Speak Out: Would you support a candidate that doesn't understand the First Amendment?

Posted by GREYWOLF on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 11:47 AM:

Congress shall make no law respecting and established religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

YES INDEED !! FREEDOM OF SPEECH...However, there can CERTAINLY be consequences for things people and politicians say while exercising FREE SPEECH!

Replies (60)

  • What in blue blazes is Ike complaining about now?This lad is going off the dep end...again.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 11:50 AM
  • You voted for Obama, and you'd never admit that mistake, Ike. Talk about dense!

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 11:58 AM
  • Afraid so, Ike. No, I did not vote for Obama. Apparently, you didn't hear very well what is really being said.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 12:08 PM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "I would vote for him again over the man who admitted that he had a limited understanding of the modern economy."

    Instead you voted for the guy who has no understanding of the modern economy, and won't admit it...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 12:14 PM
  • I don't need two years to make up my mind about Obama. Not even nanoseconds!

    Don't believe you have to worry further about McCain.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 12:26 PM
  • Spaniard,

    I was no fan of Mr. McCain. I respect his service, but that does not entitle him to my vote. However, as in so many elections, I cast my vote for him because he appeared to be the 'lesser of two evils'. I still believe him to be so.

    Given the current crop of politicians, Sarah Palin may well have been teh most qualified for the job. She knew the duties better than the one who got the job. Mr. Biden, despite his years in the Senate, didn't know that the Vice-President was the president thereof, thinking he only holds that position when there is a tie vote.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 1:15 PM
  • Spaniard,

    Would you consider a legislator who introduces a bill that would make it illegal to burn a US flag somebody that doesn't understand the First Amendment?

    I do.

    I'm not trying to set you up; just generating discussion.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 1:16 PM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "My point is that when someone tells me they are underqualified for office..."

    Given your position on the Veteran's letter, I would think you would be more careful in how you write what the Senator said. That is a 'dreadful misquote'. Having a thorough understanding of the modern economy is not a listed qualification of the job, so to claim that he made such a statement is a bit of stretch.

    At least the man realizes he has limitations. It is good for a man to know such things.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 1:19 PM
  • Spaniard, Is Sara a candidate for something?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 1:19 PM
  • Vandeven wrote:

    "Would you consider a legislator who introduces a bill that would make it illegal to burn a US flag somebody that doesn't understand the First Amendment?"

    Did they propose a bill or a Constitutional Amendment? A bill would fly in the face of the first Amendment. An amendment would seek to change it. If they proposed an amendment, they at least understand the Constitution, even if they don't agree with it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 1:36 PM
  • "Sarah Palin may well have been the most qualified for the job. She knew the duties better than the one who got the job."

    I am pretty sure that it was Sarah that told a classroom that the Vice-President "is in charge of" the Senate. (As in bosses the Senate around.)

    And on Aug 29, 2008 ... In fact, she said she didn't know what the vice president does.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 1:37 PM
  • commonsensematters wrote:

    "I am pretty sure that it was Sarah that told a classroom that the Vice-President "is in charge of" the Senate. (As in bosses the Senate around.)"

    Technically, as President of the Senate, she is 'in charge of' the Senate. She did not say 'bosses the Senate around'. Mr. Biden says the Vice-President is only President of the Senate if there is a tie vote. The Constitution clearly states that the Vice-President is President of the Senate.

    We had a discussion on this a while back. Apparently, many people don't know that the Vice-President has that as their official duty (including, apparently, a number of Senators). Few Vice-Presidents take an active role in the Senate, and Senate rules pretty well exclude them (having a President Pro-Tempore fulfil the duties), but it has not always been thus. The Constitution has not been changed to modify that, although tradition has changed over time.

    Most of us don't know what the Vice-President does. The current one spends most of his time putting his foot in his mouth, which is the same thing he did in the Senate. His predecessor, however, took a much more active role in the administration.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 1:50 PM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "Odd, I could have sworn you just said you judged no person or persons (on the other thread)

    Hmmmmmm....."

