Ohhhh...the constitution is the problem...

[billc]

This is the problem with 4 more years of obama, he may get to appoint several justices to the supreme court. If you want to move to a society where race isn't the issue, 24/7 days a week and 365 days a year, you might not want to vote for obama next time around...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...Theory Constitution Elena Kagan Harvard Obama

In November 1985, the Harvard Law Review published an article by Derrick Bell that was a "classic" in the development of Critical Race Theory. The article was edited by then-student Elena Kagan, and was cited by Prof. Charles Ogletree in support of her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2010. The article makes clear that Critical Race Theory sees the U.S. Constitution as a form of "original sin"--a view later embraced by Obama as a state legislator, and reflected in his actions and appointments. The following is an excerpt from the non-fiction portion of the article; much of what follows is a fictional story that Bell intended as a parable of racial "fantasy." (99 Harv. L. Rev. 4)

At the nation's beginning, the framers saw more clearly than is perhaps possible in our more enlightened and infinitely more complex time the essential need to accept what has become the American contradiction. The framers made a conscious, though unspoken, sacrifice of the rights of some in the belief that this forfeiture was necessary to secure the rights of others in a society embracing, as its fundamental principle, the equality of all. And thus the framers, while speaking through the Constitution in an unequivocal voice, at once promised freedom for whites and condemned blacks to slavery....
The Constitution has survived for two centuries and, despite earnest efforts by committed people, the contradiction remains, shielded and nurtured through the years by myth. This contradiction is the root reason for the inability of black people to gain legitimacy -- that is, why they are unable to be taken seriously when they are serious and why they retain a subordinate status as a group that even impressive proofs of individual competence cannot overcome. Contradiction, shrouded by myth, remains a significant factor in blacks' failure to obtain meaningful relief against historic racial injustice.
​

Obama is stuck in the past and can't get beyond it. If we want to really deal with race as an issue we need to start looking to the generations coming up that aren't steeped in the victim hood that occurred in the past. Do we have problems now...of course, but are they the same as they were in the past, hardly. However, obama still thinks they are. That is one of the problems we will have with more appointments made by him. He will be cementing in the modern court the beliefs of the past.

A look at critical race theory...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/11/What Is Critical Race Theory

CRT was an intellectual development in the late 1970s and early 1980s in which some scholars, perturbed by what they perceived as a loss of momentum in the movement for racial equality, began to doubt that the constitutional and legal system itself had the capacity for change.


This criticism mirrored a Marxist attack long voiced in academia: that the Constitution had been a capitalist document incapable of allowing for the redistributionist change necessary to create a more equal world. To create a more equal world, the Constitution and the legal system would have to be endlessly criticized – hence critical theory – and torn down from within.
The Marxist criticism of the system was called critical theory; the racial criticism of the system was therefore called Critical Race Theory.


So, what does CRT believe? In their primer, Critical Race Theory, Richard Delgado (one of the movement’s founders) and Jean Stefancic set out some basic principles:

1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational”;
2. “Our system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both psychic and material.”
​

When taken together, these principles have serious ramifications. First, they suggest that legal rules that stand for equal treatment under law – i.e. the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment – can remedy “only the most blatant forms of discrimination.” The system is too corrupted, too based on the notion of white supremacy, for equal protection of the laws to ever be a reality. The system must be made unequal in order to compensate for the innate racism of the white majority.


Second, these principles suggest that even measures taken to alleviate unequal protection under the law – for example, the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education – were actually taken for nefarious purposes, to serve white interests. This is exactly what Derrick Bell believed: he said that Brown had only been decided in order to prevent the Soviet Union from using American racial inequality as a public relations baton to wield

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If the GOP had not put up a bunch of criminals, liars, and congenitally-insane buttheads as candidates this time around, maybe we would not be facing the specter of another four years of Obama's abuse of the Constitution. Nice job, GOP.

 

[granfire]

Hey, be fair!
That other guy did not exactly uphold it either....

Seriously!
Oh, right... Twin Fist suggested that elections have consequences....

:lfao:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hey, be fair!
That other guy did not exactly uphold it either....

