Write Review
1,982,231 Total Reviews 3,948 New Reviews
10,653 Users Online

Politics and Religion

Stand Up comedy on the floor of the House of Representatives
SinsOfTheFlesh See my TER Reviews 3561 reads
posted

What would that do for home construction? Nothing. What would it do to our debt? Alot.

How many Doctors would such a right ad? ZERO. We already have a doctor shortage.

How many schools would such a right add? ZERO. How much would it add to our debt? Alot.

An iPod is a right?? A laptop is a right???

And liberals wonder why only the dumbest crackpots vote for them. This clip, along with Maxine Waters threatening to socialize, err, uh, *cough* err, err nationalize oil companies should be played every hour on the hour on every television station across the land.

I'd laugh it if weren't so damned scary.

Related Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmO9SB2kQnk

Priapus531386 reads

At least he didn't use the words "reparations" or "Hymietown."

OTOH, you don't think conservatives have the dumbest crackpots vote for them ? The pic below proves that point :

-- Modified on 3/9/2011 11:04:21 AM

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u2004 reads

"We need to have a right to a decent home."

The Republican party platform of 1876 stated in plank number 9:

"We reaffirm our opposition to further grants of the public lands to corporations and monopolies, and demand that the national domain be devoted to free homes for the people."

What Jackson is saying isn't all that radical. The details aside, he is basically saying that our government should do things FOR the people instead of doing things TO them.

Related Link: Republican party platform of 1876

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461206 reads

....I point out how silly it is to use a document that's 135 years old to bolster an argument.

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd1656 reads

Why? ;)

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky462048 reads

They used to be against slavery!  No, really, you've got to be kidding.  Both parties principles have changed because the world has, too.  You've got to be careful with an argument like that, Willy, because it leads you down  the same path as "strict constructionist" readings of the Constitution like your buddy Justice Scalia.  Do you really want to hold Republicans to the "original intent" of their party platform that long ago.  Before you say "yes" I suggest you go back and read the Dems party platform from the same year.

ReplyQuoteReport
mattradd1441 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky461306 reads

If you re-read the youj're referring to, I thought I was responding to Willy. Sorry for the confusion.  I still stand by what I wrote but understand your reaction to it.

-- Modified on 3/9/2011 6:44:55 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
willywonka4u1302 reads

ReplyQuoteReport
inicky46899 reads

Clearly you're referring to the Constitution, so please see my post above this one.  You can't take a "strict constructionist" stance on the Republicans' 1876 platform (which, by the way, can't be put at the same level of importance as the Constitution), and not do the same with the Constitution itself.  I'm trying to imagine you lining up with Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, as your new fellow travelers.

-- Modified on 3/9/2011 5:58:41 PM

ReplyQuoteReport
SinsOfTheFlesh1405 reads

The document refers to land grants. Jackson is proposing that the gov't build a house for everyone. Huge difference. The Republican platform dealt with how the US Gov't at the time was parcelling out land grants. Back then, we had tens of million of acres of land free for the taking. The same is not true today. I'm not sure what the population of the US was in 1876 and I'm feeling lazy so I'm not going to bother looking it up. It was nowhere close to our population of over 300 million today though. If you or Jackson honestly thinks its realistic to build homes for everyone, think again. We need to get over the idea of everyone having their own home as our population continues to rise anyways. Apartment living is what the generations that follow us will have to deal with. But lets run out and build a couple million homes on the gov't dime. Why not? Its not as though we aren't in debt enough.

ReplyQuoteReport
anonymousfun1028 reads

There many democracies with right to basic education in their constitution. Liberals are not dumb, they happen to know that as poverty increases and when basic needs are not met, revolution and unrest starts. Government's role is to make sure every one has basic rights, no one gets taken advantage of and to level the playing filed.

Our businesses have deteriorated to the extend that is hard to find an honest business, may that be medical insurance, no one understands what they pay for and what they don't, all I know is I don't get reimbursed, may that be a Home Warranty Company, they will just charge you $225 for washing an AC, so, finding any honest business these days is a crap shoot.

We are all experiencing or experienced what the financial deregulation did and they are allowed to run free again. Doing whatever you want, the way you please and screwing others is not running a business of any kind. All this talk about regulation killing business is big fucking bull shit.

ReplyQuoteReport
allthebetter2120 reads

Jacson?...a joke and a waste of breath....

Oil companies.....insane profits..........insane environmental damage...........insane dependency............insane hands OFF policies.....

I don’t know......maybe we should talk about it......

Good thing the first human too take a breath did not claim air as their own.

Way to late to even talk about nationalization.

ReplyQuoteReport
anonymousfun2426 reads

The previous Secretary of OPEC was saying that the gas prices are not regulated by supply and demand, OPEC doesn't control prices or supply any longer. He claims, speculation controls supply. He was on BBC last week. He has written a book, name of the book escapes me at the moment.

Suppose, I will look it up on BBC.

ReplyQuoteReport
Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!