example of a sociopathic religious belief. No less bizarre than Radical Islam.

ken: is this real? if so, please sight source...or if not, is this just another fantasy made up by you to entertain an adoring audiance?

Ed, you miss my point.

It's called "The Church of the Democrat Party".

The word is "cite", not "sight".

One of the largest religious works ever created is the U.S. Tax Code.

Quote:
"One of the largest religious works ever created is the U.S. Tax Code."

Yeah: And it takes the biblical "Eye for an Eye" to a whole new level with the Libtards in control!
Jim

"Blessed are the Statists, for the sociopaths shall inherit the earth."

I am not "sharing" when tens of thousands of dollars are taken from me and redistributed in a manner that I find offensive, is used to gradually erode my personal and Constitutional Rights, and frequently runs counter to my religious beliefs. This happens to me via withholding taxes on MY earnings each week, and I get to see the final subtotal when I file my income taxes. I say subtotal because this large chunk is but the tip of the iceberg. I also am compelled to pay real estate taxes, school taxes, sales tax, capital gains tax on my investments, gasoline tax, excise taxes, and a myriad of other taxes. Then there are the hidden taxes that people like King wish to increase even more. They are either too ignorant to understand, or too dishonest to admit, that when the government increases corporate taxes or reduces incentives for corporations to hire and invest in the U.S., those costs are directly passed on to the consumer. The taxes and regulatory and permit fees that are paid by Exxon, Ford, Coca-Cola, Proctor and Gamble, etc. are rolled into the price of every item they sell to me. They don't pay the cost... ultimately, we the consumers do. Then this gets compounded even further because Ford is paying some of the taxes and fees of other companies which are rolled into the cost of the raw and semi-finished materials that they use to build cars. Because I am paying these hidden taxes on goods and services, I end up paying taxes which are taxed again. Then my government borrows to spend even more than they take from me, so I end up paying the interest on this debt, and the dollars I am allowed to keep become worth less because of inflation.

All of this money comes from my physical and mental labor. Years are literally stolen out of my life. To a large degree, there is no "sharing". Those who I am "sharing" with are not reciprocating and "sharing" anything with me. What do I get for this? I get called greedy and mean by Libtards like King Brown. They see this forced servitude or partial slavery as fair, and want me to do even more. Where is the "empirical evidence" that this system is "immeasurably better" for me and millions just like me? Why doesn't King see the other side of the coin where Jamal is saying, "I'm alright, Leroy, to hell with the assh*les who work their tails off to pay for our freebies?"

It might be a bit more palatable if able bodied Welfare recipients had to reciprocate by doing labor to make the country a better place for those who are forced to pay for their comforts. It might even incentivize them to become educated and find a real job. They could pick the crops that are being picked by illegal aliens. They could clean up the roadsides and do road and bridge repairs. They could be conscripted to do military duty or guard our insecure borders. They could tear down vacant buildings in places like Detroit, and scrub graffitti off of walls. They could build prisons so that hardened criminals would not have to be paroled to make room for other offenders who cost society billions. They could either do these things or have the personal freedom to starve.

King is a fraud and a fool who has obviously never considered the full ramifications of what he preaches, and one who does not follow his own prescriptions for "sharing". King has not shed himself of worldly possessions and lived a life of poverty to enable some poor wretches to eat and stay warm. King is a petty hypocrite who is unjustifiably judgemental, and morally and intellectually bankrupt.

That is what happened in totalitarian communist states. Stalin did that to Ukrainian Kulaks and millions starved as result. Holocaust through redistribution of food sources.

Well Ken61, the Burger King sure is taking his time compiling the list of "Empirical Evidence" that you requested. I asked for evidence as well, but we all know how King Brown pretends to ignore me, using the lame and lying excuse that I was putting words in his mouth... after I had quoted him verbatim.

So there it is once again kiddies... the "Dance of the Gnomoron", a favorite tactic of Libtards like King, who routinely drop a stinking pile of bullshit, and then just dance away from it.

Of course, it is possible that he sold his computer, and his bush plane, and his guns, and all of his other worldy possessions, and donated the money to some poor hungry wretches. It is possible that he has begun practicing what he preaches. Yeah, right! When pigs fly!

