Tony, you just don't get it do you.

Your last post was borderline attack.

1st of all, even though I would agree (based on 1st hand accounts of people I know who went to Tea Parties all over the DFW area) There were still some Bush apologists out there. These people would be those "born-again conservatives" you are talking about. The ones that refuse to believe Pres. Bush had anything to do with this. But they were NOT the majority. At every single protest I have heard first hand accounts, every one of them had speakers who mentioned this is not just against Obama, it is not a Republican vs Democrat movement.

"Borderline racists" - Well I have found that the people who call "racist" are usually the racist themselves. In all the video's have have watched, in all the pictures I have seen, I have not seen anything even remotely racist.

If you are talking about the few Immigration issues mentioned in signs, those are not racist, a majority of the people involved in the immigration issue only want the government to follow there own laws. If we actually enforced the laws, then it would not be an issue. If you think we should have Amnesty and no immigration laws, you are in a very small percentage of the population. It is somewhere around 70-80% of Americans don't think Amnesty is the answer to the problem.

"Proudly undereducated provincials who apparently failed History" - which history, the real one, or the one our socialist school system taught. (I realize that is a bold statement, it is only the truth) I have learned more about our founding fathers and our presidents after I left school and I ever learned in school. They only teach the basics. In a way, they are taught propaganda. (this is especially true of what we are taught about Lincoln, but that is another argument all together) Shoot, we are taught that WWII is what actually got us out of the Great Depression, when in fact, we did not pull out of the depression until after the war when taxes were cut by 1/3rd and government spending was cut by 2/3rds.

I have found that most "Classic Liberals" know there history and try not to repeat it.

Oh, at the Dallas Tea Party, one of the speakers asked how many was this there first protest, over 1/2 the crowd raised there hands. (crowd was around 4/5,000)

Beck was the one that wanted the Alamo used, he wanted to use it as a symbolic message. That is why 16,000 people showed up there. It was about taking a stand, those at the Alamo were taking a stand for Liberty. Who does that misguided???? Have you never read Travis's letter?
To the People of Texas &
all Americans in the world
Fellow Citizens & Compatriots

I am besieged by a thousand
or more of the Mexicans under
Santa Anna. I have sustained a
continual bombardment &
cannonade for 24 hours & have
not lost a man. The enemy
has demanded a surrender at
discretion, otherwise the garrison
are to be put to the sword if
the fort is taken. I have answered
the demand with a cannon
shot, and our flag still waves
proudly from the walls. I
shall never surrender nor retreat.

Then, I call on you in the
name of Liberty, of patriotism, &
of everything dear to the American
character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is
receiving reinforcements daily &
will no doubt increase to three or
four thousand in four or five days.
If this call is neglected, I am deter-
mined to sustain myself as long as
possible & die like a soldier
who never forgets what is due to
his own honor & that of his
country.



As far as Rick Perry, well I love his speech, but don't trust the messenger. Even my wife said "he has lied to us before, why should this be any different."

But what is said is true, you must admit that. That is what I am fighting for. As for the FEMA aid, well we did pay for it in the first place (well sort of) that is what FEMA was created for. Now until FEMA is disbanded, yes, the should come to our aid if needed.

The CNN clip needs audio, the very bad reporter cuts the guy off before he finishes his sentence and goes off on him saying he got money back because of Obama, way off what he was talking about or the point of the Tea Parties. She has no clue (or does she?) of why the tea parties were going on. Those that heard her go off on the guy started yelling at her, she then says it was not for family viewing. I didn't hear anything negitive, she even had the nerve to say it was promoted by FOX news, so that is why they were yelling at her. No they were yelling at her for not being a good interviewer.

It is just like MSNBC constantly calling them "Tea Bagging Parties" and saying it was because they were paying too much taxes. That was not the point of the events. Out of control government spending and sending this country into bankruptcy was the point.

Ok, enough of a rant today, I have to resubmit this because it took me too long to write.

Actually,

I think Tony gets it well. The tea party thing was hilarious. First, it was sponsored and put forward by Fox. It was well managed propaganda and yet still only attracted several thousand participants. Second, the protests against the war that were - spontaneous, included over 200,000 in this country alone, and were completely ignored by the major media outlets, were much more of an indicator of the national mood.

BTW - so much for the supposed liberal media.

What really makes this funny is that the tax increases that Obama is discussing will only affect a couple of people at these protests. Most of them don't make enough to be affected. In point of fact, the people who will be affected are the guys at Fox, the managers and broadcasters who make over $250,000 a year. Essentially, these guys who've hardly paid their fair share over the past 30 years have gotten those who've paid more than their fair share to protest for them. Darn funny if you ask me.

