« LEADING CD3 DFL ACTIVIST WRITES OFF THE 3RD IN 2012 | Home
MOVING ON
By Andy Post | February 28, 2012
As we move into the 2012 election cycle, I will be taking a more active role in Minnesota’s political scene by helping several candidates that I believe strongly in. As such, I will be handing my responsibilities at MDE over to a yet-to-be-determined editor in the coming weeks.
Writing for MDE has been a privilege and a tremendous learning experience that has given me a true appreciation for the dedication that so many activists and bloggers give to the conservative cause in Minnesota. I can’t thank those that have given me this opportunity enough for their trust and guidance.
Until the official handoff has been made, I may periodically post content for our readers. I can always be contacted using my personal email address (andypost@gmail.com). I encourage readers to stay in touch and continue submitting quality content.
Sincerely,
Andy Post
Topics: MDE, MN GOP | 81 Comments »
February 28th, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Good luck Andy!
February 29th, 2012 at 7:58 AM
RINO Romney could barely carry Michigan, one of his home states. For the life of me, I don’t understand why people think this bozo is “electable” or ever has a prayer of defeating Barack Hussein Obama. Good grief.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:14 AM
There is no right and left anymore, only left.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:01 AM
I don’t understand why people think this bozo is “electable” or ever has a prayer of defeating Barack Hussein Obama.
If I were running Mitt’s campaign (and I can’t imagine why I am not) the message both subliminal and otherwise I would send is that Mitt can be the effective Obama, that he can put through Obama’s agenda, on health care, on the management of the economy, in a way the president cannot. I believe it’s an extremely powerful, even winning general election case. But it’s also antithetical to success in Republican primaries, and Mitt’s problem right now is that the longer he is engaged in getting the nomination, the more delayed he is in presenting his general election message, and the less able he will be to present it effectively.
February 29th, 2012 at 9:13 AM
#4
Therein lies the problem that so many of us have with Romney and others. Obviously, they do it, but there should not be two messages.
If you want any shred of credibility, you simply cannot say one thing in the primaries and another in the general election. It is preposterous that anyone will ever believe the candidate at that point.
February 29th, 2012 at 10:35 AM
“Therein lies the problem that so many of us have with Romney and others. Obviously, they do it, but there should not be two messages.”
Indeed. It’s an article of faith (one of many) among conservatives that conservatism has never failed because it’s never been tried; that Republican presidents invariably sell them out. This is a convenient view of course, allowing conservatives to rationalize away the disastrous performance of the Republicans they do elect. But it’s not without the odd grain of truth either. Mitt can barely wait to sell conservatives out. He can’t do it early enough. But where the process of selling out is concerned, I think conservatives should take a good long look at themselves in the mirror, and ask themselves when the inevitable sell out is concerned, who exactly it is who is doing the selling?
February 29th, 2012 at 3:53 PM
#6
Wrong. Conservatism works EVERY TIME it is tried. Elected GOP officials, including presidents, have failed when they stray from basic conservative principles.
Tax cuts work. Spending cuts work. Peace through strength works. Economic liberty works. Welfare reform works. Private property works.
The last half of your post is so poorly articulated that responding to it would be pointless.
February 29th, 2012 at 4:26 PM
The tax cuts of the Bush administration ran up the deficit, certainly didn’t hype the economy, and didn’t stave off the worst recession since the great depression itself.
Where exactly did all that money that went into tax cuts go? Apart from the big hunk of it that went to Mitt Romney’s pocket in exchange for literally nothing.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:18 PM
Good luck Andy, I am sure you will be a valuable asset to all Republican campaigns this year.
February 29th, 2012 at 8:20 PM
State senators gave final legislative approval Tuesday to a major change in South Dakota’s concealed weapon laws: Adults wouldn’t need to apply for a permit any more.
Another good reason to move to SD, your 2nd amendment rights are protected and respected.
Gotta love it!
February 29th, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Watching the election news and it suddenly came to me… the only thing dumber than someone who voted for Obama 1x is someone who votes for him a 2nd time.