While you will not get an answer to your question Ken61, I do hope you'll keep asking King for evidence to back up his many lies. It's kind of like shoveling snow. His lies just keep piling up. Clear a path, and he drops some more.

Dealing with Comrade King is my idea of a little light entertainment. He's very creative, but virtually everything he asserts is subjective and emotion based. It's fairly easy to refute views that are basically devoid of intellectual objectivity.

I just pop in to play a little "Whack-A-Sociopath".

It makes a nice break, I'm currently restoring eight Damascus and Twist barrel sets, and working on another eight Spanish guns (six sidelocks and two boxlocks) at the same time...

A whack with restorations seems a good balance, Ken. Misfires is a wonderful venue for teasing and entertainment. I sometimes hope our conservative warriors get those six seats and then the White House so that another "moronic" majority will restore the US to its senses!

You can always tell when a Libtard is getting his ass handed to him by the tone of the above post. "Out of "arguments" so he'll belittle the vehicle that permits his B.S to be posted.
Jim

"Conservation" and "Restoration" are good fits with a Conservative (really Constitutional) philosophy. Restoration requires "Due Diligence" and a complete understanding of history and context in order to restore accurately. As does Conservative political thought.

The appropriate analogy would the to take a Purdey and put on a plastic stock, paint the barrels in psychedelic colors, and cut down the barrels. It would then be called by liberals as "original" and "fair".

Who's belittled, Jim? You've said Republicans would restore the country to its true values, and who's to belittle that anticipation? Sounds good to me.

It leaves open, of course, that there must be a change among the current majority you abjure. Would the new majority be purer of heart?

I sometimes wonder what the next big grab will be when our progressive warriors hold the exec branch and congress again. They got the judicial branch locked up, and transformed congress away from legislating.

Is it fair, compassionate or tolerant that no pork was dangled in front of the rino's to get one r to fundamentally change ocare into some bipartisan gala.

Who knows, Craig? The US is making its first baby steps toward universal healthcare. It won't be abandoned because it makes sense. Americans voting against it are voting against themselves and making the insurance industry rich, with highest costs in the world.

Tisk, tisk, tisk. Wasn't big pharma and insurance carriers 'approached' to facilitate a backdoor path of minimal resistance for ocare. Haven't you heard, 'healthcare' is a growth industry.

Yep, its a growth industry everywhere, Craig, and governments everywhere are learning that innovation, getting away from the old way, is the answer to throwing more money at it.

Wanna bet it won't be abandoned King ? We still have ,after trillions spent, over 35 Million UNINSURED,just about everyone who has health care costs have gone up- WAY UP,since obamacare and the same left that jammed it through is now RUNNING from it !!

On countries of liberal values providing healthier and happier communities, The Economist's annual report on the best places to live in the world, published today, ranking by stability, health care, culture, environment, education and infrastructure, gives six of the top 10 cities to Canada and Australia. Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary shared the top six with Melbourne, Adelaide and Vienna. The others were Helsinki, Perth, Sydney and Auckland.

It seems like a good move for any party looking for votes, even though Americans seen convinced it's not for them. If the country is one of laggards looking for freebies, the "47 per cent" as described so often here, shouldn't it be a certainty?The US is the only advanced country without it.

I've never heard a Canadian complain that his taxes pay for health assistance to others. An American friend broke her foot in three places last month while salmon fishing in Ireland. "I had three operations, and the nurses never left my side in the hospital for a week. It cost $5,000. Back home (Kentucky) it would have cost 10 times that much."

Where's Ken's statist religious when I need him!

Supposedly, three fourths of the folks on ocare are subsidized. Quick question, why is healthcare prejudiced against working folks. Haven't we discussed this a time or two, doesn't part of your fuel tax pay for Canadian healthcare. Isn't that a color and class blind system, rather than redistributive for ideology instead of health.