    Now you're taking me 'out of context'. I was referring to that particular discussion on that particular thread. I used the term 'judged', not 'judge'.I judge people routinely, rightly or wrongly, but in the discussion on charitable giving, you will note that I did not single out any person specifically as being stingy of purse.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 2:11 PM
  • Rick wrote:

    "which amendment , or part of , does it say that i am required to purchase health insurance ?"

    It's there in the penumbra, between the lines, right next to the phrase "Separation of church and state"...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 2:13 PM
  • And what is wrong with being judgmental whicn means to discern, to choose between alternatives, to decide.

    Stop being silly, Theorist.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 2:26 PM
  • Rick wrote:

    "what does "Separation of church and state" have to do with health insurance ?"

    Nothing, but it's in the same place in the Constitution. I didn't put it there.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 2:34 PM
  • Rick wrote:

    "Rick wrote:

    "what does "Separation of church and state" have to do with health insurance ?"

    Unfortunately, my sense of humour does not always hit the mark. Try this. Go and get your copy of the Constitution and look up the words "Separation of Church and State". You will find the requirement for the purchasing of health insurance in exactly the same place.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 2:40 PM
  • From what I can find, the first health insurance policies in the United States appeared around the Civil War. I do not know if they existed elsewhere before that time. I doubt it. The idea that someone else should be required to help pay your bills is a relatively new one, as are the high costs of health care. Physicians were most likely paid at the time of services, and many hospitals, which were often run by charities, probably recieved little or no monies from their patients.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 2:45 PM
  • In other words, Rick, the Constitution is quiet on the subject. Understand now?

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM
  • Rick, Do you understand the work "penumbra" (mentioned by Hunter) as once used by Justice Hugo Black to justify deciding in favor of something not specifically found in the Constitution?

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 3:01 PM
  • If you mean a candidate underastanding the Constitution, its obvious Obama would prefer to do otherwise.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 3:11 PM
  • The 'regulation' of commerce has been liberally interpreted to give the Congress braod powers to regulate just about everything. However, until the passage of 'Obamacare', it has not been interpreted to allow the Congress to mandate individual citizens to purchase any specific product or service. That will now have to be tested in the courts. I gather from Spaniard's posts that he agrees with this liberal interpretation of the term 'regulate'. I hope, for the sake of our freedom, that the courts do not.

    There was a movie, made in 1967, called 'The President's Analyst'. It was a comedy starring James Coburn, who played the title character. The movie involved efforts by persons unknown to gain access to the President's analyst. It turns out to be The Phone Company (TPC), trying to get him, because they want a law passed mandating that everyone is given a phone number at birth, in essence mandating that everyone purchase telephone service from the monopolistic phone company.

    The bad thing about political jokes is that sometimes they become law.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 3:13 PM
  • Why,Theorist, only as matter of interest, do you so often find it necessary to tell us of your emotional reaction to something. Frankly, we really don't care whether you are laughing, crying, or just having an expulsion of hot air.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 3:23 PM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "Funny no one wants to address the main topic though. I guess it's hard to defend the indefensible."

    You haven't explained how, in her comments, she doesn't understand the First Amendment, but I'll bite:

    "Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")"

    "

    Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!"

    She refers to Dr. Laura's use of the 'N-Word' in an on-air diatribe. There were efforts to get the FCC to banish her from the airwaves, but Dr. Laura stepped down voluntarily. Dr. Laura pointed out that the 'N-Word' is used routinely, and is played on the airwaves in songs, frequently rap songs (although Bob Dylan used it in the song 'Hurricane', which sometimes receives airplay.

    I'm not a fan of Dr. Laura, but she apparently has a fan base. However, it is premature to say that her rights were violated, since she stepped down before the FCC even commented on the issue, to the best of my understanding.

    "If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

    I'm not sure what she's talking about here, but I assume she is commenting on the misuse of the term 'negative campaigning'. I am not aware that anyone has sought to block her right to engage in 'negative campaigning', particularly since she is not currently officially campaigning for office. However, there have been efforts afoot to silence 'negative campaign ads', however those are defined, so it could raise First Amendment concerns if legitimate questions are to be thus labeled. Are you suggesting that she's the first politician to question that?

