'Lion of the Senate' paralyzed
ssecca
"No one wanted to see him paralyzed. We couldn't think of the 'Lion of the Senate' going out that way."
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
"No one wanted to see him paralyzed. We couldn't think of the 'Lion of the Senate' going out that way."
151 comments
Latest
Serious question...
Why waste your time?
False. A new report finds the bill could require illegal immigrants to buy coverage, but it clearly restricts subsidies to U.S. citizens and legal residents." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200…
IMO, the Republican would have been a true hero by publicly and obnoxiously calling out President Obama as liar if (1) his charge was correct and (2) he didn't act like a coward by apologizing to the liar he was seeking to hold accountable. OH, But the liar was the President of the U.S.!!! Big ffing deal, buddies. Even more reason to hold the President to a much higher standard. Republicans are so damn sleazy in general that they'd rather apologize to a liar (because as President, he has the right to lie?) than get to the truth----what a bunch of low-lifes. However, the truth, imo, is the Republican didn't have good grounds to call President Obama a liar, which is why he was so eager to apologize. Slander the President and then muddy the waters by issuing an apologizing. It is the morality I'd expect of fear mongering Republicans whose can't stand to have the light shown on their flimsy bs.
No, he really hasn't. Illegal immigrants will surely continue to get health care (at ERs & other clinics) in the USA, but they will NOT be governed by *anything* in the current set of health care reform initiatives, period.
"This is not a war on just Al Qaeda."
Well, at least you're not going to make some totally bogus claim about Iraq having ties with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda was the group that attacked us on 9/11 BTW, and as someone that was on United Flight 93 just a few moths before that attack...I find it abhorrent that your buddy GWB needlessly shifted the focus from them to Iraq.
"If you claim that semantically the term Global War on Terrorism is bogus, assume the T stands for Terrorists"
...of which Iraq had NOTHING to do with any of the terrorists that attacked the USA on 9/11.
"Regardless, the war is about convincing those who would choose terrorism as a tactic to get their way that it will be too costly for them and won't be successful."
Nonsense. The attack on Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism, period.
"2. Salman Pak."
LOL...I guess I spoke too soon above. This facility was discussed in the leadup to the bogus invasion of Iraq as a result of a campaign by Iraqi defectors associated with the Iraqi National Congress to assert that the facility was a terrorist training camp. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has since established that both the CIA AND the DIA concluded that there was NO evidence to support these claims. A DIA analyst told the Committee, "The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa'ida." Knight Ridder noted in Nov. 2005 that "After the war, U.S. officials determined that a facility in Salman Pak was used to train Iraqi anti-terrorist commandos."[Seattle Times, 1 November 2005, p. A5]. And PBS' Frontline, who originally carried many of the allegations of Iraqi defectors, similarly noted that "U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques." Seymour Hersh noted that "Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war [that the camp was used for terrorist training]." Douglas MacCollam wrote in the July/August 2004 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review that "the consensus view now is that the camp was what Iraq told UN weapons inspectors it was — a counterterrorism training camp for army commandos." The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."[p. 108] The CIA AND DIA both told the Committee that their postwar exploration of the facility "has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida linked individuals took place there. In June 2006, the DIA told the Committee that it has "no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991."[p. 108]
I could go on & on about this...
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05…
"Opponents of going into Iraq said beforehand that a key reason NOT to go in was that Saddam would use his WMDs against our troops."
Not this opponent or any of the other opponents that I knew of at the time! Iraq had NO WMDs before we invaded them in 2003.
"Clinton, Kerry, and many other prominent US politicians made the case for removing Saddam based on his WMDs before Bush did"
...and they were all WRONG, period.
"We did find hundreds of WMDs in Iraq, just no nearly what was expected based on the intel."
Wrong again wing-nut. At best, what was found in Iraq was INERT artillery shells and previously disclosed (and secured!) materials, period.
"If the president assumed Saddam only prevented the UN inspectors from having required access because he was playing around, and subsequently Saddam provided the banned weapons to terror groups for use against us, I'm sure the caterwauling from MG and others would have been deafening."
This is blind, baseless fear-mongering, period. Iraq had NO WMDs...the ones that they had previously were either destroyed in the First Gulf War or destroyed during the UN inspection process in the 1990s, period end of story.
---------------------------
"I believe one of the basic premises of fighting the war on terrorism in Iraq was that it is better to fight it there than here."
Once again, Iraq had NOTHING to do with either 9/11 or Al-Qaeda, period.
"People that do not believe there is a terrorist threat/risk against the US from extremists"
Who's claiming that?? I, for one, would like to see the head of Osama on a platter, and his network of Al-Qaeda & Taliban buddies crushed, period. Iraq was a *distraction* from accomplishing those goals.
Yup, after McVeigh blew up, what was it 300 people?, the US should of been blowing up half of America to "fight terrorism." And, it gets even better----a handful of terrorists from America butcher 3,000 Chinese in a spectacular attack, then China has a right to start bombing the US and butcher a few hundred thousand Americans.
After the first World Trade Center terrorist bombing, the US could have acted like a nut job nation and started going to war with countries left and right. This is "fighting terrorism"? :) LOL!
The 40,000 American dead YEARLY from auto accidents should be a much higher priority. Or, the US could act like a nut job nation due to all the dead Americans dying thanks to LEGAL alcohol consumption. I believe 75,000 American die YEARLY from alcohol. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ Or, the US could go on a rampage over 100,000 American dead to hospital errors--YEARLY. The trillions thrown away on the idiocy of "war on terror" could actually be used to save millions of American lives.
Looking at 911 shows not the risk of terrorism which wasn't any secret, but how incredible incompetent the US government was. And, these incompetents should be trusted when it comes to killing and maiming TENS THOUSANDS of people per year? Sorry, the so called "war on terror" doesn't deserve even a penny of funding.