Why was your friend charged 5k, a bit of bias when the going rate might have been $4500. This could be a bit of unfairness masked by the fairness of the victim. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Canada's death Panels

http://flaggman.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/canada-death-panel-exposed/

Well, fast-forward to March 2011 in Canada – land of Obama’s dream of nationalized health care – and the debate over the use of the drug Herceptin in the treatment of breast cancer in young women. When 34-year-old mother of two Jill Anzarut went to the press and Facebook to advocate for the drug, which is being denied to her by the Ontario Ministry of Health, our (Liberal) Health Minister chose to respond with jaw-dropping honesty:

“We cannot have a health system where the stories that land on the front page of the paper determine our health-care policy. It would be unfair to those who do not get their stories on the front page if we were to give priority to those who do.”

With these 49 words, Deb Matthews exposes what Palin was so presciently warning about: that nationalized health care ends up becoming about turf-protection, central control, dehumanization of individuals, and a monopoly on health service rationing to a clique of “masters of the universe” who end up thinking their number-crunching degrees in epidemiology give them moral license to determine who deserves to live and die.


NO THANKS-NOT here in America !

We, America had the BEST health care in the world,and will again once the lame duck obama (if he does not step down before his term is over)is done Obamacare will be gutted when the Senate flips and be gone by 2016.

What? It cost $5,000? Why wasn't it free? Oh, I get it, they charged her because she was an Canadian. Or an American? They probably gave her good service because she was actually a "paying customer" and they knew they'd get a few bucks from her...

Prejudiced against the working classes? Don't understand, Craig. It's universal, for everyone, particularly attractive for those with marginal incomes. No one is left out, as the 35 million Americans Dave mentioned above.

the option to receive federally funded healthcare is here to stay.

now it becomes the task to make it less costly.

one way to accomplish that task is to reduce profit in the equation.

Universal health care in Ireland, as in other advanced countries, is paid from general revenues (taxes) from its citizens. Visitors pay a fee for their care, as I would in the US and Americans in Canada. My friend lives in Kentucky. US care is most expensive in the world.

Gotta admit, you can come up with some pretty funny jokes now and then. Option? Not really, what the messiah have bestowed can be snatcheth away by exec decree.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/02/support-obamacare-decreases/

Last month’s Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found that more than half of Americans view the law unfavorably, an eight point increase from June. Only 37 percent view the law favorably while 53 percent disapprove.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/02/aetna-ceo-admits-obamacare-customer-numbers-worse-expected/

Aetna CEO Admits Obamacare Customer Numbers Worse Than
Expected

Edmund Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said in a recent report the industry saw only a small net increase in private coverage in the first quarter
Haislmaier also said most of the increases were coverage substitution—people who lost their work-based insurance and had to buy on the open market.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/02/at-most-obamacare-will-help-this-many-people-get-insured/

this first tranche of data is highly revealing. Drew and I present the numbers and analyze them in more detail in our new report, but here are three key takeaways from the data for the six-month period of October 1, 2013, through March 31, 2014:

– Net enrollment in the individual-coverage market grew by 2,236,942 individuals, while net enrollment in employer group coverage declined by 1,716,540 individuals.

– The decline in employer-sponsored coverage offset 77 percent of the gain in individual-market coverage, for a net increase in private-market coverage of only 520,000 individuals during the period.

Comrade King,

You are very ignorant about the Irish health care system. It is not a universal single payer system. I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying, or it's just your sociopathic belief in religious statism.

America already has Medicaid and Medicare that covers a huge percentage of our population. Ireland's single payer system covers about 32% of theirs, the rest in on private insurance. Obamacare is designed to destroy the private insurance sector, not improve health care.

Here's the Wikipedia link, it's an easy read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

This has all been explained to King several times for a couple years now,he continues with the same health care lies ( as well as second amendment-Presidential powers ( and the lack of recognizing of the power of the Senate) parroted by many socialists.
When faced with overwhelming facts retreat and come back later with the same lies over and over again !

Canada has health care paid from taxes and private insurance as do most countries which declare universal care.

I have both. Private pays for extras like glasses, physiotherapy, dentistry, single or double hospital room etc depending on the policy.

Canada covers all citizens under single-payer from birth to the grave, showing a card entering hospitals, not even that at doctors' offices.

The problem here Dave, is that King and many other liberals operate on a faith based system when it comes to their views on many of the subjects that typically fall into the area of a left and right view point. Ken is onto something when he talks about statism in religious terms.

It is as useless expecting facts to change his mind as it would be for an avowed atheist throwing "facts" at a fundamentalist Jew/Christian/Muslim to expect that facts would sway their belief.

