I didn't know were to post this

[hobbes4star 0]

I'm not a democrat, but I thought it was funny anyway.

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today
===================================================

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him; a good guy when Cheney did business with him; and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but
providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

You support states' rights, but the Attorney General can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

if fun were easy it wouldn't be worth having, right?

[narcimund 0]

Don't forget to add:

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include prohibiting private activities in the home in the name of interstate commerce.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Don't forget to add:

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include prohibiting private activities in the home in the name of interstate commerce.

Actually, you've got that wrong. Liberals believe "Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include prohibiting private activities in the home in the name of interstate commerce."

Repubs believe, "Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include prohibiting private activities in the home in the name of national security, pursuant to the inherent powers of the Presidency."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Actually, you've got that wrong. Liberals believe

One can hardly call Scalia a liberal:

Quote

From an early time in our national history, the Federal Government has used its enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce, for the purpose of protecting public morality—for example, by banning the interstate shipment of lottery tickets, or the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes. ... Unless we are to repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence, using the federal commerce power to prevent assisted suicide is unquestionably permissible.

(Gonzales vs. Oregon, 2006)

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

The Liberal side of the comedy lineup:
***
1) You believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand - In short: you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

3) You have to believe that the same overpaid public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid villians.

5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

6) You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

8) You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty-faced activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ digital channels can't deliver the programming quality PBS does.

14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinman are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Alva Edison.

17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but no way that black people could make it without your help.

20) You have to believe that the only reason democratic socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

21) You have to believe that this document is part of a vast right wing conspiracy.
***

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

And the libertarian side...
***
If you think 99 percent of politicians give the rest of them a bad name, you might be a Libertarian.

If you think taxes are ridiculously high, you might be a Libertarian.

If you think that the problem with civil servants is that too many of them are neither civil nor servants, you might be a Libertarian.

If someone asks you to take a urine test and you feel like telling them you'll give them a taste test, you might be a Libertarian.

If you think that there are way too many laws about way too many things, you might be a Libertarian.

If you believe in the Bill of Rights, you might be a Libertarian.

If you believe that no one should go to jail for smoking flowers, you might be a Libertarian.

If you believe that just about everything should be bought and sold on an open market except politicians, you might be a Libertarian.

If you your glad you don’t get all the government you pay for, you might be a Libertarian.

If you think the US Constitution is the only contract with America you need, you might be a Libertarian.

If you think the only gun permit you need is the Second Amendment, you might be a Libertarian.

If the only way you can tell a left winger from a right winger is by which one of their hands is in which one of your pockets, you might be a Libertarian.

If you think the left is too left and the right is just plain wrong, you might be a Libertarian.

If you think polluters should pay for the environmental damage they cause, you might be a Libertarian.
***

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

2) You have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand - In short: you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but pasty-faced activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

14) You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

19) You have to believe that conservatives are racists but no way that black people could make it without your help.

Quote

I agree with everything on that list but the ones in BOLD really, really piss me off to no end.

• Quote

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

The Liberal side of the comedy lineup:

Those statements were about as funny as "The sun rises in the morning" or, "The sky is blue".

. . =(_8^(1)

[Elisha 1]

Quote

Quote

The Liberal side of the comedy lineup:

Those statements were about as funny as "The sun rises in the morning" or, "The sky is blue".

You mean you really believe that AIDS is spread because of a lack of funding?

[lawrocket 3]

Back a couple of months ago, I wrote about how the commerce clause jurisprudence could be used in a way contrary to progressive ideals. It's nice to see that you've caught on, too.

By the way, take a look at Thomas's dissent in that case. I'll quote from part of it:

""While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merely the inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence. See, e.g., Raich, supra; Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001).

I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. [cites removed(noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies)]. But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' " 'traditional ... powers ... to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.' "[cite removed]. The Court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich--albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation--is perplexing to say the least. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent."

Tell me, is Thomas a liberal?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Back a couple of months ago, I wrote about how the commerce clause jurisprudence could be used in a way contrary to progressive ideals. It's nice to see that you've caught on, too.

By the way, take a look at Thomas's dissent in that case. I'll quote from part of it:

""While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merely the inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence. See, e.g., Raich, supra; Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001).

I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. [cites removed(noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies)]. But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' " 'traditional ... powers ... to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.' "[cite removed]. The Court's reliance upon the constitutional principles that it rejected in Raich--albeit under the guise of statutory interpretation--is perplexing to say the least. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent."

Tell me, is Thomas a liberal?

FUCK NO! he stands for the LAW and the LAW is derived through the US Constitution and the People.