February 29th, 2012 at 11:05 PM
#11
Yeah, the election “news” on the Fox News Channel can fool even really sharp conservative viewers.
Think of it this way… those who vote for Commander in Chief Barack Obama 2 times will be deprived of voting for him a 3rd time.
March 1st, 2012 at 7:38 AM
The only thing worse than reading a post by Danny The Grammar Queen is reading his next one.
March 1st, 2012 at 7:38 AM
#11
Too bad we can’t give I.Q. tests before letting people vote. I’m just sayin……
March 1st, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Too bad we can’t give I.Q. tests before letting people vote. I’m just sayin……
Republicans just can’t help themselves. This is the motivating idea behind Voter ID, the belief on the part of Republicans that the wrong people are voting.
March 1st, 2012 at 10:11 AM
#14
Yeah, but what would you do if you couldn’t exercise your right to vote? I guess the GOP would have to make up for the lost vote some other way.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:38 PM
#16
Danny boy, my I.Q. being off the charts would be on the high end, so it wouldn’t be an issue.
Yours, on the other hand……kiss your vote good bye, pal.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:41 PM
#15
If you want to know the truth, eligible voters should pass a literacy test in English, must own property, and must not be receiving any form of government assistance.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:43 PM
#10
It’s amazing that a simple line on a map can separate common sense/sanity from liberal-controlled insanity in the People’s Republic of Minnesota.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:05 PM
“If you want to know the truth, eligible voters should pass a literacy test in English, must own property, and must not be receiving any form of government assistance.”
At last, the cats emerge from their bags.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:00 PM
#20 The cat’s been out of the bag for 177 years.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville from Democracy in America (1835)
De Tocqueville was prescient, because of you and the whole sordid history of the Pro-Slavery, Pro-Racist, Pro-Eugenicist, Constitution-Hating, Civilization-Deconstructing, Demoagogic Democrat Party Detritus, Hector, this country is existing on borrowed Greek time.
March 1st, 2012 at 4:29 PM
There is some truth to what de Tocqueville says. That’s why people are against entitlements but for what they entitle. But that’s neither here nor there.
The message I get from Alexis is that certain people shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they have a tendency to vote for the other guy. And that really is why Republicans want voter ID. The party and political types have been schooled not to say that, but the truth does manage to seep out on Republican message board, the political id of the Republican Party.
March 1st, 2012 at 6:08 PM
#22 “There is some truth to what de Tocqueville says. That’s why people are against entitlements but for what they entitle. But that’s neither here nor there.”
No, that’s definitely “here”. It’s the whole non-ideological Point of the Tea Pary Movement. It’s Math. It’s Economics 101. It’s the Grown-ups in the room being called “Terrorists” and “Fringy” by responding responsibly to the Juveniles in the room (primarily Lefties) who act like their Mommy and Daddy are meanies for not letting them have whatever they want, whenever they want it, in the moment, because they are “entitled”. Bush and Obama are part of the same hypocrisy of our so-called leaders, actually two sides of the same coin that is the “Pander Party”.
March 1st, 2012 at 6:22 PM
#22 “The message I get from Alexis is that certain people shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they have a tendency to vote for the other guy. And that really is why Republicans want voter ID.”
You certainly got a strange message, then. The Framers of the Constitution identified the inherent human weaknesses that weaken and ultimately destroy a self-governing republic and contructed a document for governance that would maximize liberty and self-reliance and minimize governmental “solutions” and dependency-building constituent groups.
Just because you wish something were so, doesn’t make it true, Hector. I can’t speak for Republicans, but I would think any citizen would want to be certain that all elections are transparent and perceived as a true representation of the collective voice of the will of the people. It boggles the mind that one simple step, that is already a part of everyday life in America, and would massively reduce the prospect of election fraud, is opposed by just one party, and strongly suggests that they have relied on perpetration of that type of fraud for their continued electoral viability.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Actually I think Hector is onto something here. We conservatives would like to keep the ignoramuses of the world from voting. Hector acknowledges, without meaning to, that these are the constituents of the dumbocrat party. Without the useful idiot vote liberals couldn’t win.