Oh and since supposed "conservatives" believe in massive government to fight such idiocy as the "war on terror" that means it is way past time for the government to be run by Democrats who at least support programs that will save and enrich the lives of ordinary Americans. You know the governments' "war on drugs" is totally brilliant compared to the other excuse----war on terror----for endless war and more government. Republicans shouldn't be trusted with a single dollar of public spending and guns?----it is scary to think of these nit wits armed with guns. The Democrats were also correct about gun control. :(
If what you say is correct, then what a piece of dirt he is. Don't muddy the water by apologizing. No, be very clear about why what President Obama says is a lie and how the President must be held accountable. Also, let the President know that future lies will be met will similar outbursts.
If the Republican was correct, then the Republicans are even worse cowards then I would have imagined. Apologize when a President boldly lies about an important government program? Wrong thinking totally. It is the liar who needs to apologize and profusely.
1. This is not a war on just Al Qaeda. If you claim that semantically the term Global War on Terrorism is bogus, assume the T stands for Terrorists. Regardless, the war is about convincing those who would choose terrorism as a tactic to get their way that it will be too costly for them and won't be successful.
2. Salman Pak.
MG said Iraq had "NO WMDs."
1. Opponents of going into Iraq said beforehand that a key reason NOT to go in was that Saddam would use his WMDs against our troops.
2. Clinton, Kerry, and many other prominent US politicians made the case for removing Saddam based on his WMDs before Bush did.
3. We did find hundreds of WMDs in Iraq, just no nearly what was expected based on the intel.
4. If the president assumed Saddam only prevented the UN inspectors from having required access because he was playing around, and subsequently Saddam provided the banned weapons to terror groups for use against us, I'm sure the caterwauling from MG and others would have been deafening.
Dougster said that my claim about the hysteria related to the banking crisis shows I am "an idiot."
Reasonable people can disagree about the need for and effectiveness of that bailout. But the hysteria was proven baseless. You may remember the claims were that if we did not bail them out within 48 hours, the entire world economy would be destroyed almost immediately. The agreement on the bailout took over a week, but none of the dire predictions happened at all.
One of the huge advantages a con man typically has over the average person is that con man knows even highly intelligent people can be brain dead stupid in some areas or beliefs.
I was explaining different cons to a stripper and she exclaims nobody could be that stupid! I told her that is the con man's bread and butter----he has no qualms about selling complete idiocy. Also, even if the mark is highly intelligent, financially successful, and has top quality education don't assume he won't fall for cons that only a retard should believe. The con man generally has to work hard to suspend his own disbelief that anyone could be so stupid!!!
I still remember my lady friend who seemingly has it all falling a 2% fixed rate 30 year no points mortgage with no prepayment penalty. Even after I explained or tried to explained why it was a total fraud she still went ahead and got ripped off. I even asked her to consult an attorney in case she didn't respect my opinion. (Yes, there is a chance the attorney could be so stupid as to not see the obvious fraud.) She says NO!!! attorneys cost a lot of money (she is very high income). I told her an attorney is dirt cheap compared to signing that fraudulent mortgage. She innocently proclaims "If it turns out to be a fraud, then I'll just go to the police or the courts." Yes, she was that absurdly uninformed as to what success she might have going to the police or the courts.
I think part of President Obama's charm is that he is willing to talk to those who normally have nothing to offer. Getting results on one specific issue isn't usually the point, imo. The point is at least some attempts were made and maybe on a different issue it might yield more tangible support.
I thought it was very amusing when the Republican blurted out "He lies!" or something like that. If it were a substantive charge, then I'd give the man a hell of a lot of credit. Too many other "leaders" would be too pussified or "mannerly" to confront a liar head on merely because of some bs "respect" for the office of the president.
Oh, and if the charge "He lies!" was true and the person then apologizes, well, then I'd find that dang repulsive even for a Republican. :)
"hysteria"? how proves, once again, what an idiot he is. In political maters how is even dumber than MisterGay.
Really?? I think it's funny to see the GOP today whine & complain about the HUGE debt & deficits that they themselves helped to create in the first place. Personal responsibility?? Nah, those are just words to the GOP.
----------------------------------------------
The "GWoT" is a complete & utter joke...you can't have a war on an action, period.
"Steadfast leadership in the face of obscene assaults from people who have no clue regarding executive leadership responsibilities"
LOL..."OIF"...invading a country that had NO ties to Al-Qaeda, NO ties to 9/11, and NO WMDs. Yea, that sure was a "brilliant" move...
"Implementing moderate tax rate cuts to recover from the recession he inherited and offset the huge impact of 9/11"
Otherwise known as...further bankrupting the country by giving tax cuts mostly to rich people.
I thought about this, and decide to "grade" GWB's performance throughout his two terms. I will readily acknowledge that the last two years of his tenure were by far the weakest. He deserves blame for not standing up against Pelosi and Reid after they took over the legislature in January 2007.
Grading President George W. Bush
- National Security
-- GWoT, incorporating OEF and OIF: A
-- Steadfast leadership in the face of obscene assaults from people who have no clue regarding executive leadership responsibilities: A
-- Border control: C
-- Overall: A-
- Economy
-- Implementing moderate tax rate cuts to recover from the recession he inherited and offset the huge impact of 9/11: A
-- Signing the new spending and entitlements such as prescription drug coverage at the federal government level; spending like drunken sailors: F
-- Signing the Pelosi budgets after the democrat takeover of congress in 2007, with minimal pushback: D
-- Falling for the hysteria about the banking crisis, leading to the first "bailout": C
-- Overall: C
- Supreme Court:
-- Myers (dropped out of consideration): D
-- Roberts: A
-- Alito: A
-- Overall: B (should have never nominated Myers)
- Integrity: A
- Overall presidential grade: B
(Were he graded merely on 2007-2008, that grade would obviously drop, but that is not the measure I considered.)
On the other hand, Frank is "happy" that on MisterGay's three "best buddies" list.
The New Era Three Stooges, obama, pelosi, and reid!
Of Teddy Kennedy, I can honestly say this-at a place called Chappaquidic, in 1968, he got drunk and drove a car off a bridge. A young woman in the car died. He didn't report the accident to Police for ten hours. Had he not been a Kennedy, he would've done at least a decade in the big house instead of being elected a Senator.
