Observations: (Not quite a rant)

[amicus]

I am not a fan of 'Hardball' or Chris Mathews. He is rude and slobbers when he gets excited. However, earlier tonight, in mentioning by name a group of left wing democrats that he predicted would vote against the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, Mathews said, "Round up the usual suspects..."

I had to chuckle; do you think Mathews reads the Lit author's forum?

I stole that unabashadly from Bumphrey Hogart and Casablanca, I think the lil French guy said it, or maybe Sidney Greenstreet, dunno.

Anyways...that was just an aside...throughout the cables news channels for the past few days, I have listened to and watched discussions on Roe v Wade, Affirmative action, school desegregation, Brown ruling on Civil Rights, Gay Marriage, even a discussion on whether homosexuality was real or imagined.

A discussion on birth certificates for gay couple who adopt, on the privatization of Social Security, on Title nine funds for women athletes at public facilities.

Every time I have broached any of those subjects, 'the usual suspects' jump in with both feet stomping, nasty tongues a workin' and the pejoratives fly fast and thick.

Item in the news about a major organized labor shake up, with the AFL-CIO loosing tens of thousands of members and Union representation at its lowest point in half a century. Unions actually called, 'dinosaurs' from out of the past.

To conclude, that vast social change imposed by the left since the time of FDR, is coming to an end. I felt as though I had written the script for those young newscasters half my age.

Even Hillary admitted on camera, the democrats have lost their way, she suggests getting closer to God, imagine that...

Ah, well, wasn't gonna write that...decided to watch a new television series premiering on FX tonight. "Over There" About a platoon, or a squad of men in Iraq.

I found it disappointing, a clever and not so subtle indictment of the 'leaders' in the military, an anti Vietnam era distrust of politics, a folk songish protest against war, all war at all time and a really sappy cast of whom no one stood out at all.

Produced by Stephen Bochco, it airs on FX channel, Wednesdays at 10pm Eastern.

Back to editing and revising....


amicus...

 

[Guest]

I will never forgive you.

 

[McKenna]

I will never forgive you.

 

[amicus]

Oh, I forgot a couple more things being bandied about on the cable news channels...as Democrats are searching for a way to keep military funding alive in their campaign promises....as in the war years, the defense budget was about 60 percent of expenditures and is now very much lower, with 'entitlement' programs now consuming the bulk of taxation.

They also mentioned that in 1950 Federal taxes took an average of 2 percent of income and now it consumes an average of 27 percent.

They tied that to women working in a marriage and indicated that the entire amount of the wife's income went to pay taxes...


anyway...

 

[elsol]

To conclude, that vast social change imposed by the left since the time of FDR, is coming to an end.

I'm not sitting at the back of the bus.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[amicus]

No need, but you do need to getta job.

"Why is everybody always pickin' on me?" Get a job.

 

[Guest]

Loser.

 

[Pure]

"observations?"

no, i'd say 'dreams.'

amicus has his buttons pushed on all Rove's favorites from abortion to gay marriage and 'imagines' a less intrusive and powerful federal gov. he ignores the unparalled concentration in the executive, which has included the ability, without censure, to 'out' US own CIA agents, imprison American citizens without charges or timely trial.

amicus will be cheering the limiting of 'Roe' and celebrating freedom from the tyrannical fed when they are locking him up without charges.

all this, based on the misbegotten idea that since privacy, including of one's body isn't mentioned in the BR its loss is an advance of freedom. On the other hand, hearing charges, seeing evidence against one, having a lawyer, having a speedy trial, protection against unlawful searches and seizures--ALL of which are mentioned, and disappearing--- hardly concern Ami at all. (compare lines of ami on gays and women to his posted lines on 'due process' and 'fair trial.')

i might add that a right (of a civilian) to a civilian trial in a regular court (as opposed to a 'special tribunal') is also disappearing--thanks in part to decisions of Roberts, the new SC nominee. to which one might add the a 'parallel' prison system is being established beyond the reach of courts.

nor the loss of Congress' necessity to declare war, as spoken of in the Constitution, or Congress ability to finance and manage it. it's execution decision and no cost projections are given to those constitutionally mandated to raise the necessary revenue to fight a war.
Congress is reduced to writing 'blank checks' for the Commander's plans already in place.

ami will celebrate a federal ban on 'gay marriage' and not give one shit if 'checks and balances', a basic feature of the constitution, have disappeared in favor of a tyrannically empowered 'Commander in Chief'.
One entitled to call the US domestic soil the 'battlefield', over which the Commander has unrestricted powers regarding detention, trial, etc.