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:05 AM
#22
As you say “Just because you wish something were so, doesn’t make it true”. The framers of the Constitution were not involved in the process of limiting government but rather of massively expanding it (see Confederation, Articles of). The Constitution out of the need to control the short term selfish interests of certain elites, not because of any worry about dependency-building constituent groups (see Connecticut ports).
It must be a constant source of amazement to you that Republicans ever win an election in North Dakota with their voting laws.
March 2nd, 2012 at 5:50 AM
It’s the whole non-ideological Point of the Tea Party Movement.
People vote for what’s in their self interest. The Tea Party wants to cut government spending, but not noticeably any government spending that benefits them. I hear no calls from them demanding cuts in Medicare or Social Security. Indeed any effort at all to rein in on what we spend on health care is immediately met with screeds about death panels, rationing, and the like.
“The Framers of the Constitution identified the inherent human weaknesses that weaken and ultimately destroy a self-governing republic and contructed a document for governance that would maximize liberty and self-reliance and minimize governmental “solutions” and dependency-building constituent groups.”
The framers of the constitution were concerned with safeguarding slavery, perhaps one of the things that Alexis was criticizing, however indirectly.
March 2nd, 2012 at 6:16 AM
Hector acknowledges, without meaning to, that these are the constituents of the dumbocrat party. Without the useful idiot vote liberals couldn’t win.
Yes, I am big on the right to vote for everyone, not just those smart enough to vote Democrat.
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:46 AM
My wife told me that Davy Jones had died, and I didn’t believe her, but then I saw her face, now
I’m a bereaver.
March 2nd, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Even funnier, since my wife is Japanese and tends to slur her R’s… lol
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:05 AM
“People vote for what’s in their self interest.”
Rewind the de Toqueville tape…
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:09 AM
“The Tea Party wants to cut government spending, but not noticeably any government spending that benefits them. I hear no calls from them demanding cuts in Medicare or Social Security.”
I know it’s hard for you to hear anything with your index fingers stuck in your ears while you’re screaming “I’m not listening, I’m not listening!…Terrorist, racist, astroturfer…!”
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:26 AM
“Indeed any effort at all to rein in on what we spend on health care is immediately met with screeds about death panels, rationing, and the like.”
I guess that’s why Obama and the Congressional Dems removed the “death panel” language from the original bill…and of course, there’s no precedent for things like this happening when your cherished government bureaucracy makes our health care decisions for us:The Death Book for Veterans: “Your Life, Your Choice”
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html)
And Dems would never stoop so low as to demagogue an issue as serious as health care rationing, right?(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuOsWY0cLkU&feature=player_embedded)
March 2nd, 2012 at 8:48 AM
“The framers of the constitution were concerned with safeguarding slavery, perhaps one of the things that Alexis was criticizing, however indirectly.”
Yeah, right. Misunderstanding and misinformation must be hobbies of yours.
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Unlike your own silly solipsistic reading of Constitutional intent, I think Frederick Douglas better qualifies as an authority on the Constitution:
“Take the Constitution according to its plain reading,” he challenged the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society on July 5, 1852, in Rochester, New York. “I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. In fact, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a glorious liberty document.”
Unlike you Deconstructors, I’ll go with the original intent of the message within the Constitution, forged through the Dems treasured “compromise” in order present a viable revolutionary country to the rest of the world, amidst the awakening of individual rights inherent in ideals of the Enlightenment, but also the residual cognitive dissonance held over from previous cultural mores.
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:34 AM
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
Was he referring to slavery at that point.
“Unlike your own silly solipsistic reading of Constitutional intent, I think Frederick Douglas better qualifies as an authority on the Constitution:”
Republicans simply cannot help themselves. They cannot resist an appeal to authority. In any event, I direct you to Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, a passage Mr. Douglass, with all his expertise in the constitution, seems to be unfamiliar with.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:17 AM
27 …I hear no calls from them demanding cuts in Medicare or Social Security. Indeed any effort at all to rein in on what we spend on health care is immediately met with screeds about death panels, rationing, and the like.