If this wasn't bad enough, in 1990, William Kennedy Smith was alleged to rape a woman on the grounds of Teddy's mansion in Miami. Teddy mentored William and saw to it that William was let off easy.
Teddy has lived a life of privilege and he's a symptom of what is the worst problem we have in government. He has been in the Senate for four decades. He is the poster child for the need for term limits.
I don't wish him evil, but I don't wish him well either.
For what...leaving the scene of an accident?
"in 1990, William Kennedy Smith was alleged to rape a woman on the grounds of Teddy's mansion in Miami"
...and he, if I remember correctly, he was acquitted.
"He is the poster child for the need for term limits."
"He's the best example of why we need congressional term limits."
Do you really think that MA would elect anyone "better" (in your opinions of course) then Ted Kennedy?
"he had a choice of saving his image or the life of his companion."
Really?? So you were there, and you were able to *clearly see* that Kennedy could have saved that girl if he wanted to??
Look, Ted Kennedy & many members of his family have had issues with alcohol & drugs, and it was extremely poor judgment for Kennedy to leave the scene of a car accident & not immediately report it to the police. However, I bet if I saw two of my brothers gunned down in a very public fashion that I would have developed some problems of my own. I'm not excusing his behavior at all, but there is such a thing as not kicking someone when they are down physically.
A jury acquitted William Kennedy Smith after hearing all of the evidence. Were they dumb and misled? Prove it. Yes, the guys were drunk and chasing women, but the jury concluded not guilty on the charge of rape.
Voters can reelect or dump anyone they choose. Term limits are premised on the view that voters are too dumb to know what they are doing.
"Term limits are premised on the view that voters are too dumb to know what they are doing."
Seems that is the case. Remember some have re-elected dead guys!
While the phrase "Speaker Pelosi" could lend credence to the view that voters are too dumb to know what they are doing, I contend that the reason for term limits is to improve the decision calculus for every issue congresspeople consider. As it is, their primary concern is keeping their job. This leads to bad decisions, and certainly leads to factors other than "what is right for the constituency?" influencing decisions.
That "measure" is not an accurate reading of how popular anyone is. What you are merely seeing in that kind of poll is the extremes. Heck, even I don't "strongly approve" of Obama at this point, he's not being tough enuff on the GOP. Hardly any of them are going to vote for the final health care reform bill, so screw what they have to say!
----------------------------------------
"Oh, and that includes his positive bump upward for the speech he lied abo..., oops, gave not so long ago."
Nice...fanning the flames of irrational discontent, I wouldn't expect anything less than a strong endorsement of Rep. Wilson, who's a fellow racist like YOU clubber...lol...
"It is common practice for the liberal media to poll 1000 registered democrats and 2 registered Republicans in their 'sample'."
No it isn't you moron! What a sad joke you really are...absolutely ZERO facts & a lot of hot air...
"Now that is a ringing endorsement of FAILURE!"
No, that would be the really small percentage of people (like you two wing-nuts I'm sure) that still approved of GWB's performance at the end of his term.
Exactly.
---------------
"Remember some have re-elected dead guys!"
When they knew that doing so would cause the Governor of their state to likely nominate the spouse of the "dead guy" for the exact same position after the election. It sure doesn't say too much about someone like Ashcroft when he loses to a guy that had died a while before an election!
-----------------------
"At least one car window was open"
...which would make the car sink even quicker.
"TK walked past 3 homes, 1 with a light on and a fire station to get his buddies to help him, instead of trying to get help for the victim"
...which was extremely poor judgment on his part, that he fully admitted later.
--------------------
"and would probably reduce the impact of powerful lobbies."
How?? As the members of Congress get constantly "recycled", the lobbies would stay permanent & be much more likely to dupe newbie politicians into supporting their side of an argument.
------------------------
"I would propose that term limits come with a provision that an incumbent could stay in office as long as they received at least 67% of the vote."
Ah, the super-majority, the eternal friend of the "conservative"...
------------------------
"and the cost to campaign would probably decrease."
How would that ever be true??
------------------------------
"They'd be less efficient than the current congress, and thus get less done"
Ugh, this is the exact attitude that I have in the state that I currently live in with respect to our state legislature. People complain that they want the govt. to do less, then the exact same people complain when the govt. doesn't do what they want them to do. It's a pointless circle...
Fair counter-argument to my contention that less = more for congressional activity. But I don't engage in the hypocrisy you imply. I don't complain about congress not doing something. I sometimes complain about things they do, and am quite convinced we have more laws that need revoking than need passing.
"...he also may have been dazed, confused and disoriented, incapable of formulating a rational plan of action." That seems to have been his normal state if one looks at his Senate career.
Clearly, President Obama is the greatest gift to all Americans. The country was a total mess when he decided to try and work miracles for his fellow Americans----so far I'd rate him a miracle worker.
What it says clubber is that Americans, millions of Americans LOVE President Obama. :) It is that simple. And, millions of Americans LOVE President Bush. And, millions of Americans LOVE President Clinton. Etc. Etc. Etc.
As you should be aware, I'm not a believer in democracy. I haven't voted in at least 20 years. A military dictatorship takes over America and guess what? Americans may have more freedom or they may get even less freedom. I would believe in the Constitution if it wasn't such a pathetic joke. :) Hey, at least the cowards and traitors tried to protect the rights of the cattle class. Better if these cowards and traitors were of the how and clubber mentality and just fled to Africa, then be murdering their brave and loyal countrymen for nothing. :)
As for the approval rating, you are correct. As for the other, well Rasmussen reports, "Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove. "Somewhat approve" is hardly a sterling endorsement, especially when coupled with the "ostrich media" trumpeting as great anything obama says or does! Oh, and that includes his positive bump upward for the speech he lied abo..., oops, gave not so long ago. Of course, like most any poll, they can be swayed. It is common practice for the liberal media to poll 1000 registered democrats and 2 registered Republicans in their "sample".
About 70% DOWN to 51% per Gallup. My GOD, that man is a Godsend!!!
About 63% DOWN to 53% per Realclearpolitics. No, he is a Messiah!!!