 

[Guest]

Ami needs to get laid.

I doubt he's had a good one since 1950.

Once women were free to express their opinions, find jobs, have orgasms, it fucked with his tidy little perception of reality. And he cannot find his way in the world today.

I actually understand that, to a point. I refuse to listen to the pop music my kids love, preferring instead that which I loved in high school and college. (That music is rapidly becoming known as "classic rock.")

And some of the music today is fine. I recognize this, honestly, but I still refuse to make that change. It takes a great deal of work to adjust to something new, and I'm really quite happy with my classic rock.

But I don't denegrate my children for their choices.

And I don't ridicule the music industry as a whole just because I won't adapt to the changes myself.

And I don't blame all the ills of the world (i.e. dumbing down of musicianship) on the new pop music.

That would be moronic.

 

[Sunnie]

And I don't blame all the ills of the world (i.e. dumbing down of musicianship) on the new pop music.

Psh. I do.

()

 

[Guest]

Psh. I do.

()

Hey - don't get me started on boy bands!

 

[Sunnie]

Hey - don't get me started on boy bands!

Tell you what -- you start on boy bands, and I'll start on Britney Spears.

 

[Guest]

Tell you what -- you start on boy bands, and I'll start on Britney Spears.

I'm not going to even touch that one, baby.

 

[Sunnie]

I'm not going to even touch that one, baby.

I got somethin' you can touch.

 

[Guest]

I got somethin' you can touch.

Shhh.

Others are listening.

 

[Liar]

Hey - don't get me started on boy bands!

Meh. There has been boy bands since the 60's.



Are we off topic yet?

 

[Op_Cit]

To conclude, that vast social change imposed by the left since the time of FDR, is coming to an end. I felt as though I had written the script for those young newscasters half my age.

Exactly how has government shrunk since 1945?

How are we more free now than then?

Let's focus it a bit more: how are we more free since 2000?

The vast social change that began before FDR, but was massively accelerated by him, is that of government into every aspect of the individual's life. What has GW done to roll this back?

Where's the time table the Repulicans have put forth to eliminate the withholding tax?

Where's the elimination of the income and all other federal taxes on individuals (and no, I'm not talking about that insane, disasterous, oxymoronic proposal for a "fair" tax)?

Where is the timetable for the elimination of the departments of education, homeland security, etc.? (wtf do we need any fed. departments for anyway?)

When will I be ever be free again to travel unmolested around the country?

When will I (ever again), minding my own business, be able to say, "have a nice day" and move on when a cop asks me for ID?

When will I ever be allowed my natural rights?

But then again, when was I ever allowed my natural rights?

 

[Pure]

roberts

http://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf

Free Speech

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) Roberts, then Deputy Solicitor General, co-authored the government’s brief in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), contending that the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which criminalized flag burning, was constitutional.
[the argument is that speech or even 'expression' was still free--the law simply deprived the person of the right to use the flag as a prop]

[despite]

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court majority, including Justice Scalia, disagreed, holding that the [flag burning] law [being considered in this case] violated the First Amendment. As the Court explained in striking down the law, “[p]unishing desecration of the flag
dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering.” 496 U.S. at 319.
----------

[[5Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Lee v. Weisman, 1990 U.S. Briefs 1014 (1991), at 4 (LEXIS pagination). 6Brief for the United States, United States v. Eichman, 1989 U.S. Briefs 1433 (1990), at 9 (LEXIS pagination). ]]

=====
Hey, wouldn't it be funny if the religious folks re-criminalize blasphemous speech, under the new Supreme Court, and amicus--never quite aware of who he's in bed with--as an atheist, feels moved to defend such laws? (as consistent with the mental set of the framers).