    "I can relate as a liberal target myself...I respect Carrie Prejean for standing strong and staying true to herself, and for not letting those who disagree with her deny her protection under the nation's First Amendment Rights. Our Constitution protects us all -- not just those who agree with the far left."

    Carrie Prejean has come under vicious attacks for expressing her mind. Those attacks do not, in my opinion, constitute a violation of her rights, but they do show a certain one-sidedness to the liberal interpretation of First Amendment - you can speak freely against conservative viewpoints, but you may not speak freely against liberal ones without having your private life and personal affairs impugned. That is all she seems to be saying, in my opinion.

    Why do her comments trouble you so? She is just one potential candidat speaking her mind. Is she so much more off-base than, say, Cynthia McKinney, about whom you remain silent?

    I don't see anything in the comments you've posted that suggest that Ms. Palin is proposing any legislative or executive action to enforce her view of the First Amendment. She is just saying she is troubled by the efforts of persons on 'the left' to silence and impugn persons on 'the right'. Judging by your frequent posts impugning her, I would say she may have a point.

    Could there be a hint of sexism in your obvious obsession with her?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 3:36 PM
  • Theorist, do you mean like light as in featherhead? Annyoy me, never thought about it.

    Try this. POP! (a tab top upon opening a Dr. Pepper).

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 3:39 PM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "Also, get out your constitution and find the amendment where it states that corporations have "rights". For the life of me I cannot find the word "corporations" in the 14th amendment."

    Corporations are comprised of citizens, who have rights. Citizens have the right to assemble. They have as many rights as do political action groups, trade associations, or citizens' committees. Their rights are an extension of their rights as human beings and as citizens. It is no more wrong to say that the rights of a certain corporation than it is to say the rights of a certain race, group, or committee.

    Incorporating under the laws does not dissolve ones' rights.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM
  • There was a lot of talk about combines and corporations having the civil rights of persons during the early progressive movement. Fear of and support for it fueled the debate that ended with a commerce clause as we know it today.

    To say a word or phrase is not in the constitution is to ignore the interpretation of meaning by progressive judges and self serving lawyers.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 4:10 PM
  • Old John, You have identified the problem...progressive judges. It is the accumulated twisting and turning the Constitution that has lead us to our current arguments. Government should have stayed out of quite a few things.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 4:19 PM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "So you would agree that one needs to "read between the lines", specifically with respect to the 14th amendment, in order to magically find corporate personhood in the constitution?"

    Not at all. The Constitution specifically authorizes people to 'peacably assemble' and to petition for redress. It does not say anything about signing away those rights if they call their assembly a 'corporation'. The 'corporation' does not have rights, but the persons therein do, just as the 'National Rifle Association' does not have rights and the 'American Federation of Labor' does not have rights, but their individual members do.

    'Corporations' have priveledges, which are spelled out in the laws defining and regulating corporations. Can you give me an example of a 'right' extended to a corporation, as opposed to a ruling protecting the rights of a corporations members?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 4:20 PM
  • In the case of Dr. Laura, there was an attempt to use the power of the government (via the FCC) to silence her. I've already noted that it did not get that far, and Dr. Laura's voluntary resignation made it a moot point.

    In the second example she refers to the implications for the 'future of our country' with regard to First Amendment Rights, which I interpret to refer to efforts to get the Congress to regulate 'negative campaign ads'. I know I am 'reading between the lines', but I have read enough to know that this has been a campaign issue for a number of conservative/libertarian candidates. I do not know how widespread the 'negative campaign ad legislation' movement may be, though.

    In the case of Ms. Prejean, I stated that I believe she is addressing the double standard, but again I could be mistaken.

