Senator Warren (aka Lie-awatha) not running for POTUS

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Great article in CNN today.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

-spence

The lady who lied about her heritage so she could get a job at Harvard paying $430 large a year, bemoans the loss of the middle class. Maybe if she could accept $250k a year for teaching a few classes, more kids could afford college and get intto the middle class.

Earth to Lie-awatha...it's not hard to be middle class. Get good grades in high school, at least good enough to get into a state university. Major in engineering, accounting, or ANYTHING related to healthcare (physicians assistant, physical therapy, nursing, pharmacy), and you are middle class for llife.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Great article in CNN today.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

-spence

Oh, yeah, what a gem this marxist piece was...

"Washington took financial cops off the beat by slashing funding of our regulators, letting big banks load up on risk and target families with dangerous credit cards and mortgages. Washington also worked feverishly to cut taxes for those at the top, opening huge loopholes for big corporations and billionaires"

Once again, let's blame the woes of Main Street on the wealthy (a group that the author obviously belongs to, but it's OK that she's wealthy, because she's liberal and an Ivy Legue professor. Wealth is only evil, I suppose, when it is attained through capitalism, where every cent you have, is necessarily a penny you stole from some old widow?)

"Instead of supporting college kids who are trying to get an education, the government now uses them as a source of revenue, making billions of dollars in profits off student loans."

Oh, this takes the cake. This, from a jerk who made four hundred and thirty thousand a year to teach a few classes at Harvard? And she blames others for exploiting college students?

Spence, even you must see the naked hypocrisy shown by this awful shrew.


"Investments in roads and bridges have nearly ground to a halt
".

I thought the stimulus package was going to fund all those "shovel-ready projects". Where did that $700 billion go, anway? I know Obama spent the money, but we get any infastructure improvements? Not according to Fauxcohantus.

"We know how to strengthen the middle class in this country because we have done it before"

We haven't ever done it with so much global competition from massive, emerging economies like China and India. It's not that simple, and either she knows that (in which case she's lying), or she doesn't know it (in which case she's too stupid to be alive).

"We need to decide that our children -- not our biggest corporations -- are our first priority"

Yes, because as a conservative, of course I think corporations are mor eimportant than our children. I'm glad she reminded me of that. Where is this liberal concern for children when thos echildren are still in the womb?

Spence, this piece is nothing more than an asinine collection of tired, typical, classic, liberal talking points. Talk abuot how bad things are, get people fiired up about it, and tell them that (1) it's all Wall Street's fault, and (2) republicans want to keep feeding the Wall Street boogeyman, while Democrats want to restore tranquility.

Spence, how about this..consider the most liberal places in our country...big cities, and states like CT, RI, IL, cities like Detroit and Chicago...are those places better off aftr a generation of pure liberalism, or are they worse off? Let's see "Lies Through Her Teeth" write a piece telling me why liberalism has worked in CT, detroit, Chicago, and Rhode Island...

"We can repair the cracks in the middle class"

Obama sure hasn't done it in 5+ years. Median wages are down since he took office. He owns that, does he not? The stimulus was a spectacular failure.

[Jim in CT]

Senator Warren:""We need to decide that our children -- not our biggest corporations -- are our first priority""

So it's not possible to care about children, and support our free market capitalist system, at the same time? They are mutually exclusive? Thriving companies don't offer anything good for our children, like services and jobs?

Earth to Lieawatha and Spence...I don't know how much Wall Street is hurting my kids (though of course we need regulations). I know exactly how much my kids are being adversely effected by the Democrats' refusal to address Social Security and Medicare. I know exactly how my kids will be impacted by Obama's running up the debt, and I know how my kids will be impacted by the liberal notion that anyone in a public union deserves to be wealthy.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It begs the question if sometimes the original "constitutional form of government" hasn't been over romanticized as well. If I remember correctly it didn't last all that long...

Actually, it lasted, in the main, for about 150 years. Toward the latter part of that time, the last twenty or thirty years, which also included a strong period during the Coolidge and Harding years, it still held sway but was beginning to be eroded by progressive strengthening of the office of President, especially by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Presidential power grew from there to a near imperial strength with FDR. But even through those years, the "original" Constitution was still a powerful force of law. But what was gaining, if not in strength, but in progressive, anti-originalist influence, was the Supreme Court. This was a part of the "brilliant" (I would say nefarious) strategy of the progressive acolytes--to pack courts with progressive minded judges who favored unhampered centralized administrative solutions for (what they considered) societies ills rather than leaving it to less regulated and (in their minds) unpredictable evolution.

