Pay cuts for you, tax cuts for us. Yet more proof that supply side economics is working as designed, not how it was sold.
The very people who demanded (and continue to demand) supply side economic policies are the same people who refuse to allow anything to trickle into the larger economy in the form of higher wages and better jobs. The very sad part is that people continue to listen to them.
Backlit commented on the blog post GOP’s Big Example of Obama Abusing Power Is Obama Doing Things They Want
Obama should immediately reverse that decision and go ahead and implement the employer mandate. That should make the republicans happy.
Backlit commented on the blog post NEA Calls On Education Secretary Arne Duncan To Resign
The policies of “education reformers” – charter schools, merit pay, vouchers, drill and kill testing to evaluate teachers – that Duncan has promoted have consistently proved not to work.
This goes well with Obama’s record of hiring economic advisers who have been so consistently and spectacularly wrong about economics.
All of this does pose an interesting conundrum though: who are they going to blame once the teachers have been completely beat down? They may just have to address the actual problems in the system.
Backlit commented on the blog post America Ranks 36th in Feeling Free to Choose What to Do With Your Life
Conservative vision of freedom consists of their freedom to tell others what they may and may not do.
Conservatives have the freedom to not only prevent women access to proper healthcare, but to even discuss it with their doctors.
Conservatives have the freedom to decide who may and may not vote.
Want to smoke a joint in your own home? Conservatives have the freedom to throw you in jail if do.
Isn’t freedom fun…for conservatives?
This is not about religious beliefs. The belief that a morning after pill induces abortion is based only on willful ignorance disguised as religious belief.
So, simple willful ignorance now trumps scientific evidence. How could this decision not apply anywhere else when they set the bar for ‘religious belief’ so incredibly low? All a person (the paper kind and We the fleshy People kind) has to do is wrap up their objection in some religious rhetoric that has a solid basis in neither fact nor reality. The precedent is set.
And I don’t understand how any clause of the Constitution is protected from change by amendment. Where does that interpretation come from?
I didn’t argue that point.
The 22nd Amendment adds to the meaning of Article II Section 1 in that it limits the number of times a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age can be elected president.
Article III Section 3 could absolutely be altered, but the Second Amendment does not do that. It does not address treason in any way, shape, or form.
Well, if you’ve “never seen that interpretation,” then what basis could you possibly have for denying an individual’s right to be armed?
I didn’t argue that point.
In what jurisdiction did the Declaration of Independence have legal justification? Certainly not in British law.
I don’t think that arguing something as natural law that is simply accepted by everybody would carry much weight in court. That’s why they included a Bill of Rights.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing. These people were also part of the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers. We’re talking about the Constitution; the supreme law of the land. The Second Amendment in no way disqualifies the definition of treason in Article III Section 3.
I’m curious as to how ‘the security of a free state’ came to mean ‘guard against a tyrannical federal government’. ‘United’ is a key word in ‘United States of America’.
BTW, I’m also curious as to how ‘well regulated militia’ came to mean ‘loose band of paranoid fanatics’. But that’s another argument.
So, is it anybody’s belief that the intent of the Second Amendment (or anybody) was to remove the ability of citizens to engage in personal self-defense?
I have never seen that interpretation, and I’m curious what would make anyone think that.
The right to self defense may well have been assumed, but it’s not enshrined in the Constitution that way. The purpose of the right to bear arms as enshrined in the constitution is for a well regulated militia. The United States did not have a standing army when the Constitution was written, and it was not the intent to have a standing army. If hostilities were to arise with another sovereign, it would have been imperative to quickly assemble a well regulated militia for the security of a free state.
How does a constitutional method to guard against a tyrannical central government work when the Constitution states in no uncertain terms that levying war against said central government is treason (Articla III Section 3)?
Where does the ‘well regulated’ part come in? Who gets to give the order to fire on these perceived hostile enemies, and are they accountable to society?
In the larger sense of the gun control debate, the Second Amendment is a red herring. Whatever the Second Amendment says about guns (nothing), whatever it says about an individual’s right to bear arms, it in no way requires anyone to be armed to the teeth all of the time. That requirement manifests in an individual’s own insecurities, their own paranoid fanatasies, their own cowardice, and their own violent tendencies.
Backlit commented on the blog post Chris McDaniel Refuses To Concede To Thad Cochran In Close Mississippi Senate Race
I thought Republicans were in favor of quasi-legal means to rig elections. It’s what they, as a group, have been focused on since January 20, 2009.
Backlit commented on the diary post Downgrade of Kansas Bond Rating Offers Another Warning to Wisconsin by WI Budget Project.
What’s really disturbing is the rural Wisconsinites complaining about their underfunded schools after electing people who ran on a platform of reduced school funding. They made a conscious decision to place tax cuts above funding for public services. A recent report indicated that Wisconsin’s rural areas are also going to suffer because of the lack [...]
Backlit commented on the diary post At the Corner of Lawful and Shameful: Walgreens Considers Becoming a Foreign Company to Avoid U.S. Taxes by WI Budget Project.
So, the assholes in charge of this very profitable company want to enjoy a strong retail position in the United States, but want to ditch on supporting a functioning society. Maybe they’ll move themselves and their families to the foreign country that Walgreens will then operate from, since they’re going out of their way to [...]
Backlit commented on the blog post Bank of America Pleads “We’re Idiots, not Crooks!”
The fact that they can be both idiots and crooks notwithstanding, how can a bank that can’t keep track of money expect to enjoy any level credibility. They’re accountants, for christ’s sake. Keeping track of money is the only thing they’re good at.
Backlit commented on the blog post For SC State Senator Mike Fair, it’s all about ‘gay sex’
These freedom and liberty loving conservatives sure do love their freedom and liberty to tell other people what they may and may not do. Their laser-like focus on homosexual sex is only one manifestation of this dynamic. Or, maybe he’s just jealous that he isn’t getting any of that gay sex.
Backlit commented on the diary post 64.5 percent of Dane County, Wisconsin Residents Want to Spark a Prairie Fire by patrick devlin.
Please explain the Democrats’ lack of support for populist ideals and grasping at straws. Walker and the Republican lock-step legislature are in power because of gerrymandering. In the 2012 statewide popular vote count, Democrats got over 160,000 more votes than Republicans. That is 160,000 people who were denied a voice. Obama won the state by [...]
Backlit commented on the blog post 14 Year-Old Finds Federal Government Can Save $400 Million Per Year By Changing Typeface
Good job, kid.
As an added benefit, Garamond is a pleasant typeface for the printed page. It’s elegant and easy on the eyes.
Now you’re talking about profit motive, which is way more sacrosanct than than any interpretation of any religion. Besides, it’s only really a problem when your interpretation says that birth control equals abortion. Semantics, my friend. It does make me wonder though, does my religious belief that marijuana doesn’t make me high have equal standing [...]
- Load More