As Ken points out, any faith requires some suspension of disbelief....an ability to disregard what the modern world generally considers to be fact. King and others appear to do so on a regular basis on social issues, just as those who partake every Sunday in the body and blood of Christ do.

King, and many others, would likely have to alter his belief system before your facts could really have much impact.

You paint character with a broad brush, Dave. Your refusal to accept anything other than your perceptions doesn't make it a lie. Specifically, what lies have I told about the 2nd, presidential powers, not recognizing senate responsibilities. Produce your "overwhelming facts."

King,
I have backed up many of my posts over and over again with facts over the years and you have offered nothing but towing the liberal line full lies backed up by ??????? NOTHING !

King you going to be in for a rough time next couple months,you will see the loss of the Senate,a Lame duck "most corrupt" "most inept" buy all accounts "worst" President lose battles and many in his administration go to trial for IRS scandal as well others (Benghazi,Fast and Furious,Immigration...).

Stop regurgitating the same BS,in short we ain't buying it and its getting old.

King, and many others, would likely have to alter his belief system before your facts could really have much impact.

I suspect your right CB,for some reason I have this silly notion that when faced with overwhelming proof (failed economy,obamacare,massive corruption,middle east in flames,all of the other world leaders and even most of their own party running for reelection distancing themselves from obama ) of the massive failure of "hope and change" they would at least stop trying to sell the same old BS lines over and over again !

About the 2nd, I've noticed a 'wild west' theme. There's a tendency to blame the object, not the user, by equivocating how great the Canadian gun control laws work for Canadians.

Regarding presidential powers, I noticed a tendency to excuse the media from questioning policy due to left wing pc correctness exaggerated by race.

Senate responsibilities, maybe now comes a more typical statement. I do not believe you have ever questioned the senate, or THE specific legislative bottleneck under reid. But, 'do nothing' is regularly aimed at the R's on the house side of congress.

Hmmm, none of these things I've noticed are actually 'lies'. They seem to be opinion. If they aren't facts to support a point, they may be part ideological campaign. Maybe?, seems to have a common theme.

Fib? I've never voted lib, but recently you're a self described lib.

Opinions aren't facts, Dave.

Whatever Americans decide this year or later doesn't have a gnat's eyelash of influence on whether it's rough or smooth sailing for me.

I hope for something better for your country than continuation of dysfunctional governance that you want for the next two years.

Thwarting majority vote isn't citizenship to me. I'm not happy with our federal leadership but don't wish harm to policies approved by a majority.

I can wait for the next test of the government's performance.

Good post, Craig. I am a liberal. I have voted Conservative, the left-of-centre New Democratic Party and the Green Party whose leader is a personal friend. I have never voted for the Liberal Party of Canada.

I work closely as the eyes-and-ears of a former federal conservative leader and now justice minister but haven't voted for him lately. I help all politicians who ask for assistance as a citizen's duty in developing public policy.

Short snappers: I've said many times US media is timid, not excuse it. I don't comment on presidential powers, the Senate except generally. I have opinions but don't prevaricate, say what I know is not true.

Canadian gun control doesn't please everyone in our sporting fraternity but seems a reasonable accommodation of all the disparate interests. Laws represent the will of the people.

US gun control is a singularly divisive national issue.

Then why is it just a bit of timidness to not have concern over unilateral changes to laws and unilateral decisions on enforcement of some law. Or, can we define 'will' as an ever changing, evolving concept.

Maybe we shouldn't touch the 'lulling' of US citizens because it never bothered us Canadians.

There is concern everywhere over arbitrary decisions without legislature approval, in Canada currently where there is criticism of everything seemingly coming out of the Prime Minister's Office. A press release written by a granddaughter working for a federal minister in the Arctic has to be approved by the PMO! On your point of law-making, it's a continually evolving process. Many things I did years ago would get me thrown into jail now.

"Many things I did years ago would get me thrown into jail now."

now that sounds interesting...tell us more.

Words I used, mostly in appreciation of a well-turned ankle, not so much acts, Ed. I was a Baptist boy.

Ooh, another little one, I thought you were a neo-communist. See now, are you trying to stir up interest in your upcoming memoirs.