On the other hand, if the complaint is that we are paying too much for Obama's new budget, well, it is the same cost as Bush's last budget, and Fox said nothing about that budget. Obviously this isn't about money.

Fact of the day, we paid over 5 trillion for our nuclear arsenal, an arsenal that is big enough (24,000 warheads at it's peak) to destroy the world many many times over. Why did we need this and why did we pay more for it than we're paying for this entire crisis? Just think, if we had that money in the bank, why we could fix the banks, give everyone health care, let Za retire, and on and on and on. One has to shake one's head.

One does shake one's head, Lyle. So you lump me with the broadcasters and say I haven't piad my fair share????

More than likely, I've paid mine and a lot of yours. :mad:

One does shake one's head, Lyle. So you lump me with the broadcasters and say I haven't piad my fair share????

More than likely, I've paid mine and a lot of yours. :mad:



you make that kind of money twoputt?? and you play disc golf??
lets be friends :D :D

Lyle, you don't get it either, you must have been watching liberal media.

The Tea Parties had nothing to do with high taxes right now at all.

As I have stated over and over again.

The Tea Parties were about OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

FOX news did not "sponsor" the Tea Parties, in fact they did not sponsor any that I know of.

Glenn Beck did attend the Houston Tea Party, but he had nothing to do with organizing it.

I was amazed to find that my tax refund doubled when my income fell by 50,000 dollars this past year.

I also think it is not wise to measure the size of a movement made up largely of working class individuals by the number that could attend rallies on a Wednesday afternoon. I think it is also a problem to assume that it is a republican movement. The republicans may be moving to try and gain some credit or momentum from the idea, but the GOP has proved itself to be nearly as ineffective at controlling government spending as the current administration.

From what I have seen, taxes are not the source of the complaints. The complaints are from unsustainable government growth and spending.

If other states were like Texas, there had to be at least 500K if not 1 million.

In the Denton group, the paper reported 900-1000, yet the organizers got 1400 signatures, and they were estimating 1500 attended.

Oh, and no news organization organized the Denton Tea Party, it was organized and promoted by the Denton Co Republican Party (of which I am a member of)

The Carrollton Tea Party was organized by one guy who just put up a web site and a few signs.

The Dallas Tea Party was put together by one guy (I forgot his name) who considers himself an Independent. As a rule, they would not let ANY politician speak, Gov Perry showed up, and was NOT allowed to speak. I know 2 of the speakers, one was one of the leaders of the Texas Liberty Campaign and the Other was the head of EmpowerTexas, Michael Quinn Sullivan. He also spoke at our executive meeting last night.

The media said about 4,000 showed up, I think this proves them VERY WRONG.

http://www.theythinkyouarestupid.com/images/attendance.jpg

San Antonio Tea Party (http://www.theythinkyouarestupid.com/index.shtml)

Now see, this is a good report.

not only do they understand what people are protesting, but they don't belittle the people they interview.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k_eo-MBbwcw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k_eo-MBbwcw&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

From what I have seen, taxes are not the source of the complaints. The complaints are from unsustainable government growth and spending.



If it wasn't taxes, then the protesters need to retake US History. The original Tea Party was about taxes, so the historical parallel was made accurately by the critics.

Yet another piece of evidence on the lack of a coherent message for Fox News' nationwide whinefest.

You know what Tony, you are just not ever going to get it. Sense you have been bamboozled by Obama, you think it is all about him and taxes when it is about government in general, he just happens to be the head of the Federal Government.

Even Obama is taking notice and changing some things up because of the Tea Parties.

Oh, btw, they are not over. The next big day is suppose to be 7/4/09. Then there are several groups that are working on a march on Washington on 9/12/09. It remains to be seen how many people show up.

I have a feeling that if things get worse, those protests will outdo the protests this last week.

Oh, one last note

You know how TEXAS had 80% of the new jobs in the USA last year??? Yes that was 80% of EVERY new job created in the WHOLE United States last year.

Texas also is one of the least taxed states in the country.

Texas also runs a budget surplus............

And Texas is run by Conservative Republicans that (for the most part) act like Adults and balance the budget and Texas has prospered because of it.

12.1 percent unemployment: Pinning blame on the minimum wage (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/121_percent_unemployment_pinni.html)

mm, one of the highest minimum wage's in the country, one of the highest unemployment rates.....

I would like to see a list of all the minimum wage's of each state and there unemployment figures. (BTW, this is coming from someone who is exempt from paying minimum wage and does not pay it anymore to keep the doors open)

My wife, who is a Realtor, went to a seminar last week, and found out that not only was Texas #1 in job growth (numbers of jobs), but its job increase was greater than the #2 - #10 states COMBINED.