    I would point out that numerous candidates and speakers have complained about the 'trampling on their First Amendment rights' because they have protested and/or disinvited to various engagements. Why, again, I ask are you obsessed with this particular one.?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 4:29 PM
  • Spaniard: You are so right in your 3:49 post. She understands nothing. She comprehends nothing. She has followers that will eventually get tired of her empty thoughts but she will be a multi millionaire from there stupidity first. We would not need the SCOTUS if everyone was in agreement as to what it meant. You and I cannot infringe on each others right to free speech, but she doesn't know that and never will. Obama might be a one term president, but the real entertainment is going to be the republican primary campaigns. Don't mean to wish my life away, but I wish it was tomorrow.

    -- Posted by howdydoody on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 4:34 PM
  • I would point out, since you bring it up, that the First Amendment's wording is quite specific, that "Congress shall make no law...", which clearly limits the prohibition on establishment and restriction of religion to the Federal level. The Tenth Amendment specifically states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Thus, it would appear that the establishment of religion remains a right of the states, since it clearly not prohibited to them by the Constitution. Granted, many states have their own prohibitions in place, extending that freedom to the state level, but not all do so.

    Congress, as you know, does not pass State laws, only federal ones.

    It was not until 1947 that the courts even began to argue that that amendment applied to the States, and not until the 1960s that it was actually applied to them.

    Is it fair, therefore, to call those judges that do not understand that the prohibition is federal, not state 'stupid'?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 5:22 PM
  • "Corporations are comprised of citizens, who have rights. Citizens have the right to assemble. They have as many rights as do political action groups, trade associations, or citizens' committees. Their rights are an extension of their rights as human beings and as citizens. It is no more wrong to say that the rights of a certain corporation than it is to say the rights of a certain race, group, or committee.

    Incorporating under the laws does not dissolve ones' rights."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 3:42 PM

    The purpose behind forming groups such as PAC's, trade associations, or citizen's committees is normally political in nature, or at least to undertake some common purpose or endeavor. Corporations are associations of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence irrespective of that of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. A key aspect is obviously the relief of individual liability from members.

    But normally the corporation also has separate responsibilities, one of the foremost being the task of maintaining positive financial activity. In essence the corporation has a duty to its stockholders to make money through commercial and investment transactions. In these cases a corporation would not be permitted to invest in political contributions, unless and only if there is a realistic expectation of receiving a return on such a "political investment" in the form of favorable treatment, tax breaks or such returns.

    And in spite of what the Supreme Court said, political contributions with the express intent of receiving something of value in return amounts to bribery. I think corporations are not individuals and would be well advised to stay out of the buying of politicians. Unless of course, as I mentioned once before, that the purchased politicians are required to wear corporate patches, like NASCAR drivers, so we can tell which company owns which politician.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 8:49 PM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "Then why the need to classify a corporation as a "person" at all?"

    I do not believe they are. A person can be a corporation, but a corporation cannot be a person.

    commonsensematters wrote:

    People, either as individuals or as groups, incorporate under the laws for a couple of reasons: for tax incentives and for liability protection primarily. Both of these factors :liability and taxes, are matters of law, therefore it is only logical to assume that influencing the lawmakers that write those laws is a necessary component of their duties, just as citizens are expected to influence the lawmakers who draft laws affecting them. That is, after all, the entire idea behind representative democracy.

    It would be absurd to incorporate under the laws, knowing that the laws can be changed at random and that you, the incorporated, have no say in the direction those laws take.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 10:10 PM
  • We have a fairly clear of the rights of stockholders. But what of the bondholders?

    For example, in the case of bankruptcy, who has first call on any remaining assets?

    Laws very from state to state.

    I'm thinking of the shameful action taken by the federal government in the case of General Motors. The bondholders were disregarded, while the labor union ended up with a piece of the pie.

    This was not one of Obama's shining moments.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 10:43 PM
  • Under that rationale their would not be any corporations. Laws can always be changed and there are thousands of corporations anyhow. My point is simply is that corporations should not be allowed to bribe politicians.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 10:54 PM
  • And the same should apply equally to labor unions, other groups, and individuals.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 11:14 PM
  • Corporations are owned by individuals. It is not some kindof separate entity That does not belong to anyone. Most are owned by one person.