About 70% DOWN to mid 50% per CBS. No, he is just God!!!
Now that is a ringing endorsement of FAILURE!!!
"BTW, obama has had a NEGATIVE approval rating sine 06/29/09."
Wrong again wing-nut, Obama's overall approval rating have never been below 50%, period.
Currently 51%:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup…
Currently 53%:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/…
Currently in the mid-50s%:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/01/…
clinton was reelected. GWB was reelected, Say obama is reelected. What does that say in your world? People were brilliant, then stupid, then again, brilliant?
BTW, obama has had a NEGATIVE approval rating sine 06/29/09. This is down from inauguration day when he was +25. So I guess those MILLIONS that do not love him do not exist in "jablakeland"?
Hi Clubber,
Tell me about it when President Obama is re-elected. :) Sorry, but in my area he is considered higher ranking than God.
"What is impressive is that Senator Kennedy was considered presidential material by many American citizens."
So was obama and they proved in in November. Now, however, the nearly 70% approval rating of January is quickly approaching 40%. He is even less popular than clinton and makes carter look like a piker!
I was thinking about another manner in which Senator Kennedy could be viewed as a moral giant. He and his fellow senators write the rules and laws for MILLIONS of people---citizen and non-citizen---resident and non-resident---even foreign countries can feel his muscle. He and those that work with him decide what is right and what is wrong. Who is entitled to special rights and who is not. Who gets the $$$ who doesn't.
Do people respect these rules and laws? I think that overwhelmingly even so called rebels and "free thinkers" and even criminals support the law----perhaps not blindly as some dimwitted "conservatives" may, but overall they are champions of government power. Hell, I even "support" the law if it makes criminals of the rich. :) The rich are badly in need of an education concerning their supposed rights and freedoms and the supposed rule of law.
Anyway, when a man like Senator Kennedy is dictating to MILLIONS of people and those MILLIONS of people acknowledge rightness of his power-----well, I don't think it is unreasonable to then consider Senator Kennedy a moral giant. Please don't get me wrong----I do not care for Senator Kennedy or his family based on what little I know about 'em.
I remember this George Wills and he is all for limited government when it comes to funding to take care of the downtrodden-----let his handicapped daughter need $$$ and wow suddenly government should spend without limit! Gee, Mr. Wills, your precious daughter is entitle to government $$$ and I say in response that then the welfare mom with 10 kids is just as entitled to the $$$-----put that in your pipe Mr. Wills and smoke it.
Hi Clubber,
As I've stated before I'm didn't care for Senator Kennedy----heck, what little I know of his family is a turn off. However, I just don't see that the "manslaughter" of that young woman makes him a horrible person or a person who shouldn't be respected. I assume that if I looked closely at his record and life that I'd be less than impressed.
What is impressive is that Senator Kennedy was considered presidential material by many American citizens. :) I've met more than my fair share of Kennedy lovers in my time and they're generally shocked and disgusted to learn that I don't share their feelings.
Using kennedy and moral in the same sentence is CRIMINAL!
how,
Excellent analogy.
Good to see how understands all leftists are fine folks. :)
I wish you would go by what I type instead of just reading part way. A perfect example, is what I wrote about Senator Kennedy being a moral giant *compared* to much of the cattle class. Seems like you read what I typed to mean Senator Kennedy is a moral giant.
Hmmm . . . I might type Senator Kennedy is a man of integrity and intelligence *compared* to President Bush. Or, perhaps Senator Kennedy was a perfect gentleman compared to serial rapist Ted Bundy.
I think how is correct, but of course one can only go by what you type. I guess it could be possible that what is displayed after you type is not what you intended to say. A demonic keyboard come to mind!
Of course you do...what does this mean then??:
"They'd be less efficient than the current congress, and thus get less done; however, as I love liberty, I don't dread a less-active congress."
"and am quite convinced we have more laws that need revoking than need passing."
I agree. There are a *ton* of laws on the books that never get enforced but cost real money in publishing & re-publishing them under the Federal Register. Our old laws need to be completely re-evaluated for possible deletions.
"SuperDude, you left out TK could very well have been drunk."
Guilty until proven innocent eh? Nice...
"How ironic would it be if the republic were saved by the death of an anti-American leftist?"
"anti-American"...what a joke...
And to bolster my contention that you discounted as "a joke," here's some wisdom from Thomas Jefferson:
"I have spoken of the [democrats, then called "Federalists"] as if they were a homogeneous body, but that is not the truth. Under that name lurks the heretical sect of [leftists, then called "monarchists"]. Afraid to wear their own name they creep under the mantle of [the democratic party], and the [democrats], like sheep permit the fox to take shelter among them, when pursued by dogs. These men have NO RIGHT TO OFFICE. If a [leftist] be in office, anywhere, and it be known to the President, the oath he has taken to support the Constitution imperiously requires the instantaneous dismissing of such officer; and I hold the President CRIMINAL if he permitted such to remain. To appoint a [leftist] to conduct the affairs of a Republic is like appointing an atheist to the priesthood." (newspaper letter, 1803)
Guilty until proven innocent eh? Nice... "
We know you are a feeble-minded short bus rider, MisterGay, but can't you even read? He didn't say that Ted was drunk, he said he "could" very well have been drunk. You've read about the incident and you don't think there is any chance Ted was drunk? Please! I'm sure you would not be so generous if it was a conservative here. MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
So, while you would be correct to ridicule a claim that "Ted Kennedy was a monarchist," no such claim has been made. Ted Kennedy was a leftist, and Jefferson's words against leftists are as true as ever.
You will never win a discussion point by arguing against contentions that were never even made. That's typically known as "making a strawman argument," and it is a sign that you are either dishonest or ignorant or both. That's pitiful.
Something like this RE: how's Jefferson's wisdom....
Thomas Jefferson? He owned slaves, he wore a powdered wig? Who could believe him? That is old fashioned. Makes no sense to me. CRIMINAL? Bush is a criminal!
Wow, your ignorance knows no bounds "how". Jefferson founded what eventually became the Democratic Party...ugh...
