Search for posts by ProudSaul

Re: ‘An amazingly scandal-free administration’

I don't think the present actions of the Republicans are what Congress is for.  The present actions of the Republicans consist entirely of opposing anything the President supports BECAUSE the President supports it and for no other reason.  A majority of Americans either support the Affordable Care Act or want to see it expanded, yet the Republicans have not only voted 50 times to repeal it but have refused to come up with any proposed alternative.  Over 90% of Americans, including a majority of NRA members, supported broadening background checks for gun purchases, yet the Republicans in Congress filibustered that to death.  Three quarters of the public supports the President's initiatives on illegal immigration, yet the Republicans refuse to even discuss the issue.  I could go on, but I think the point is made.

Re: Black Reverend Threatens Police With Terrorist Attacks Over Texas ‘Pool Party’

The only one who broke any laws was the cop.  These were residents of the community at a public pool who were invited to a party.  A convicted felon called 911 because there were too many black people in one place, and a racist cop showed up to have some fun.

Re: Black Reverend Threatens Police With Terrorist Attacks Over Texas ‘Pool Party’

I see the Right Wing is busy again trying to come up with justifications for senseless racist violence.  In Right Wing World, it appears that ANY violence against ANY black American is perfectly acceptable, and it is a black person's fault if he is murdered by a racist.

Where to start . . . .

OK first - "a mob of unruly blacks trespassing on private property".  No, these were people who lived in the neighborhood who were INVITED to a pool party.  They were not (a) a mob, (b) unruly, or (c) trespassing.  But they WERE black.

Next - "the New Black Panthers taking part"  No, the four people that are the entire "New Black Panthers" weren't there.  It is true that a few (about five) members of Nation of Islam were at the protest, but they did not participate and simply stood and listened, just like the rest of the crowd.  But they WERE black.

Next - "police doing their jobs"  No, throwing innocent unarmed teenagers to the ground is not the police's job.  But the unarmed teenagers thrown to the ground WERE black.

Next - "...we're setting the stage for a terrorist attack in this country. And the group is not going to be ISIS – – it's going to be 'Us-is.' Us against these injustice law officers and people who continue to allow racism to go into this city."  No,  no one is threatening anyone.  He is PREDICTING that the increasing incidence of unjustified police violence against young black people will provoke a reaction that could become violent, just as happened in Florida, Ferguson, Cleveland, Baltimore, and all the other locations where violent thugs attacked unarmed and innocent black people for no reason other than their skin color.  But the victims WERE black.

Next - "it sure sounds like he's saying that blacks are going to commit acts of terrorism against police and anyone that allows racism, possibly meaning white people"  No, not to anyone sane and objective it doesn't.  It sounds like he's saying that if we continue to allow racist thugs to get away with murdering innocent black people, black people will not simply take it indefinitely.  But the victims WERE black.

Next - "It's hard to take Rev. Wright's words any other way"  No, despite the fact that the author is doing somersaults to once again try to blame black people for unjustified violence against black people, no one but a race-baiter could interpret his words that way.  But the reverend IS black.

Next - "He's saying straight up that blacks will attack police and others with acts of terrorism."  No, actually he's saying exactly the opposite.  He's saying, among other things, that insane open carry laws make every black person in Texas a target.  But he IS black.

Next - "black kids were trespassing and causing trouble"  No, again, they were not trespassing and caused no trouble.  (Note that none of them were arrested or charged with anything.)  But they WERE black.

Next - "I find it hard to believe Rev. Wright wasn't arrested for his statement."  Yeah, that darned First Amendment can be annoying sometimes.  What law is broken by someone expressing outrage at continued unjustified violence by "law enforcement" against black people whose only "crime" was being black?  Oh yeah, they WERE black.

Next - "He said quite clearly that he and other blacks were going to stage terrorist attacks."  No, he said nothing remotely related to such an asinine assertion.  But he WAS black.

Finally - "he's black and to arrest him would probably be racist and we can't have that"  As a matter of fact, arresting someone SOLELY because he's black when he has broken no laws, made no threats, caused no harm, and simply complained about innocent black people being assaulted and killed IS racist and we CAN'T have that.

Good thing this incident had nothing to do with race, isn't it?

Rick Santorum Says He Decides What is Constitutional, Not the Supreme Court

I'm always amused when a Republican tries to talk about the United States Constitution.  So few of them seem to have even bothered to read it, much less understand what it says.

- - - - - - -

Rick Santorum Says He Decides What is Constitutional, Not the Supreme Court

By: Hrafnkell Haraldsson

June 11th, 2015

It is a good thing Rick Santorum has a snowball's chance in hell of getting into the White House, because like all his fellow candidates, he has no idea how the United States Constitution works.

According to Santorum, the legalization of gay marriage is the "establishment of religion," even though what it would, in fact be, is a slap in the face to the idea of the establishment of religion – namely, Santorum's religion.

It is bad enough that Santorum is trying to play off "gayness" as a religion. What is worse is him thinking that he doesn't have to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling because he disagrees with it.

The fact is – and the way this whole thing is set up – if the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, it is constitutional.

Grade-schoolers know this stuff. Why doesn't Santorum?

We may not like what the Supreme Court says – the Hobby Lobby ruling being a case in point, or Citizens United – but it's the law of the land, period. The best we can do in response (short of a new system of government) is a Constitutional Amendment, which changes the Constitution and therefore what the Supreme Court can rule about it.