Hear me now: We need to rein in what the government spends on Medicare and Social Security. In fact I am all for phasing them out altogether. This will happen over time whether or not anyone wants it. The birthrate and simple arithmetic tell us that sooner or later these programs must fail. Indeed, they are failing now. Don’t feel bad about that, they are failing all over the world. We can face the facts now and plan our way out of the problem and minimize the pain. Or we can continue with our heads in the sand and allow massive failure to make the decision for us.
Guess what I’m betting on.
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:53 AM
#36 +1!!
March 2nd, 2012 at 11:01 AM
I think it’s good when Republicans come out against Social Security. It’s clarifying and verifies what Democrats have always said. We get accused of being demagogic on these issues, and it’s good to have evidence that this isn’t so. Now if Republicans would only step out of the shadow of message board anonymity and acknowledge these positions publicly.
What we are seeing here aren’t death panels, rather it’s death panel thinking. Basically, the argument is that we simply can’t afford to grow old, and that we should break the commitments we have made to our elderly. We won’t actually hire a death panel to deliver the bad news; we will simply leave that to obscure rules drafted and enforced by an anonymous bureaucracy. This is at the heart of the Republican view of personal responsibility. If we can’t find anyone responsible for something, it can’t be wrong.
March 2nd, 2012 at 11:30 AM
“I think it’s good when Republicans come out against Social Security. It’s clarifying and verifies what Democrats have always said…”
which is, of course: Dems strictly follow your golden rule of “demagoguery now, demagoguery forever”, ie, overwhelming evidence of continual imposition of impractical and outmoded economic and demographic projections (that would qualify as financial malfeasance in the private sector!) as methodology for financing pie in the sky “commitments to our elderly” and negate as much individual responsibility in the process.
Talk about blaming the messenger, you’ve got that meme down pat, Hector.
Repubs, for all their faults, have tried for 30+ years in proposing updated alternatives that reflect economic realities to future financing- which involve personal financial responsibility with implied maintained commitments to current recipients, only to be demagogued as “extremists” and “willingly throwing Grandma off the cliff.”
(Of course, it’s your President and Party that cut $500Billion from Medicare and cut SSI payroll taxes by 2% for the last two years, which fast-forwards the inevitable day of reckoning).
But you wallow in the need to be “right on the issue” with your “head in the sand”, as ARS put it, and can continue pretending you’re protecting your constituents’ interests as you slowly sink yourselves and the country into oblivion.
March 2nd, 2012 at 11:46 AM
“Republicans simply cannot help themselves. They cannot resist an appeal to authority.”
Project you much?!? (In other words then, you admit you got nothin’!)
“In any event, I direct you to Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, a passage Mr. Douglass, with all his expertise in the constitution, seems to be unfamiliar with.”
Unlike you, I am certain Frederick Douglass was quite familiar with the entire Constitution. The intent of the 3/5ths measure was well-fleshed-out at the time, and had even been debated and voted down at the original adoption of the Articles of Confederation.
See, unlike you as a Deconstructionist who can only understand history from the drug-addled viewpoint of post-modern, country-hating historians, there was a real, actual, revolutionary, fledgling country back in the 18th Century. Our revolution could have taken us on the course that the Jacobins chose that has since, forever doomed France; or, we could have recognized that on the hierarchy of needs scale, giver our precarious possibilities for survival from threatening European powers, Compromising (there’s that word you love again) on one significant, but less important matter, to obtain the means to promote and provide for a common defense and forge a unified government without imposition of a Monarchy or Dictator was a brilliant idea. (Plus, as Douglass stated, it codified the revolutionary language of liberty and the means by which slavery and other societal ills could be addressed at a future point in time).
March 2nd, 2012 at 1:17 PM
Mr. Douglass, the authority you cited on the Constitution, said ““Take the Constitution according to its plain reading,” he challenged the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society on July 5, 1852, in Rochester, New York. “I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it.”