And, though it is hanging in by a bare thread, the Constitution still lasts today.

Another part of that strategy, of course, was to transform, first, higher education to their way of thinking, and eventually the entire educational system. The federal government's intrusion into the educational sphere used early land-grants as models. Government largesse was carrot for the stick of government regulation. The Federal government has nearly continuously expanded its role in education with "investments" accompanied by regulations well beyond anything imagined by the original Founders, nor provided for in the original Constitution. That effort continues with, for example, the current drive to implant Common Core.

From the educational system comes the judges and lawyers and politicians and the progressive (radical) community organizers, and all the know-it-all "smart" thinkers, academics, journalists, media propagandists, and just plain regular folks who have been convinced that they, The People, are helpless flotsam who must be protected from the powerful one percenters or ten percenters, or from the vicissitudes of the inevitable events of history against which they have no influence.

But progressivism has progressed well beyond even what the original progressives intended. Centralization of power has become so nearly absolute that government is as much the big, bad, boogeyman that they feared, and less of the solution they envisioned to the boogeyman problem.

This was predictable. They had reckoned that weakly regulated evolution would be unpredictable, and all-powerful centralized administration as the method to predictable solutions. But it was the Founders who saw that centralized power would predictably lead to despotism, tyranny, and absolutism. The Constitution they created was the safeguard against the very tyranny to which progressivism evolves, but against which it claims to fight.

So, in short, the Constitution has not been over romanticized.

Quote by detbuch in previous post:
But that has little to do with discrimination. In my opinion, Indians have every right to discriminate in who they hire, or to whom they sell, or with whom they associate. I think African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans, also have those rights. And when government decides with whom and how we associate, and do business with, outside the restriction of anyone denying another those same rights, it is as dictatorial, unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral, as resettlement of Indians from their home to reservations. And it is as destructive to the human spirit in general as it was to the native American spirit. I don't make that as a material comparison, but as a political, philosophical, and ideological one.

Good you recognized that. In theory piece of paper is the same as a pizza, from a certain perspective...

I am not aware of a theory wherein a piece of paper is the same as a pizza. And unless this theory is fleshed out, it sounds stupid, and doesn't interest me. If it is expounded on and makes internal or external sense, it would be interesting and maybe even worth of discussion or admiration. And, sure, as in all things, especially in your relativistic world, everything depends on perspective. If you're referring to what I said in the above quote as a peace of paper being the same as a pizza, you need to flesh that out for it to be relevant to this discussion. And if the perspective is from that of a fool, then so what? And between a piece of paper and a pizza, per se, it depends on if you're hungry or in need of information. They both could be entertaining. Or make you sick. And so on . . . . . . Benghazzzzzzzzziiiiii . . . . . . . .

I think the Native American situation is a bit different in that there's some level of sovereignty still in effect. I have the understanding that tribes have some latitude under Federal law to protect the economic interests of the tribe. At this point I'm not sure how it's discrimination rather than a matter of internal affairs.

-spence

Ahhh . . . yes. Sovereignty. Local or personal sovereignty is protected from government intervention by . . . what? Oh yeah! The CONSTITUTION. OOOhhh . . . but Federal law . . . that could be another matter. If the Federal law is bound by the Constitution, and the Federal government administrates within those bounds, then your understanding of that latitude prevails. If, however, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, equal to a pizza, depending on the perspective of the current administration . . . say a progressive one with a court which adjudicates progressively . . . then that centralized administrative Federal government need only concoct what could be viewed as, even remotely, a rational basis, to vacate your once hallowed sovereignty, and command you to do what it considers necessary to achieve its "rational" goal . . . for the good of all, including, though you may not immediately see the goodness, YOU.

And isn't discrimination always a matter of internal affairs? You are not allowed to intrude in my internal affairs, nor I into yours, without consent? Constitutionally speaking, so long as I don't deny you the right to your internal affairs?

In your relativistic pizza/paper progressively favoring the efficiency of central power over individual rights perspective you may "think the Native American situation is a bit different." But from a more universal individual human rights perspective which goes beyond special rights for special folks, the difference is irrelevant.