There are already moves to expand prayer in schools; something one doesn't hear about from amicus, the atheist, since he wants to post a trollish rant about FDR and old age pensions in effect in all advanced Western democracies.

 

[amicus]

Sweetsubsarah...Op Cit


Op Cit is not a disguise for Amicus as someone had the audacity to suggest not too long ago. That came about when Op Cit had the temerity to partially agree with a post of mine.

As you can see by his latest, he has been properly chastized and brought in line by the usual suspects.

Not that it matters, but throughout most of human history, only white male property owners had influence in matters of high import.

Let that sink in.

With a few exceptions, the history of the world has been made and recorded by men. Like it or not.

Having known women all my rather long life, I can get a glimpse of why the fair sex was kept under restraint for most of history and still are, in much of the world, even now.

I have also lived and worked, side by side with several ethnic minorities, including Asian, Hispanic and Black.

I can also understand why the 'white men in control' were loathe to share that power with others. It took a civil war to bring it about in one case and long years following Mexican conflict and the Chinese labor that helped build the railroads in America.

A long history of things that neither you nor I had any part of.

In excellent hindsight, many look back and criticize, assuming, I surmise, that had you and I been there, we would have changed things quicker and better.

I doubt we would have suceeded.

Going to try to segue the above into Op Cit's comments about the failure of the Republicans to reduce the size and influence of the Federal government over the years.

Minority groups participating in democratic government see officialdom as a 'bread basket', as a horn of cornucopia, just there for the taking.

As such, for the past seventy five years, the Constitution has been basically ignored and laws enacted that tended to legislate equality to minorities of all sorts. Most view that as a good and humane thing.

I do not.

Some restrictions were placed on government growth during the Reagan years and the political philosophy of his era was one that following the Goldwater lead in the 60's. Too little too late.

Of course, Op Cit, you know the Congressional majorities held by the Democrats over those years since the FDR era. You also suspect, I am sure, the difficulty of reforming or abolishing a Federal program once in has been in place for a length of time.

If I hoped and prayed, which I do not, I would hope and pray for another twenty years of Republican Presidents and Congressional majorities. Given that length of time, it might be possible to slow the leftward, socialist trend of the nation.

There might be time to abolish those 'entitlement' programs and the huge Federal programs you speak of.

The thing I would like to see most would be a drastic reduction in taxation and property tax so that a single breadwinner could support a family while the other devoted a life to raising a family.

Beaurocrats are not stupid, they see the increased revenue from men and women both being required to work to support a family. Gives them more of your money to play with.

This is not a new observation, but it must be disheartening for a family to realize that the entire effort of one partner goes to pay Federal taxes.

That's right, at the end of the year, adding it up and sorting it out, the entire income of one, barely suffices to cover the tax burden. Does that really make sense to anyone?



Amicus...

 

[Sunnie]

Shhh.

Others are listening.

hehehe.

 

[gauchecritic]

That's right, at the end of the year, adding it up and sorting it out, the entire income of one, barely suffices to cover the tax burden. Does that really make sense to anyone?

Amicus...

Is this a serious question? I mean really. Do you really want the local ideological communist to trot out the relevant parts of the manifesto?

Would you listen?

 

[elsol]

Is this a serious question? I mean really. Do you really want the local ideological communist to trot out the relevant parts of the manifesto?

Would you listen?

Uh... they MAKE you listen.

Doesn't the thought of all those little atheist who are getting INTO bed with the 'religious conservatives' because of common goals get you all sorts of excited.

It's like when feminists and gays protest an artist for being mysoginistic and strive to get the media company or government to do something... You just know the conservatives are just nodding/smiling and all the time they're thinking 'And once we're done with them..."

It's sort of like a woman saying 'I'll let you fuck my friend up the ass, as long as later I get to fuck YOU up the ass.'

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[amicus]

Originally Posted by amicus
That's right, at the end of the year, adding it up and sorting it out, the entire income of one, barely suffices to cover the tax burden. Does that really make sense to anyone?

Amicus...




Originally Posted by gauchecritic
"...Is this a serious question? I mean really. Do you really want the local ideological communist to trot out the relevant parts of the manifesto?

Would you listen?..."



Have at it Gauche, I think everyone would like to read your justification.