"So, while you would be correct to ridicule a claim that 'Ted Kennedy was a monarchist,' no such claim has been made."
Of course it has!! Don't you even bother to read what you write here!! My goodness...THAT'S what's pitiful...give it up!
"Funny how liberals rarely can defend their views"
...in your own, completely biased & ignorant position that is...lol...
And Jefferson would be shunned from the modern democrat party for his conservatism. He railed against the left, because leftists hate what America is.
...which is why you bringing up that phraseology (in what is likely a misquoted except from Jefferson) is completely & totally pointless!
"And Jefferson would be shunned from the modern democrat party for his conservatism"
...in your own, Right-wing biased opinion that is.
"He railed against the left, because leftists hate what America is."
Wrong again wing-nut.
"And the Democratic party today is a far cry from what Jefferson created/envisioned"
...in your own ignorant opinion that is. The Democratic Party is frequently called "the Party of Jefferson" by many, many historians, period.
Monarchists
Radicals
Communists
Socialists
National Socialists (shortened commonly to "Nazis")
Liberals
Statists
In common, all leftists tend towards tyranny and strong central government control over individuals and states. The founders of the United States sought to avoid the natural trend for governments to decay towards such a state, and created this republic. Modern leftists in America have vowed to "fundamentally change this Nation" (quote from Barack Obama in presidential debate against John McCain, 2008).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_…
"The term far right is most often used to describe nationalist, religious extremist and reactionary groups as well as fascism and Nazism"
Really, you are as bad as MisterGay with the strawmen. Trying to call Nazis left wing. What a clueless moron you are.
IDIOT HOW LOSES AGAIN!
Indeed, MisterGay doesn't really believe what he writes. He is just a worthless troll here to try and stir up some trouble.
This is just more useless Right-wing spin.
"Radicals"
This name could be applied to either side of the political spectrum. This is just more of your blind hatred burning thought here "how", but what else is new eh??
"National Socialists (shortened commonly to 'Nazis')"
And the Right-wing spin continues...ugh...the fascist Nazis were on the far right-hand (when looking internationally) side of the political spectrum. They are only separated from what we would call Right-wingers in this country by more reliance on authoritarianism. Losely throwing around terms like "Nazis" in modern political discourse is an *abomination* that shouldn't be tolerated by ANY side!
"In common, all leftists tend towards tyranny"
Wrong again wing-nut...
"The founders of the United States sought to avoid the natural trend for governments to decay towards such a state, and created this republic."
Ahhh, the favorite term of the Right-wing for our system of govt....a "republic", which is merely a representative democracy, period.
"Modern leftists in America have vowed to 'fundamentally change this Nation'"
...and what exactly does this mean?? It could, after all, mean just about anything...it's really just empty rhetoric.
"Jefferson was a proponent of states rights."
None of the Founding Fathers were perfect. Jefferson's ideas on so-called "states' rights" led to the abomination of secession through nullification & interposition, which is now a wholly discredited doctrine with no legal basis, based on the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The horrible Alien and Sedition Acts & Plessy v. Ferguson (which held the infamous separate but equal doctrine) also came from Jefferson's line of thinking. No one man is perfect...
Radical -- Liberal -- Moderate -- Conservative -- Revolutionary
Classic political spectrum at the time of the founding of the US:
Tyranny (Ruler's Law) -- People's Law -- Anarchy
These are just terms, but words have accepted meanings. When you mix them up, confusion or mis-information is bound to follow.
"A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues."
– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill
Sounds pretty damn CONSERVATIVE to me, as well as time and time again, proven accurate!!
You'd flunk it, how.
The difference, taxes were cut before but just won't happen with "O".
I just read the stats on taxpayers. Now this is from 2006, and I am quite sure the situation has NOT improved!
41% of the U.S. population are completely outside the federal income tax system. Now since they do not pay taxes, do you think they give a damn about federal spending or tax increases OR decreases? Well maybe decreases since they get refund checks of taxes they never paid!
But guess what, they get to vote for those that control the tax dollars and guess which party they favor?
Your information reminds me of a fine point about "greed." Greed is less like one keeping what s/he has earned, and more like one demanding what s/he has not earned.
That be a wonderful solution if the citizen wasn't subject to the filth of federal law. You know the terrorism BS, the gun laws, the environmental laws, SS identity mandates, anti-discrimination laws, etc.
President Bush proved that limited government is a farce. The solution is more government on all levels. "Free" medical care, food, housing, education, entertainment, etc. There is no need for an alleged "private sector." The government claims all manner of powers, then it can provide all manner of services. The wealthy if they don't like it can leave. :) Hey, the wealthy are in a hell of a lot better position to leave than a poor person such as myself. Yes, that is another government program that is needed: Any citizen who wishes to leave will be paid more than a fair reasonable amount to do so with never ending guaranteed benefits----you know medical, housing, food, entertainment, etc.
Radical -- Liberal -- Moderate -- Conservative -- Revolutionary"
Wrong again...the worldwide political spectrum is basically:
anarchism...communism...social democracy...conservatism...fascism
"When you mix them up, confusion or mis-information is bound to follow."
When you simply *don't know what the heck you are talking about*..."confusion or mis-information is bound to follow."
"JFK proposed TAX CUTS, right-wing spin?"
JFK was for civil rights, created the Peace Corps, and was against nuclear testing & immigration quotas...sounds pretty liberal to me. As for tax cuts, economic stimulus via tax cuts, along with interest rate intervention & deficit spending, are one of the central tenets of Keynesian economics. The idea that ALL tax cuts pay for themselves is a dead issue at this point though...the country knows better at this point.
"Ironically, Clubber, exit polls from last November showed that many voters thought Obama intended to cut taxes"
...and he did, since roughly 95% of those that were paying payroll taxes saw a small tax cut earlier this year. This is not to mention all the tax cuts that were a part of the stimulus bill earlier this year as well.
"no vote for federal office counts if the voter pays no federal income tax."
Ahhhh...can you saw unConstitutional poll tax?? What a completely wild idea that will NEVER happen!
jablake, "wealth equality" as you describe it would require absolute tyranny to enforce. Who would willingly give all they earn to greedy and selfish slugs who choose not to earn it?