You are correct; but he's not running. Each president since Reagan has added to the power and authority of the presidency; each time, it has been with the cooperation of Congress. Rule by fiat is much closer now than it was when Eisenhower left office, and US citizens are so blind, so stupid, and so apathetic that they only see the abuses when they directly affect them; they obstinately refuse to see other abuses, or worse, they like it.

We get the government we deserve. Good and hard.

I'm about tired of the entire thing. We're sliding into dictatorship, and we are just a bunch of lemmings following each other over the cliff. You're tired of being free, Americans? Fine, screw you. Good luck in hell. And I mean Democrats and Republicans; there's not a nickel's worth of difference between them, and the majority of career politicians are as crooked as the day is long.

 

[elder999]

You are correct; but he's not running. Each president since Teddy Roosevelt has added to the power and authority of the presidency; each time, it has been with the cooperation of Congress. Rule by fiat is much closer now than it was when Eisenhower left office, and US citizens are so blind, so stupid, and so apathetic that they only see the abuses when they directly affect them; they obstinately refuse to see other abuses, or worse, they like it.

We get the government we deserve. Good and hard.

There, I "fixed" that for you.....:lol:

 

[ballen0351]

If the GOP had not put up a bunch of criminals, liars, and congenitally-insane buttheads as candidates this time around, maybe we would not be facing the specter of another four years of Obama's abuse of the Constitution. Nice job, GOP.

So who would you like to have seen run?

 

[Makalakumu]

So who would you like to have seen run?

As much as the presstitutes demonize him, Ron Paul is probably our best shot at hitting the brakes on the loss of our liberty. Why not support him?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So who would you like to have seen run?

Maybe Bobby Jindahl. I don't agree with his entire platform, but he also doesn't strike me as a penis in a human suit.

In an ideal world, Gary Johnson would not have had to leave the GOP to run for president; I like his platform quite a bit actually, even though he's very different from Jindal.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As much as the presstitutes demonize him, Ron Paul is probably our best shot at hitting the brakes on the loss of our liberty. Why not support him?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

The problem is that he's insane. Also, none of what he wants will ever happen, so he'd be utterly hogtied. I don't disagree with some of his policies, but he's a nutball, basically off his rocker. I was actually planning to support him until I began to realize how nuts he is.

 

[ballen0351]

As much as the presstitutes demonize him, Ron Paul is probably our best shot at hitting the brakes on the loss of our liberty. Why not support him?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

I dont agree with his drug policy and his total isolationism
I think we do get way to involved in places we dont need to be but i also know there are times just in the name of humanity we need to step in and help. But when we do we need clear defined goal. For example say this kony guy. Hes a pretty bad dude and if its decided we need to get him then we send in full force no holds bared grab him and then leave. No staying and settig up new govts or providing security for years. No setting up bases get in do the mission and go home.

I also have concerns about what would happen if we just said ok back on gold standards what would happen to my money i have saved and i have invested. What would happen to my paycheck.

 

[elder999]

John Huntsman. Gary Johnson.

Ideologically,George Pataki, but I think he's as dumb as a box of tire-chains.

 

[Makalakumu]

What is so crazy about Ron Paul? I don't understand why people think he's crazy. He saying that isn't Libertarian Party line...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[billc]

He doesn't think there is a difference between Russia having nuclear weapons and the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon. That is naive in the extreme. Iran has repeatedly said they will use a nuclear weapon on Israel as soon as they get it. You either believe them when they say it, and they have said it repeatedly, or you don't believe it. He doesn't believe it. He doesn't get it and that makes him dangerous. The same with obama.

 

[Makalakumu]

I dont agree with his drug policy and his total isolationism
I think we do get way to involved in places we dont need to be but i also know there are times just in the name of humanity we need to step in and help. But when we do we need clear defined goal. For example say this kony guy. Hes a pretty bad dude and if its decided we need to get him then we send in full force no holds bared grab him and then leave. No staying and settig up new govts or providing security for years. No setting up bases get in do the mission and go home.

I also have concerns about what would happen if we just said ok back on gold standards what would happen to my money i have saved and i have invested. What would happen to my paycheck.