I'm never going to get it?

Because I don't subscribe to the fantasy/hypocrisy that is libertarianism?
Because I was aware of what these born-again conservatives were doing while their leaders were in charge?
Because I see Glenn Beck rolling out Hitler and Stalin when he speaks about Obama and don't get outraged? (Actually I do, but it's focused on Beck's idiocy.)
Because I understand that the "free market" concept is a joke when you have humans involved?
Because I choose to not believe the single book critical of the New Deal?


Your statement that I'm never going to get it is a perfect example of why the right is going to be the minority for a very long time. Any policy that is politically to your left is not radical socialism. And yet any attempt to move towards the majority view is met with howls of outrage from those who want a return to the 50's (1950 or 1850, take your pick).


I guess 60% of America is wrong too, huh?

I guess 60% of America is wrong too, huh?




Now you get it............ /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I'm never going to get it?



Yes, your post did not even mention the Tea Parties that I was talking about. You keep posting the MSNBC line that the parties were about Taxes when they were not.

I should have posted that article I read yesterday about the Tea Parties. The article says how about 1 million people participated in them on a workday. It also talked about how the Liberal Left didn't understand them, including the commentators on MSNBC and CNN.

Because I don't subscribe to the fantasy/hypocrisy that is libertarianism?
<font color="red"> our country was founded on Libertarianism, the Constitution is based on Libertarianism. </font>
Because I was aware of what these born-again conservatives were doing while their leaders were in charge?
<font color="red"> I have stated many times that I agree somewhat with this statement. However a lot of the people coming out of the woodwork's were not involved at that time, they were frustrated with Bush too. It is just that Obama has taken it to another level. I am very glad to see the small government Republican making a comeback.</font>
Because I see Glenn Beck rolling out Hitler and Stalin when he speaks about Obama and don't get outraged? (Actually I do, but it's focused on Beck's idiocy.)
<font color="red"> In truth, it is more like Mussolini, he was a Fascist, Obama has been trying to head down that road. </font>
Because I understand that the "free market" concept is a joke when you have humans involved?
<font color="red"> Here we totally disagree, our country is what it is today because of "Free markets". In truth, if you are not for Free Markets, you are for government control and that is Fascism. Are you going to admit you are a Fascist?? </font>
Because I choose to not believe the single book critical of the New Deal?
<font color="red"> If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. I choose to learn from history. </font>


Your statement that I'm never going to get it is a perfect example of why the right is going to be the minority for a very long time. Any policy that is politically to your left is not radical socialism. <font color="red"> it is really Fascism </font> And yet any attempt to move towards the majority view is met with howls of outrage from those who want a return to the 50's (1950 or 1850, take your pick).
<font color="red"> I would like to return to the political ideals of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Robert Taft. (notice I said political ideal, not political actions</font>

I guess 60% of America is wrong too, huh?<font color="red"> well, in this last election, it was something like 70% of Americans consider themselves Conservative. (or conservative ideals)</font>



Tony, even you have to admit that Obama won not because of his political philosophy, but because he was not President Bush. I would guess that at least 25% of those that voted for Obama were voting against McCain because they wanted to change the direction of the government.

Oh, and as I have stated before, FDR was a popular president, even though his policies were socialist (a popular ideal at the time) and his policies are what prolonged the Great Depression. Obama will be popular because of his personality, not because of his actions.

Socialism kind of died out with Hitler (so did the popularity of Fascism)

Anyone For Tea? (http://blog.pos.org/2009/04/anyone-for-tea/)


Public Opinion Strategies� latest national survey of voters* shows that a solid majority (59%) say they are sympathetic to the goals and objectives of these �tea party� protests.



mm, now what were you saying Tony :D

and one more quick quote


Democrats are fairly evenly divided with 42% saying they are sympathetic and 48% saying they are not sympathetic.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WB6p5QPVhPI&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WB6p5QPVhPI&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

This is just one of the reasons I support Mark Sanford for president in 2012

Obama's Path to a Lost Decade (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31646&page=22&viewID=909232)

First, history shows us quite clearly that a government cannot spend its way out of an economic downturn. It didn't work in Japan in the 1990s, when the ten stimulus packages implemented over an eight year period failed to prevent the �lost decade.� Nor did it work during our own Great Depression, when FDR�s own Treasury Secretary lamented the fact that massive spending had brought them little in the way of increased employment and much in the way of debt.