Speaking of books there's a good review floating around on another thread. From an insider, how can we tell when an ultimate unassailable truth comes out. Is it based on how it makes the reader feel, or the oohs and aahs from adoring media fans. Hmmm, how can we tell if it's a righteous book review or a timid one. What's a fellow to think, or maybe not supposed to think. This is confusing.

"Thwarting majority vote isn't citizenship to me"

Once again,as always King, you IGNORE that the "majority" voted for a DIVIDED government,not for the President to over step his powers ignoring the House Of Rep time and time again as the courts have shown.

Voters don't vote for divided government, Dave. They vote for candidates they prefer. Governance, however, is evolving to one-man governments whether voters want them or not i.e. US, UK, and Canada as I mentioned today under Worst President thread. So much for your "checks and balances." So much for the boo-hooing over presidential powers, inalienable rights. A big issue in Canada's next federal election will be powers of the Prime Minister's Office.

King,

voters did indeed vote for a divided government,they BY MAJORITY, the House of Representatives (and as well will see the Senate) they voted to insure the Executive branch-under Obama was kept in check.The Judicial Branch as shown many times most recently with his executive actions to have gone beyond those powers.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2...llegal-n1881725

President Obama's decision to exchange captive Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Guantanamo Bay detainees violated federal law, according to a legal opinion the Government Accountability Office sent to Congress Thursday. That's because the administration failed to notify Congress at least 30 days before the transfer, as required under a law passed in February.

You knowledge of the American Government,our Constitution-Bill of Rights is severely flawed King.

I think Dave's right. Didn't bo have the house and senate, a united government so to speak. Could it be that some prefer a divided government.

I haven't the foggiest idea what issues or how they will be presented on your next election, but careful what you wish for. You know, mob rule can mean a one vote 'victory'.

I always feel comfortable with a book acclaimed by a wide and distinguished range of reviewers, particularly if it draws from documented historical evidence easy to confirm as accurate if not "the unassailable truth."

The Once and Future King is as analytical as the NRA Guide to Firearms Assembly which is instructive of how things are made and work, and not to make you feel good and become the darling of the late-night shows.

Me a neo-communist? C'mon. I still feel like a Baptist boy with some of the rough edges knocked off. My existence parallels Stalin's heinous repression, no attraction for me.

Read the book or the reviews, Dave. What matters is how systems work, more than the texts of founding documents.No one in 1787 intended a popular democracy supporting an independent and powerful presidency.

The Once and Future King sets out the legislative shenanigans by which presidents of all parties added to their powers "unchecked either by a supine Congress or an electorate believing its own libertarian political rhetoric."

Those separation of powers, Dave, were supposed to resist the president's authority. "Instead they have served to shield him from congressional oversight,"according to Buckley. Obama is only the latest user.

US citizens pride themselves not on constitutionalism but on "strong presidential governance," resulting in the US having "a greater tolerance for corruption than most other first-world countries."

Your opinions notwithstanding, an authoritative consensus from both sides of the ocean agrees.

Facts are Facts King, and YOU (or Obama) can't change them
Obama and you might think he has some sort of Imperial Power, he does NOT and the courts, and electorate this fall, are going to show him.This just the beginning of the end for "hope and change".

"To ensure a separation of powers, the U.S. Federal Government is made up of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. To ensure the government is effective and citizens’ rights are protected, each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, including working with the other branches.

The House ( and soon the Senate),the "Peoples House" were America voted-overwhelmingly BTW,to restrict the Imperial President.Lame Duck Obama might just make till the end of his term without stepping down/impeachment and golf even more,but many in his cabinet will not.


Among other powers, the legislative branch makes all laws, declares war, regulates interstate and foreign commerce and controls taxing and spending policies

Here some reading for you King:

http://www.house.gov/content/learn/legislative_process/


“All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

(Article I, Section 1, of the United States Constitution)

king: in addition to our love for nova scotia, we have two more things in common. i too was a babtist boy for a while. and i still enjoy the sight of a well turned ankle.

Like Mr. Carter, we lusted in our hearts.