If you believe Obama was telling the truth about his pledge to cut income tax rates for all earning less than $250,000/year, I challenge you to a bet. If my taxes on my sub-$250k income go up during Obama's presidency, you pay the bill. If my income tax rate is actually lower at the end of his presidency as promised, I will pay you $20,000. Should be easy money for you, unless Obama is a liar. So, do you want to bet, or admit he's a liar? (Hint: don't take the bet. The Liar has already said he'll sunset the Bush tax cuts next year, at which time, everyone's rates will go up...the lower income-earners' rates will go up more, since Bush had cut them more. At that point, you will have lost the bet, and Obama will be proven again to be a liar.)
How dare you criticize one for believing what they type! Only and idiot would do that and yet you criticize, oh wait now I see! Good job!
How, I doubt most people willingly give 25% of what they earn. They give out of fear. If taxes were truly voluntary, then what amount of money do you think the government would collect? Very little, imo. Sure there are a few oddballs who want to give the federal government money. What did the government collect from those voluntary payments? Practically nothing. And, to be cynical I think many of those were "tax cheats" who imagined that checking off on voluntary giving might protect them from audit. To my great surprise even the extreme liberals that I know who LOVE more government work to pay as little as possible-----the ostensible reason being "fairness" e.g. everyone cheats, a person earning only $200,000 should get tax relief, keeping my money creates jobs (maids, lawn men, drivers, etc.).
Bottom line yapping about liberty is a little late in the game. Poor people routinely get abused by the government and it is far past time for the rich to get more than their fair share of abuse. Ideally "rich" would be foreign concept for later generations because the government thru fear (its favorite weapon) will have dramatically equalized wealth across the board. A lawyer would make the same as a water boy. A doctor would make as much the lawn man. Equal rights would extend most aggressively to encompass equal wealth. :)
President Bush completely opened my eyes. More government----YES, indeed. But not a government blowing innocent people up in its phoney war on terror. A government instead that goes after the wealthy as if they're Bin Ladens or maybe just minor drug kingpins (if you want a government that is soft on crime---the crime of pelf).
Wowzers! A tyrannical government instilling fear in its citizens to have its way over them...is jablake's "ideal."
Wowzers! A tyrannical government instilling fear in its citizens to have its way over them...is jablake's 'ideal.'"
Nice editing. :) Let me try that: how says "A tyrannical government instilling fear in its citizens to have its way over them...is [clipped nonsense] ideal."
Wowzers! A tyrannical government instilling fear in its citizens to have its way over them...is jablake's "ideal."
You seem, jablake, to want something for nothing. Specifically, you want others to produce, while you reap the benefits of their hard labor through tyrannical government confiscation. Try and take something of mine, you selfish and greedy punk. You're a daisy if you do. You're a worse-than-worthless piece of trash for even wanting to do what you have said you want to do.
I don't care if you produce or not. :) The lawyer or doctor who doesn't wish to have his income taken by the government is free to become a welfare bum or a water boy. The main beauty of socialism, imo, isn't the transfer of wealth; it is equality of wealth. You claim to "love" America. Well, let's see how much you really "love" America when the government is giving you a 200 year prison sentence for an alleged or actual violation of one of its many statutes. If prison is good for the doper or gun owner, then it is even more good for the pelfer.
Your wealth? I think you are a little confused. That money you claim more rightfully belongs to society. See you support all manner of government and that is fine, however other people would also have the government set controls. Just a lot different than those you like. LOL! :) You believe religionists should get all manner of government tax breaks??? Gee, that is a direct attack on my liberty. The solution is to take "your" wealth as compensation. You believe in this war on terror? Fine. I believe in the war on wealthy assholes. :)
Let me give you another example. I'd love to see the government out the health care business 100%. No licensing, quality control, education, tax breaks, care for indigent or elderly, etc. Fortunately or unfortunately that ain't going to happen. Thanks to government meddling health care is unaffordable to many wage slaves. Solution? Government pays for everyone. The 80 year man or woman isn't more valuable than the 20 year or man or woman. If government is invited to the party, then it ain't necessarily going to be on the terms of wealthy assholes. No. The game needs to change radically so the wealthy asshole in no longer yapping about how wonderful America's medical care is. It starts getting wonderful when the vile government doesn't play favorites and gets the hell out of the health care business lock, stock, and barrel OR the vile government pays for everyone to the point wealth is irrelevant.
Interesting pro-Kennedy story.
Anyone who espouses the evil you do can do only one good thing for the universe: die. Right now.
Take something from you? That wouldn't be sufficient. Now take everything past, present, and future, well now we are starting to articulate justice. :) Besides it wouldn't be me, but the lovable government. See wealthy people too often sniff their nose that a $100 ticket for something like not wearing a seatbelt as being pocket change or nonsense like do the crime do the time. Well, the game needs to be changed to wake these miscreants from their mental and emotional slumber. More police to abuse poor people is all fun and games and profit----well, it will be fun and games and profit when those police are unleashed on you and yours with a vengeance. Support whatever government filth that you wish, but remember payback if it comes can be most distressing. Perhaps as part of your correctional sentence you can be convinced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at least once an hour with a big fat smile. Perhaps some "voluntary" flag waving could be part of the menu or you might choose some "non-torture" waterboarding as a portrait of President Bush smiles down upon you. :)
On a lighter note, I wonder if the Kennedy boys ever went out to strip clubs? I know they had several affairs with women but I have not read any thing about their strip clubbing.
Hmmmmm, what about these:
"New tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010 and phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.
Alternative minimum tax - a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.
Expanded child credit - the income floor for refunds was set at $3,000 for 2009 & 2010.
Expanded earned income tax credit - $4.7 billion to increase the earned income tax credit, which provides money to low income workers, for families with at least three children.
Expanded college credit - $13 billion to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
Homebuyer credit - $8,000 credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years.
Home energy credit - $4.3 billion to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
Unemployment compensation - $4.7 billion to exclude from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
Bonus depreciation - $5 billion to extend a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009.