The funny thing is people think it's crazy that he respects that "Piece of Paper"

The more pissed off I get the more I want to become Lawyer

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The funny thing is people think it's crazy that he respects that "Piece of Paper"

I guess this should be my opportunity to expound a bit more on my thoughts with this. First, Scalia has sold out somewhat. I cannot reasonably say that Scalia does not decide cases from the top down, on occasion.

However, there is that steady resistance to the "strict constructionist" by "mainstream" groups and individuals. Since the Alito and Roberts hearings, I have actually been feeling much, much better about the the state of "strict constructionists" and the prospects that their future is bright.

If you'll recall those hearings, those Dems in the Senate questioned Alito and Roberts about their "hearts," i.e., did their kids play with minorities, what work have they done for those without a life of privilege, etc. Like it or not, the questioned showed that the Dems in the Senate look for a nominee who plays favorites and makes up the law to support those favorites.

Roberts and Alito's response seemed to be, "I don't care if the hitter is a minority, I don't care if the pitcher is a corporation. I'm the umpire, and I call balls and strikes. The Constitution tells us what is a ball and what is a strike, and as much as I'd like to see the hitter get on base, a strike is a strike. I don't pick up a bat. I don't pitch."

Now, those responses about being a neutral arbiter had a great effect. It turns out that it's a easy theory to keep. It's self-justifying. It has no exception. It's a ball or a strike. Or it's a hit. Or a balk. Or a hit by pitch. Or the infield fly rule.

In hindsight, it also provided quite clear evidence that the "living, breathing Constitution" theory is withering on the vine. The ideal for a jurist who rules from matters of the heart and who will pick up the balance in favor of the little guy is being shown for what it is - a theory that means rules are meaningless.

The Senate hearings showed this to a tee!
Q: "What about the little man?"
A: "I don't consider it."
Q: "So you favor corporations?"
A: "I don't consider that, either."
Q: "Would you favor minorities?"
A: "No."
Q: "So you are not in favor of minorities?"
Etc.

The judges, not politicians, should be responsible for societal change. "Political questions," which have been determined to be a reason why a federal court would not touch a case, are supposed to be the court's primary motivation. Why does a conservative justice scare so many? Because they think the conservative judge will act like the activist judge and reach the wrong conclusion.

Why is strict constructionism (also called "originalism") looking stronger and stronger? I have to believe it's because the people and the legal profession, as well as politicians, are understanding that anything other than strict construction is "arbitrarism," to coin a word. I call is arbitrary because it is to make decisions based upon whim or impulse, and not upon reason or unifying principle (the Constitution and case law are the unifying principle - anything else is mere appurtenance.) It is arbitrary, in a society of laws and not of people, to formulate decisions based on preconceived notions about the parties. But that's what the Senators apparently want.

The Senators and wonks cannot even hide the ridiculousness anymore. The Alito and Roberts hearings were, without a doubt, a highly public display of the vast distances between the intellectual honesty of the originalist thought versus, well, the other way of thinking. Those in opposition to Roberts and especially Alito were showing their true colors, either because either: 1) there is no longer any way to hide their belief that judges should decide on feelings instead of thought; or 2) they believed that society has gotten to the point where their beliefs would be celebrated instead of well-defensed.

But it also showed a problem - there simply is no agreement among the non-originalists on ideology of interpretation. The questions were all over the place on topics of each Senator's particular priorities of feel-good-ism.

Thus, there is no unifying doctrine. There is no consensus. It seems that this is logical - everybody has different feelings, different priorities and different ideas of fairness and justice. While all agree that these should be used in interpretation, obviously there will be infighting as the different priorities and feelings clash with each other. They can't devote any time to fighting the originalists because they're too busy fighting with each other.

But judges, like parents, sometimes have to do things that they do not like. Sometimes they even have to do things they find personally abhorrent, i.e., taking down the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. But it's in their job descriptions.

It'll be interesting to see how this works out in the future. I really was unaware at how fragmented the non-originalists were, and after the shock and awe wore off at the total victory of the originalists' defense, I have thought about it more at how it happened.

Simplicity works well. And intellectual honesty works better. Originalists have built-in reasonable justifications for their decisions, and the non-orignialists have built-in doubt.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

The Roberts and Alito hearings were nothing more than a perfect opportunity for the worst politicians in the country to grandstand,and pander to their extremist constituents...and the peoples will wasn't being done

I could not believe anyone could watch the usual offenders go on and on about their own twisted agendas, instead of insisting that their elected officials focus on whether or not the US Constitution would receive the respect it deserves, and be applied to the letter.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The judges, not politicians, should be responsible for societal change.

Just to clarify, I meant to write, "Those sentators believe that the judges, not politicians, should be responsible for societal change."

My wife is hotter than your wife.