Republicans in the Wilderness: Is the Party Over? (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html)

As the party has shrunk to its base, it has catered even more to its base's biases, insisting that the New Deal made the Depression worse, carbon emissions are fine for the environment and tax cuts actually boost revenues — even though the vast majority of historians, scientists and economists disagree. The RNC is about to vote on a kindergartenish resolution to change the name of its opponent to the Democrat Socialist Party. This plays well with hard-core culture warriors and tea-party activists convinced that a dictator-President is plotting to seize their guns, choose their doctors and put ACORN in charge of the Census, but it ultimately produces even more shrinkage, which gives the base even more influence — and the death spiral continues. "We're excluding the young, minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice — the list goes on," says Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of two moderate Republicans left in the Senate after Specter's switch. "Ideological purity is not the ticket to the promised land."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8D51qQN9Xrc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8D51qQN9Xrc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You know what Tony, you are just not ever going to get it. Sense you have been bamboozled by Obama, you think it is all about him and taxes when it is about government in general, he just happens to be the head of the Federal Government.

Even Obama is taking notice and changing some things up because of the Tea Parties.

Oh, btw, they are not over. The next big day is suppose to be 7/4/09. Then there are several groups that are working on a march on Washington on 9/12/09. It remains to be seen how many people show up.

I have a feeling that if things get worse, those protests will outdo the protests this last week.

Oh, one last note

You know how TEXAS had 80% of the new jobs in the USA last year??? Yes that was 80% of EVERY new job created in the WHOLE United States last year.

Texas also is one of the least taxed states in the country.

Texas also runs a budget surplus............

And Texas is run by Conservative Republicans that (for the most part) act like Adults and balance the budget and Texas has prospered because of it.

Gee, I love replying to posts weeks after they occur. I wonder if any of that job growth had anything to do with the oil industry? I wonder where the job growth was and whether it was in high paying jobs or low paying jobs. I wonder why Texas is still taking all that bailout money despite all that job growth and Texas' obvious lack of need?

BTW - Perry pitched a fit about the federal bailout, and did the right thing, turned away about 1/2 billion of the 17 or so billion Texas is going to get. What a man of principal.

Anyone For Tea? (http://blog.pos.org/2009/04/anyone-for-tea/)



mm, now what were you saying Tony :D

and one more quick quote

So am I, however, I find the organizers just a tad disingenuous. While Reagan and Bush I and II were spending like there was no tomorrow and leaving us huge debts, those guys didn't say anything, now all of the sudden, they're up in arms. The notion of taking care of our money is a great one, the notion of selectively taking care of our money is baloney. Now, given that the money that was spent during Reagan, and Bush I and II primarily went to enrich the richest 1% of the country, i.e. into their bank accounts, I've got real problems with that waste of money, especially given the end result. The notion of spending money on job creation, education, new technology, and cleaning up the mess the GOP left seems to me to be a way better use of our money.

You know how TEXAS had 80% of the new jobs in the USA last year??? Yes that was 80% of EVERY new job created in the WHOLE United States last year.

This looks like one of those numbers that has B.S. all over it. Where did you get that 80% figure, Bryan?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment) the southern and western states combined (as opposed to northeast and midwest states) accounted for 61.5% of job openings in 2008.

This looks like one of those numbers that has B.S. all over it. Where did you get that 80% figure, Bryan?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment) the southern and western states combined (as opposed to northeast and midwest states) accounted for 61.5% of job openings in 2008.

That comes straight from Austin. I have read it many times. In 2007, it was nearly 50%.

Republicans in the Wilderness: Is the Party Over? (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html)

insisting that the New Deal made the Depression worse,

That is a fact

carbon emissions are fine for the environment

Well then I guess we should stop breathing then...... The amount of C02 is alarming, but is such a small amount of the atmosphere, it is not the end of the world as some make it out to be.

and tax cuts actually boost revenues

Well it happened in the 80's and in the late 40's and in the 20's and so on and so on.

it is also a fact that raising taxes lessons revenues.

Hoover signed the biggest Tarrif bill ever. That was the WRONG thing to do in a recession. Obama is trying to pass the biggest tax bill ever with his "Cap and Trade" tax. This could take us into a deep depression based on history.


even though the vast majority of historians, scientists and economists disagree.

it is not a vast majority. Now Keynesian Economic is taught in most schools and does work to a point, it does not work in the long run and even Keynes admitted that. He would be turning over in his grave if he knew how much we were going into debt.

The RNC is about to vote on a kindergartenish resolution to change the name of its opponent to the Democrat Socialist Party.

Ha, I had not heard that, that is funny and so true.


Now I have said this several times.

Yes, Bush I, Bush II and Reagan all ran up our national Debt, and I, along with many others, have been bringing that up all the time. In many of the speeches made in the Tax Parties, you will hear people bringing that FACT up. So yes, many of the Neo-con Republicans currently in office still are not admitting this fact, however the grassroots, where I spend most of my time, are admitting this.