Money losing companies - allows small companies (with revenue under $5 million) to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds.
Energy production - $13 billion to extend tax credits for renewable energy production through 2014.
Auto sales - $2 billion for deduction of sales taxes, phased out for incomes above $250,000."
Sounds like a whole lot of different people will be paying less in taxes as a result of the stimulus bill! LOL...
"If you believe Obama was telling the truth about his pledge to cut income tax rates for all earning less than $250,000/year"
Obama never said that you fool! He pledged that any tax INCREASES would be on people at or above the income bracket that you state, period.
"If my income tax rate is actually lower at the end of his presidency as promised, I will pay you $20,000."
You are ALREADY paying less payroll taxes you moron! Where's my check?? LOL...
"The Liar has already said he'll sunset the Bush tax cuts next year, at which time, everyone's rates will go up"
Wrong again wing-nut, the tax rates for the rich are the only ones that will be going up next year...watch & learn...
"You're a worse-than-worthless piece of trash for even wanting to do what you have said you want to do."
Hey, we could say the same thing about you "how"...for basically wanting to enact an unConstitutional poll tax on American voters.
"No, samsung1, they did not bother with strip clubs; they are rapists."
Once again, guilty until proven innocent eh?? Your hatred really, really shines through in this thread "how"...ugh...
Then MG replied with a laundry list of those little social engineering ploys, proving my point, but claiming to have made his point. MG either does not understand the language, or lacks the intellectual capacity to participate in the discussion.
All explained at the website in my above post. : )
Wrong again wing-nut...what I proved is that many, many people (including you!) will be paying less in taxes as result of Obama's initiatives, period.
As an old friend of mine once said about the Right-wng..."the facts...they burn!!" LOL...
Despite my support for President Obama, I think his wife could do an even better job of saving the country. I think she'd have no qualms about surpassing FDR's marginal income tax rate of 94% and also impose all manner of new wealth taxes, fees, and contributions. A beautiful thing would be for "conservatives" to dream of the good old days under President Obama with every successive president being more liberal. Property as theft would be understood by the working class as well as their former masters. The latter class would mainly be consigned to the lowest rungs of society---compulsory community works and mental wards and correctional facilities. :)
Hmph! You're using too many sesquipedalians such as "initiatives," "including," "paying," "period," etc. Try "YOU GET TAX CUT," and repeat 10+ times while waving a U.S. flag. The dictionary of 4 letter and less letter words is the holy grail of effective communication with conservatives. JUST SAY NO! GOD IS GOOD! THOU SHALL NOT KILL! SHUT UP! PRAY TO GOD! THANK YOU! DO NOT WALK! LAZY BUMS! OBEY THE LAW! I LOVE DOGS! WAIT FOR GREEN! DIE PUNK! CASH FOR CARS! PLAY FAIR! ALL OUT OF LUCK! LIBS ARE EVIL! LIVE FREE OR DIE! PRY FROM MY DEAD HAND! GUNS ROCK! NO WAY TO GAYS! See how simple it can be to speak to conservatives. Sure, a 5 letter word might be acceptable if you speak real slow and it is fairly common term, but strive for 4 letters or less and you are certain to be very popular and in demand with conservatives.
I wonder how liberal "tax the wealthy" people would feel if I walked up to them and forcefully took THEIR money, and then gave it to a "poor" person with two cars, a TV, a cell phone, DVD player, etc.
Just being the government!!!
An adept description of your reasoning abilities and knowledge when it comes to politics. You have the grand distinction of being even dumber than MisterGay on the subject.
No, you're just being a greedy asshole, but what else is new eh clubber??
This is instructive. MG, like other leftists, is very generous. With other people's money.
It is less greedy to seek to keep more of what one has earned than it is to demand from others what one has not earned.
Strange when one looks at true unforced giving, conservatives way out give what they have than do libs.
Anyone with a brain knows that conservatives are for more compassionate than libs. Libs love to hold people down while claiming their compassion and "help" (read votes), while conservatism is based on giving opportunity. Now if someone wishes not to take advantage of said opportunity, so be it!
Wow, by my count, that's two people that you'd rather have killed than converse with here "how"...what a joke you really are...run away now wing-nut...
"Can anyone say Obstructionist?"
Obstructing what praytell??
"But he was a leftist, and therefore an enemy of the United States"
...in your own wildly biased & borderline insane mind-set that is. Your deep-seated hatred really is quite telling there "how"...ugh...it must be quite a "joy" to be you...not...
"I am enjoying seeing one caught in an lie by his own words and trying to make it like it is anything but a lie!"
Once again clubber, no need to bring up how your own words here a long time ago proved that you were really a racist...you really don't get irony at all, do you old man?? LOL...
No, he expressed his disdain for taxes, period.
"MG, like other leftists, is very generous. With other people's money."
Wrong again wing-nut...I'm generous with my OWN money, and I don't rail against govt. acting in ways that are in the public's interests with ALL of our combined tax monies.
"Strange when one looks at true unforced giving, conservatives way out give what they have than do libs"
...and, of course, it's even stranger how this statement is no where near true...lol...
"Anyone with a brain knows that conservatives are for more compassionate than libs."
Thanks for confirming what we already knew about you clubber...you have no brain an, as per usual, no facts whatsoever to back up anything that you have to say here. Time to run away now...
No need to waste time on the brain dead, In an article I read where one on here PROVED himself to be a LIAR! Why anyone would believe anything he times, no idea. For proof, see below:
"This one kid across from me (I forget his name but he was some tall, blonde kid whose mom was a Democratic school committee member) just checked off the box to vote a straight Democratic ticket...
"I voted for Reagan...all the kids did.", which was true..."
Obviously a contradiction (LIE), but at least he has proven he started at an early age!
LOL...you talking about yourself again old man?? We all know that you're a proven racist...lol...but keep trying to run away from it anyways...
"Obviously a contradiction (LIE)"
...that I didn't vote for Reagan, when I actually did?? Keep spinning there moron...you'll lose out every, single time...LOL!