But Rick Santorum, fresh from entertaining a voter or two in Iowa, told Glenn Beck a bunch of Bartonesque BS – namely that marriage equality will force boys and girls to share locker rooms (Mike Huckabee's fantasy of showering with teenage girls becoming reality) – before he went on to claim,

This is tantamount to government establishing religion. When the United States government comes in and says this is what you are going to believe, this is how you're going to practice your faith, this is a new religion. This violates, in my opinion, the Establishment Clause in the Constitution that says that Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion. If the government goes around and tells churches what they have to believe in and what their doctrine is, that is something that is a violation of the First Amendment.

Far from telling you what to believe, the Supreme Court would be telling you that you DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE what the Religious Right is selling you. It would be affirming that you have a right to your own beliefs, as opposed to having Rick Santorum's beliefs stand in for your own.

What Santorum's claim comes down to is this: "If you don't believe what I, Rick Santorum believe, you are violating the First Amendment."

Until Rick Santorum understands the First Amendment, he should stop talking about it. You can read it for yourself. It doesn't say anything about marriage of any kind. Marriage isn't religion. To claim marriage is religion is to establish religion by forcing everybody else to accept your definition of marriage.

My fourth grader understands that. But then he's reading at a 10th to 12th grade level. Based on the available evidence – and assuming Santorum is not just obscenely dishonest – I suspect things are reversed for Santorum.

To listen to him, you would think a Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality would force straight people to marry members of their own sex. They protest so much you almost wonder if that isn't secretly what they want.

Clearly, we could ignore Santorum simply on the basis of what CNN calls his "empty diner" strategy. When only one voter shows up at your campaign stop, you know you're not popular.

However, in what passes for a political party on the right these days – but which is actually a religious cult – extremism feeds extremism, and that is the real danger in claims like these.

What one candidate says, another has to at least match, and more often, surpass, in order to keep up with the demands of the feckless multitude. Jesus would have fed them loaves and fishes. Republican candidates feed them extremism.

Rick Santorum, who was pro-choice until he found it expedient to be anti-choice when he ran for office, has apparently found it expedient to be completely stupid, and to be honest, it's not working out very well for him. Unless his entire goal was to appear to be a buffoon, in which case it has worked out very well indeed.

What is amazing is that Republican candidates can say these things without any response at all from the mainstream media.

Can you imagine what would happen if President Obama announced that he would just ignore anything the Supreme Court ruled with regard the Affordable Care Act because he's the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional? Obama, unlike Santorum, at least specializes in Constitutional Law.

And there is precedent, after all, in Gov. Brownback of Kansas threatening to eliminate the Kansas judiciary if they rule against him. And this seems to be what Santorum is hinting at, when he says,

"If they get it wrong and the consequences are what I suspect they will be toward people of faith (those consequences being a bunch of stuff David Barton made up the day before) then this president will fight back."

Well, Rick, right now you are not even the president of one person in Iowa – she wouldn't endorse him till she gets all the facts – And that is more than Santorum has bothered to do.

Re: ‘An amazingly scandal-free administration’

And you have every right to feel that way, nor do I think I've ever suggested otherwise.  If President Obama takes a position on any given issue, and you take the opposite position, that's where rational debate and critical thinking come into play.  Saying "I disagree and here's why . . ." is the beginning of a consensus.  What has always driven me crazy is when someone takes a position for a non-rational (as opposed to irrational) reason - like "I don't trust him because he's black" or "He's a Muslim and loves terrorists" or "He's going to take everyone's guns away."

Goodness, Betsy, if I had to make decisions that affect the lives of as many people as the ones he has to make, I would WANT there to be people arpound me whose judgment I respect to say "Hey, wait a minute, maybe that's not such a great idea".

You certainly don't have to be a fan if you don't want to.  But at least give him a little credit for trying.

Re: How long were you a member on Sodahead?

Over 7 years in all.  I first signed on in April of 2008.

Re: Which policy failure will Barrack Obama be most remembered for(please be specific), and is there any fixing his legacy this late in the game?

@ Concerned - Everything the President has tried to do has either succeeded or been obstructed by Republicans.  The facts speak for themselves.  Our economy is on the rise, millions more Americans have affordable health care, the respect for this nation in the eyes of the world has been restored after eight years of "freedom fries", two wars are over, we haven't started any new ones, the rights of Americans are better protected than ever, we've moved past the "illegal aliens are evil terrorists who must be wiped out" nonsense, and we've even take a couple of tiny steps closer to sane gun regulations.

Re: Americans who share “technical data” about a firearm without first obtaining permission would face time in jail.

This is, of course, another lie created by the NRA to scare the weak minded into buying more guns.  The regulations do not have any such provisions.

Re: ALERT: Obama Writes New Laws To Throw People In PRISON For Talking About GUNS On The Internet #2A #NRA

You don't honestly expect anyone to believe this nonsense, do you?  Because, if you do, it's really not a good idea to post a link to the actual regulations - which have nothing in there about suppressing free speech.

You'd think the simple fact that it's been six and a half years since the NRA tried to convince the gun nuts that Obama planned to take everyone's guns away, and yet you all still can cling to your guns as much as ever, would teach you folks not to take anything the NRA says seriously, but I guess that's asking too much.

Re: Which policy failure will Barrack Obama be most remembered for(please be specific), and is there any fixing his legacy this late in the game?

The President has not had any policy failures.  His biggest mistake was his early decision not to prosecute George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz for their war crimes and complete disregard for the United States Constitution.  However, I'm not sure that counts as a "policy" failure so much as a naive decision based on the false assumption that the Republicans would work with him to improve our nation.