 

[Pure]

Things to look forward to, under the Republicans

#1 more prayers in the schools.

amicus, declared atheist and lover of liberty, self said, support those with agendas like the following, argued by Roberts and rejected by the S.C. regarding prayers at a h.s. graduation. Roberts had no problem with it, since, at the US founding, some state legislatures opened with a prayer.

from the website previously cited

In 1991, as Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts co-authored
an amicus curiae brief filed by the United States in the case of
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), in which he urged the Court
to rule that it was constitutional for a public school to sponsor
prayer at its graduation ceremonies.

While Roberts’s brief
acknowledged that coerced participation in a religious ceremony
was improper, the brief claimed that no such coercion was present
here, since students were free not to attend their graduations:
“A voluntary decision not to witness a civic acknowledgment of
religion . . . cannot be considered a response to coercion.”4


In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court
rejected Roberts’s argument, holding that public schools may not
sponsor prayer at graduation ceremonies. The Court specifically
noted the coercive nature of the event. While recognizing that
students may not formally be required to attend their own
graduation ceremonies, the Court likewise recognized that the
importance of this event means that attendance is not “voluntary”
in “any real sense of the term.” 505 U.S. at 595.

The Court
stated that the government’s argument to the contrary “lacks all
persuasion,” noting that the “[l]aw reaches past formalism.” Id.
And the Court specifically criticized the government’s argument
for its erroneous First Amendment analysis:


The Government’s argument gives insufficient recognition to
the real conflict of conscience faced by the young student.
The essence of the Government’s position is that with
regard to a civic, social occasion of this importance it is
the objector, not the majority, who must take unilateral
and private action to avoid compromising religious
scruples, hereby electing to miss the graduation exercise.
This turns conventional First Amendment analysis on its

[[3 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting
Petitioners, Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 1990 U.S.
Briefs 985 (1991), at 3 (LEXIS pagination).
4 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting
Petitioners, Lee v. Weisman, 1990 U.S. Briefs 1014 (1991), at 11
(LEXIS pagination).]]

4
head. It is a tenet of the First Amendment that the State
cannot require one of its citizens to forfeit his or her
rights and benefits as the price of resisting conformance
to a state-sponsored religious practice.
505 U.S. at 596 (emphasis added).


The government was not a party to this case and need not
have filed a brief. Had the position advocated by Roberts been
accepted, students in public schools could have been subjected to
religious coercion as the price of attending their own graduation
ceremonies.


In addition, Roberts’s brief urged the Court to jettison
the “Lemon test” that the Court has employed to determine the
constitutionality of challenged laws and practices under the
Establishment Clause in favor of “the more general principle
implicit in the traditions relied upon in Marsh and explicit in
the history of the Establishment Clause.”5

In Marsh v. Chambers,
463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the practice of a
state legislature of beginning its sessions with non-sectarian
prayer, noting that the practice existed when the Constitution
was ratified. Marsh is a unique case that has never been applied
by the Court outside its factual setting and certainly not in the
public school context. Roberts’s argument that the Court should
adopt Marsh as a general Establishment Clause rule was not only
radical, but it also went far beyond the case at hand.

 

[amicus]

Pure said, in part: "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if the religious folks re-criminalize blasphemous speech, under the new Supreme Court, and amicus--never quite aware of who he's in bed with--as an atheist, feels moved to defend such laws? (as consistent with the mental set of the framers).

There are already moves to expand prayer in schools; something one doesn't hear about from amicus, the atheist, since he wants to post a trollish rant about FDR and old age pensions in effect in all advanced Western democracies..."

Everything you disagree with, Pure, you describe as a 'trollish rant', sighs, grow up, get a life, there are others who hold opinions different than yours.

The real answer is to abolish public schools, but it would take a revolution to do that.

I do not support flag burning laws, burn the damned thing, it is a piece of cloth, even though a symbol.

And although I object to the use of religious objects and sayings in any public building, god the creator is indeed a part of american history and I suppose we must leave the peons something.

Your continual haranging about the Supreme Court continues to illustrate that you do not understand the issue. Congress makes law, the Court weighs the constitutionality of such laws.

People have had enough of 'activist' judges, that is the issue.

amicus...