    As far as corporations buying vote what about Obama selling votes. I think that is just as dangerous.

    Palin? I didn't realize she was running. Common and Ike just cant let go.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Aug 21, 2010, at 11:40 PM
  • Spaniard wrote: It wasn't a mistake. He was the better choice at the time given the limited options. I would vote for him again over the man who admitted that he had a limited understanding of the modern economy.

    Sapniard, you likw many women and young people in this Country are either Deaf dumb or just blind!

    WHO IS BARACK OBAMA? What had he EVER done before coming into the spotlight during that silly democratic convention 6 years ago give or take?

    NOT a darn thing but live off of other people and then write a couple of ignorant books. You apparently know very little about qualifications!!! He is the joke that I don't laugh at! The only good thing that will come out of his presidency is that women and young people in this Country will not make the same mistake twice and vote for him again. 2012 cannot get her quick enough for me.

    -- Posted by GREYWOLF on Sun, Aug 22, 2010, at 6:39 AM
  • During the campaign, when Mr. Obama's qualifications for being president were questioned, some pointed to the text of the Constitution, and said that was all that was required.

    Now, it seems, a thorough understanding of the modern economic system is somehow paramount to those. Curious.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Aug 22, 2010, at 8:36 AM
  • "Yes we can," Rick, harp if we want to, even conduct a symphony orchestra if we so choose. Wonder what Theorist's reaction will be if Palin should happen to win the Presidency in 2012? Betcha we'd never hear the end of it.

    Would have hoped by now she would have gotten the message we do NOT want Obama to succeed with his disastrous agenda for America.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Aug 22, 2010, at 9:43 AM
  • Rick and Voyager,

    You apparently did not clear your opinions with the correct people before posting.

    So, I suppose you will just have to consider yourselves as having just been told.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Aug 22, 2010, at 10:49 AM
  • Wheels, I'm not surprised. Theorist would never agree to anything I say, particularly if not cleared through the Grand Poobah of Enlightgened Liberal Thought and Righteousness. I'm just not pure and Holy enough, let alone unable to speak Correct Talk.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Aug 22, 2010, at 11:43 AM
  • Barack Obama, uhm uhm um.

    And that was just in one school!

    When the lawyers realized they could use the commerce clause to take their corporate/civil cases to the federal supreme court, that is when the corporations took on a personage. Before if a combine was sued for remedy, the limitation was what was in the corporate treasury. Now days a corporation can be ransacked by the federal government via fines and class action judgements that reach other than monetary holdings.

    In other words, the stockholders pay dearly.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Aug 22, 2010, at 6:49 PM
  • Rick, I got too much middle.

    I think you are on to something. Too much R and too much D with too little research and developement. When R and D are both going down the same path, might be time to think for one's self and jump not into the middle but the outside.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Aug 22, 2010, at 8:41 PM
  • I hope Palin would win for no other reaason than Theorist would virtually drown hersself in bicarbonate! (belch) that was for her.

    -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Aug 22, 2010, at 9:37 PM
  • A Bromo perhaps?

    Voyager, Be nice now!

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Aug 22, 2010, at 9:55 PM
  • How about this guy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE

    "The Federal Government, yes, Can do most anything in this country"

    "I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life."

    - Rep. Fortney 'Pete' Stark, D. Ca. -

    Yet, the voters of California send this guy back, year after year, since 1973.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 23, 2010, at 9:48 PM
  • One more reason for us to be successful at the November election and defeat his likes.

    -- Posted by voyager on Mon, Aug 23, 2010, at 10:47 PM
  • While I do agree with much of what "Stupid Sarah" says, I also have some questions whether she understands that the First Amendment proscribes only Government limits on speech. I will be supporting another Republican candidate. But I am even more certain that Obama is concerned only about his socialist agenda and does not give a dead rat's behind about the Constitution. BTW, if anybody is counting, it's now 70 days until Nov. 2. It can't come soon enough.