Going back on the gold standard would mean that our money would actually be worth something tangible. There would be more incentive save and build capital. The government could spend away our childrens money before they earned it. Overall, I think it would be a good thing, especially for my children and grandchildren.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

I could get behind Gary Johnson, but I don't think he goes far enough. He seems to ready to compromise and with some problems there really isn't any a compromise. A compromise on social security usually just throws the problem farther in the future for example.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

He doesn't think there is a difference between Russia having nuclear weapons and the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon. That is naive in the extreme. Iran has repeatedly said they will use a nuclear weapon on Israel as soon as they get it. You either believe them when they say it, and they have said it repeatedly, or you don't believe it. He doesn't believe it. He doesn't get it and that makes him dangerous. The same with obama.

Is there a difference between Israel having nuclear weapons and the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon? That's a better way of framing it. Iran hasn't said that they will "immediately use a nuclear weapon on Israel as soon as they get it," they've said they wanted to destroy Israel. Iran has legitimate reasons for wanting nuclear power, but they are in pursuit of a weapon-they wouldn't use it on Israel, though-the real danger is their letting SNM or weapons get into the hands of the terrorist groups they support.

Strategically, though, bombing them will only delay their making a weapon, at this point.Our best bet all along has been continuing the sanctions, and supporting the moderate elements within Iran who are dissatisfied with the regime, the rule of the Ayatollahs, and their place in the world.

If we do want to destroy their current nuclear infrastructure , we have a little more time and capability in this regard than Israel-this is part of why the administration recently played coy about possible requests from Netanyahu for ordinance-we have ordinance that's capable of doing more than simply burying the entrances to those underground facilities, and Israel doesn't. The idea that we're considering selling or giving some of that stuff to Israel ought to have the Iranian regime-secular and religious-more than a little shaken.

Of course, Ron Paul is nuttier than a wagon load of pralines. I like a lot of his positions, but his isolationism isn't one of them-it's simply no more viable than cutting off "all foreign aid," or going back to the gold standard. His isolationism, though, is one of his most dangerous and unrealistic stances.

 

[ballen0351]

[
I understand that im talking about the money i have now. There is way more printed money then there us gold. I make far more money then i would on gold standard. It would be like reverse inflation but what happens to my money. Does my paper money become qorthless since there is no gold backing it up. I have too many questions he has not answered yet. At least i have not seen the answers. Id be more inline to vote for his son then him.

Going back on the gold standard would mean that our money would actually be worth something tangible. There would be more incentive save and build capital. The government could spend away our childrens money before they earned it. Overall, I think it would be a good thing, especially for my children and grandchildren.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

 

[granfire]

Going back on the gold standard would mean that our money would actually be worth something tangible. There would be more incentive save and build capital. The government could spend away our childrens money before they earned it. Overall, I think it would be a good thing, especially for my children and grandchildren.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

you mean could not?

I got a news flash...they can. Regardless of standard and not to mention they have.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I could get behind Gary Johnson, but I don't think he goes far enough. He seems to ready to compromise and with some problems there really isn't any a compromise. A compromise on social security usually just throws the problem farther in the future for example.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk

A president who is not willing to compromise with Congress or the electorate won't get anything done, he'll be utterly hogtied. And the majority do not support Libertarian beliefs, not Gary Johnson's, not Ron Paul's. Johnson, as you said, would compromise. It's the only chance he would have of getting anything done at all. Both are hypothetical, since neither can be elected.

As to why Ron Paul is Nutsy Fagin, the reasons go on and on. Take any example. Like the one where he stated on the Daily Show that if there was no government regulation of business, they would not pollute. Because in a Libertarian government, the citizens would not permit it. Only business in collusion with government will pollute; business left entirely to its own devices will never pollute. He also stated that one individual can only make bad choices that affect himself, his choices can never affect anyone else. Really? So if I decide to shoot up the neighborhood, that only affects me? Interesting. Oh wait, I mean CRAZY.

 

[Carol]

Gary Johnson won me over when he took his 478-mile bicycle ride around New Hampshire.

Well...the fact that he's a fine Libertarian had something to do with it too...