The Once and Future King documents a flawed constitution, Dave. Author Buckley's expertise is recent US legislation, its passage, implementation and avoidance. The analysis will be familiar to you, tracking successive actual US constitutions since the colonial era, from Crown government, through Congressional government after 1787, through the separation of powers which fostered a presidency the Founders didn't intend. Defeating Obama won't change anything without a change in the regulatory state. The real changes came from within with the rise of the regulatory state.

Finally, the Burger King has stopped, at least this one time, claiming that he never voted Liberal, but adding the qualification that he has voted for Liberals who go by another name. Not many true Conservatives could stomach the Republican John McCain who has sided with the left on so many issues such as amnesty for illegals and gun control. King will always vote for the Liberal Socialist candidate... no matter what name they hide behind.

On the issue of Gun Control being a reasonable compromise in Canada, and one which is not divisive, I would remind our Liar that it was recently very divisive as anti-Gun forces clashed with an organized front of Gun Owners who successfully fought to repeal the Long Gun Registry. King could be excused for forgetting that minor detail because King has never done anything to help the cause of Firearms Freedom in Canada. He chooses to instead spend his time here trying to LULL U.S. Gun Owners into a complacent attitude which will allow the anti-gunners to encroach upon our rights and Constitution.

What a fraud!

king: my lust was focused quite a bit lower than my heart...

"A flawed Constitution"

Nice try,liberals/socialists are ALWAYS trying to change it but have failed at ever turn.


The end of the Imperial Presidency is upon us
From this




To This

Man I sure hope you guys are right about your foregone conclusion of a Republican takeover of the Senate. Here in GA we have a political newcomer, ex-CEO of a retail chain, cousin of our last not so squeaky clean governor as our GOP candidate. He's facing another political newcomer, the daughter of legendary former GA Senator Sam Nunn. She's spent her adult life running Jimmy Carter's foundation.

Polls are 50/50 and I think she may get the nod based on the family connection. I had thought that at GA was safe GOP territory. Not so sure...Geo

Two words: LAME DUCK

These words have been part of our lexicon for many years, and for good reason. Contrary to what the Burger King is trying to submit as factual here, we do indeed have the tripartate government that the Framers of the Constitution intended. There is a very good reason why each state has 2 Senators, but the number of Congressmen is based upon population. There is also a very good reason Presidents wish to nominate and confirm Federal and Supreme Court Justices who share their idealogy. True, it has at times been perverted, now more than ever before, but the Legislative and Judicial branches have a long history of halting or reversing Presidential misadventures. It's also the major reason that Obama has spent so much time fundraising, and the Democrats are pulling out all the stops to try to maintain a Senate majority. There would be no need if there was a grain of truth in what King is trying to tell us. King is only a prevaricator on days which end in Y.

The use of Executive Orders is nothing new. What is new is Obama's intentional sidestepping of Congress with no regard for dissent or debate. Libtards are fond of reminding us that Obama still does not hold the record for sheer numbers of Executive Orders, but they neglect to tell you that the content is far more important than sheer numbers. Obama has creatively abused the pen to circumvent in extreme areas where he would have zero chance of legislative approval.

I'd like to see proof from the Burger King that the Framers never intended to form a Tripartate Government. Don't hold your breath. What he has given us is opinion from a Liberal author. King Brown has been actively advancing the Liberal Left notion that our Constitution is a living document and that it says things that aren't there. I believe his intent is just more LULLING. This time it's about the entire document rather than just the Second Amendment. Hey fellas, it's a quasi-monarchy anyway, so why fight it? Go with the flow, because this use of the pen has been going on for decades. "Obama is only the latest user" sayeth the Great LULLER King Brown. "Defeating Obama won't change anything without a change in the regulatory state." But King forgets to tell you that it has been the Liberal Left Democrats which have been the biggest abusers of the regulatory state, i.e. using agencies like the EPA to kill the Coal Industry, attempting to ban lead ammunition, trying to make firearms prohibitively expensive through extremely costly safety regulations, smart guns, microstamping, etc., etc. Read the Book, he says. Read the rave reviews. This is typical "Big Lie" technique.

King is not here to help us. Nor is he here to simply discuss issues. King is all about advancing the Liberal Left agenda, and that agenda includes the incessant attempts by Liberal Democrats to impose restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights. King is not our friend.