When a LIE is proven, liberals will then:
1. Kill the messanger.
2. Mis-speak (also a lie).
3. Ignore the fact.
4. Once again just plain out LIE!
Example of #1: "you talking about yourself again old man?? We all know that you're a proven racist."
Example 0f #3: "This one kid... to vote a straight Democratic ticket"
"I voted for Reagan...all the kids did." By his own admission, all the kids did NOT vote for Reagan! No mention of this PROVEN LIE!
Example of #4: "...that I didn't vote for Reagan, when I actually did?? Keep spinning there moron...you'll lose out every, single time..."
Sad, truly sad!
I wonder if liberal idiocy will be covered under obama's "health care" plan(???)?
Also, anyone can read the article that you keep refering to about when I voted for Reagan (like the vast majority of the people that I know did, moron), but keep trying to spin that one away as well.
Keep this kind of thing up clubber...I *thoroughly enjoy* making you making you look like the tired, old FOOL that you really are...LOL!!
Run away now...
(couldn't resist)
We need fewer politicians, but more patriots, and more statesmen.
Good job wallanon!
I was really disappointed in Joe Wilson's statement to obaama. He was way to quite and only said it once!
...and absolutely NO evidence that any of this is even true...LOL!
BTW, since when is *one guy* in the Senate responsible for everything that's ever happened while he was in office??
There is a reason conservatives are call RIGHT wing!
Do yourself a favor and quit talking about yourself in an *extremely* ironic way clubber...ugh...
"There is a reason conservatives are call RIGHT wing!"
Yea, and it's because they are right of center, not because they are always "right", idiot...
Seems like the public good (i.e. increased wealth and opportunities) is best served by a combination of war, capitalism, and a huge dose of government.
The leaders as whole including Senator Kennedy seem to have done a bang up job at working for the public good. Even President Bush seems to have done well working for the public good as far as that goes----endless war and more government.
The right wing seems particularly slow when they mouth off about putting their children in "debt." This alleged "debt" is the bedrock of the most powerful economy the world has ever seen. I suppose they'd rather have dollars chained to some customary metal like gold? I doubt the government even has enough gold to back 1% dollars at the rate of 1/100th of an ounce per dollar. So productivity and innovation should grind to a halt because there isn't enough gold? :) Much better to back dollars by debt.
Funny thing is that as much as I didn't care for Senator Kennedy, he seemed, imo, like a moral giant compared to much of the cattle class.
Like I said, "I didn't care for Senator Kennedy." However, I saw him like a moral giant compared to much of the cattle class. The reason I say that is at least it appeared that he was capable of independent thought and moral judgments. IMO, a person has pretty much hit rock bottom when he needs a legislator to determine what is right and what is wrong.
Not sure what the elements or ins and outs are for manslaughter, but considering cowardice a crime just don't sit right with my moral compass. :)
Essentially, it seems like Senator Kennedy was guilty of cowardice. Hell considering the penalties that can be imposed by government, cowardice seems like it may be more than reasonable and may in fact be self-defense----which depending on one's culture may be very highly valued. Anyway, to those who are brave men and women----more power to you! However, there should be plenty of room for cowards without the desire or need to legislate 'em as criminals.
I have a hunch that I would even see most manslaughter case as even being crimes in the true sense.
I have a hunch that I *wouldn't* even see most manslaughter cases as even being crimes in the true sense.
It's all relative, that was pretty moral for a politician. Remeber, he was dazed after sailing/partying all day and then bumping his head when he went off the bridge. He showed great moral judgement walking past an occupied house and fire station to solicit help from his party buddies. It was late at night abd he did not want to disturb strangers.
Yes, VERY moral *compared* to much of the cattle class.
Furthermore, let's say Senator Kennedy showed some real bravery and knowing (assuming he was DUI) that he was in no condition to save her that he instead sought help from the police or others. Before you know in he might be doing 5 to 10 in prison state America. Getting raped and tortured daily. Yes, the odds are against it given his position in society. No matter a 1% risk may have been too horrific for him to roll the dice.
I'd say self-preservation is definitely a moral virtue that shouldn't be too quickly denigrated. Sure, it would have been nice if he could of saved the young woman and I'm sure he would have done so if not rightfully concern about his life. Besides, he probably thought she was dead. Maybe if he thought she was alive he'd bravely be willing to risk his life. He reportedly repeatedly paid her family and that seems to have settled the books. They might have driven her into the river themselves if they knew nice payoffs would be the reward. Would the young woman have wanted Senator Kennedy to risk his life getting help??? She might have been of the opinion that the great man needed to whatever it took to save himself and that, that was would be the mark of true courage. Sometimes a person must take what a first impression seems like the vile road as part of being a man. The old when in Saudi Arabia don't mourn beheadings---they just be part of the greater good. And, it is just part of the game.
I was thinking of an example of real courage that would appeal to President Bush supporters. American military comes across a home with a single suspected terrorist along with a bevy of innocent children and women. You let the suspected terrorist use these innocent children and women as human shields or do you blow them up in a blaze of glory? Real bravery might be understanding that the war requires extreme vileness so butcher the "human shields" left right and center for the greater good. It is sorta like torturing suspects for the greater good----sure a few sissy men might object, but it is a demonstration of true bravery in doing whatever it takes for the greater good.
The greater good may have been what was on the great man's mind that unfortunate night. Lose a great man for a dead woman or even a single woman that might be saved? Come now if mass bombings are good surely the death of a single woman can be understood and even approved of. Just imagine that President Bush took the same actions. Surely President Bush supporters wouldn't want to lose their macho hero over a single dead woman. Imagine a pussy Democrat giving the terrorists whatever they want! Oh no, run President Bush run! IOWs, be a real man and accept that a great man must sometimes take seemingly vile actions. That girl knew getting into the car with you had risks. She accepted the risk and her family got paid!
Very true! (And completely inconsistent with every other thing you've said, most of which is horrifically insane.)
This country's founders noted (paraphrasing here) ... We have not founded this Nation on the power of government--far from it. We have staked the future of this country on the power of each of us to govern himself...