That comes straight from Austin. I have read it many times. In 2007, it was nearly 50%.

Show me, please.

In fact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (see link in previous post) Texas added 221,700 jobs in 2008 (this number is consistent with that published by the Texas Workforce Commission) while 532,000 jobs were added nationwide. That makes Texas' contribution 41.7%. Impressive indeed but a far cry from the 80% you claimed.

In 2007, Texas added 328,900 jobs while 1,512,000 were added nation wide. Texas' contribution: 21.8%

But then there's this December '08 article from the Dallas Morning News: Some economists take Texas job growth numbers with a grain of salt (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121908dnbusjobs.3d59623.html)

One reason Sotomayer should not be on the Supreme Court.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OfC99LrrM2Q&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OfC99LrrM2Q&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

One reason Sotomayer should not be on the Supreme Court.

"This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular."

Antonin Scalia writing for the majority (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-521.ZO.html) in REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE

For those interested more in context and meaning than just a sound bite:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ug-qUvI6WFo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ug-qUvI6WFo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

By the way, Bryan, can you please explain your take on the phrase "Stare decisis et non quieta movere"?

Bryan,

It is not a fact that the New Deal made the depression worse. Economic Historians are clear that the New Deal helped extensively, and that the delay in recovery was due to Roosevelt's desire to have conservatives in his cabinet, conservatives who insisted on a balanced budget, an action that FDR followed, and that delayed the recovery.

Just a cool little song

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CLAg8a0vCZQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CLAg8a0vCZQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

By the way, Bryan, can you please explain your take on the phrase "Stare decisis et non quieta movere"?

Judges don't make laws, only the Legislative Branch makes laws. Judges interpret the laws. Now with that said, laws can be ruled "Un-Constitutional"

Now when the Supreme court makes a ruling interpreting a law, that becomes a precedent. This is how we got stuck with the Dred Scott decision for years. Congress had to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

Bryan,

It is not a fact that the New Deal made the depression worse. Economic Historians are clear that the New Deal helped extensively, and that the delay in recovery was due to Roosevelt's desire to have conservatives in his cabinet, conservatives who insisted on a balanced budget, an action that FDR followed, and that delayed the recovery.

Keynesian Economists maybe. Austrians don't see it that way.

Judges interpret the laws.

So you agree, then, that laws are not always clear. Tell me, what criteria should be used by a judge when a case involving an unclear law is appealed? What are the ramifications of that judge's opinion, and should potential ramifications be considered by the judge when formulating that opinion?

Judges don't make laws, only the Legislative Branch makes laws. Judges interpret the laws. Now with that said, laws can be ruled "Un-Constitutional"

Now when the Supreme court makes a ruling interpreting a law, that becomes a precedent. This is how we got stuck with the Dred Scott decision for years. Congress had to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

Do you have any idea why this is pathetic Za? I mean beyond the fact that They have tape of Alito saying the same thing?

One of the reasons that Obama's ME speech is being received so well around the world is that it was honest, to all parties. This, is dishonest, mainly because it ignores the reality of what is actually happening in the Judiciary and the true roll that the judiciary plays.

Keynesian Economists maybe. Austrians don't see it that way.

You're living in a dream world Zeo. Just for fun, go back and watch Steven Colberts roast of Bush at the Press Club. Pay attention to the part where he talks about trusting your gut, because facts have a known liberal bias.

The facts are clear, no matter what your gut wants Za. The New Deal went in, unemployment fell, GDP rose, standards of living rose, the country began to climb out of the depression, then FDR quit spending, or he quit deficit spending, and the whole process stagnated and actually fell back. That FDR quit spending to balance the budget was due to the advice and pressure from conservatives in his cabinet is well documented.

Thank you Lyle, you just proved a point for me.

I have stated several times that the Keynesian economic model of deficit spending prolonged the Depression. Unemployment was over 20% for most of the 1930's, it was not until WWII that unemployment really dropped because we sent so many of our men overseas.

Fact is, as soon as FDR stopped Deficit Spending, the economy started to drop again. In other words, he prolonged the Great Depression by not letting the economy bottom out.

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Well in one thing we agree, we should let the economy bottom out, i.e. stop propping up failed institutions and artificially keeping the cost of borrowing money low. You do realize that the economists don't agree with your conclusions on how this played out right? It wasn't that things just stopped, they turned around Za, people had money and they spent it and the economy turned around. When he stopped spending, things didn't get worse, they just stagnated and left off where he'd taken them to. Nice try though.

Za, pizza shop owner, economic purist...