    -- Posted by tom on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 12:12 AM
  • Does anybody, liberal or conservative, really care about Palin??? They're not going to put her up in the next race (at least I hope not)..she's just kinda a retarded side-show. Just my two cents.

    -- Posted by clkv on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 10:14 AM
  • Rick wrote:

    "We are the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents, clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies."

    We have programmes in America to deal with all of those things. We have homeless shelters all over America, public and private. We have food stamps and school meal programmes, food pantries and soup kitchens, WIC and welfare. We have a Medicare and Medicaid, and more recently, a prescpription drug programme especially for seniors, to help pay for the drugs that Medicare and Medicaid didn't cover. We have a multitude of mental-health facilities, public and private, to address the needs of the mentally ill.

    Haiti has nothing but the generosity of her neighbors.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 10:25 AM
  • I see ignorance is running amuck today.

    -- Posted by Turnip on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 10:45 AM
  • Rick,

    We weren't wealthy, but we ate.

    I am no fan of the prescription drug programme. It seems our entitlement programmes just get bigger and bigger every year.

    I has been forty-six years since President Johnson declared a war on poverty. Most of the programmes I've mentioned have been enacted since that time. Every year, it seems, we declare the problems to be 'growing' and we demand both more monies for the extant programmes and more programmes in addition to them. I have not seen one programme dismantled, either due to its lack of effectiveness or due to its success in winning the battle it was charge with fighting. They just become part of our culture, our lives, and the financial burden we bear.

    I give money to Haiti, to the Middle East, to Africa, and to the Far East, because for most of them, our generosity is all they have. I can't give much, but every little bit helps.

    I pay a lot more in taxes than I give to charity, so it is fair to say I am contributing much more to America's situation than to theirs. I pay Social Security taxes, which are being used to pay for retirees today. I pay Medicare taxes, which are used to buy medical care and medicines for senior citizens. I pay income taxes, a sizeable portion of which supports Medicaid and various other entitlement programmes. I pay State taxes and local, which support the education system and the various state-run systems. Even so, it seems there is always a demand for more, more, more. We have the richest poor in the world. Even so, methinks they would take the food from the mouths of starving Haitians to satisfy their own hunger pangs.

    I've been overseas, and I've seen real poverty. Even in the midst of this recession, we have it pretty darn good.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 11:30 AM
  • Rick wrote:

    "as far as prescription drug programs for seniors , the $250 towards the donut hole is an insult.."

    An insult to whom? Whose responsibility is it to pay for the medicines of others? How much is enough? How much is too much? We have programmes to provide such things to those who are indigent. If they are not indigent, should they not carry their own water?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 11:36 AM
  • Shapley Hunter,

    One of my sons was in the Navy as well as Army and couldn't believe what he saw in other countries as to the level of poverty.

    -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 11:40 AM
  • Red_Rhino wrote:

    "One of my sons was in the Navy as well as Army and couldn't believe what he saw in other countries as to the level of poverty."

    I've been all over this country as well, and I've never seen anything in the U.S. that compares to what I've seen overseas.

    In the few instances in which I've ever heard of children actually starving to death in America, it was always a case of parental abuse or neglect, not poverty, that was to blame.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 11:53 AM
  • Shapley Hunter,

    I worked in a county that was designated as one of the poorest in the state and when my kids complained about how poor we were, I would put them in my car and take them to see what I saw on a daily basis. Of course being kids it took more than one trip.

    Even that was nothing compared to some places in the south and southwest; sure there are worse, but I haven't done a lot of traveling.

    -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 12:10 PM
  • Rick,

    I'm not a fan of the government sending all that money, but I send to charities that work in Pakistan. Often, you won't see the results of it, since it is spent on things like medicine and food and clothing, but it is being put to good use.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 1:49 PM
  • Why stop with just the 1st amendment? I would love to find a viable candidate that understands the constitution period.

    But I know that is to much to hope for.

    -- Posted by Airborne 95B on Tue, Aug 24, 2010, at 1:59 PM

Respond to this thread