It took a moment’s google search to locate the provision of the constitution proving him wrong. You don’t seem to dispute that. Instead you talk at some length about matters which weren’t within the scope of what your authority was discussing.
If you are going to argue from authority, something I don’t recommend in general, at the very least should start with better, more knowledgeable authorities.
March 2nd, 2012 at 5:43 PM
#41 Obtusely swerving past the on-point facts and demonstrating your racist condescending tendencies against a former slave, to boot. (I know you can’t help yourself, it’s tough making a living defending the entire sordid history of the Democratic Party)
My cite was entirely within the scope of my argument and I dispute your entire attempt at refutation, the founders were well aware of the 3/5ths dilemma (even Southerners like Washington and Jefferson wrote on the record of their moral opposition to the practice, the “Father of the Constitution”, Madison, called it “a great evil); Douglass was egregiously aware of the 3/5ths dilemma (geez, how thick do you have to be to construe an unavoidable compromise as “pro-slavery”?) and he came to terms with the context of the times in which it was written- he had the faith, and as it turned out, the foresight to know that the very document you enjoy denigrating would one day soon, function as designed, to remedy the moral injustice of slavery.
I don’t consider the Deconstructionist blatherers that you champion as “better, more knowledgeable authorities”, as you obviously do; it is far wiser to go to the original sources, for you know, an actual account of their original intent.
From the time of the founding, popular abolition sentiment grew ever-stronger and legislation limited it and successive Northern states abandoned it outright. Only Democrats stood in the way federally, serving in all 3 branches of the government. The RINOs of the time, the Whigs, by failing to take a strong stand, disappeared into oblivion.
March 3rd, 2012 at 6:55 AM
It would be condescending to overlook Mr. Douglass’ error because of his status as a former slave, something’s that irrelevant to the current discussion. I think what happened here is that Mr. Douglass was making a political point, not a legal point. Like a lot of modern tea partiers, he was talking about the constitution as he wanted to be, not the actual document itself.
I do understand that many of the founders thought slavery was a great evil. That’s why they dealt with the subject so carefully, so indirectly in crafting their document which accepted slavery in America. We have a government of limited powers, not because the founders were concerned about socialized medicine, but because some of the founders were concerned that an empowered federal government would eliminate slavery. That’s in fact what did happen in the British Empire.
March 5th, 2012 at 8:45 AM
Barack Hussein Obama is still protecting his allies in Teheran.
I predict that if Israel does act (as it should) and blows the hell out of Iran, Barack Hussein Obama will make sure that the U.S. taxpayers pay to rebuild their stinking country.
March 5th, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Personally, I am opposed to turning American foreign policy over to Israel. It’s interesting to me that the Republican view, that our policy in these matters should be decided in Jerusalem isn’t seen as the attack it is on American sovereignty.
March 5th, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Thats a very pro hitler statement you just made there hector…now look at whats being revealed around here, your admitting your pro nazi and a proud racist. Whats next? Are you going to put on your hood and start to burn crosses in front of every African-American families home across the cities?
Your mother must be proud……
March 5th, 2012 at 12:36 PM
45) Are you speaking toward the American policy which is supporting so far the only true democracy in the region… ??
Spoken like a typical uninformed Democrat.
46) Not surprising really, there is not a lot of distance between National Socialists and the current progressive Democrat party. They share common political roots from the progressive movement from the turn of the past century.
March 5th, 2012 at 12:38 PM
46) Burning crosses (and black churches) was another historical ‘gift’ from the so called enlightened progressive Democrat party.
March 5th, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Back to the original post….where do I apply to become Editor-in-Chief of MDE? I’d love the opportunity to play intellectual whack-a-mole with libtards, I’m guaranteed to win every single time.
and yes hector, fluke is a god damn slut!
March 5th, 2012 at 1:02 PM
So obama calls fluke on the phone, the 30 year old libtard activist, wanna be ambulance chaser….why? (wheres her diploma by-the-way?)I mean, it’s not like he would offer a supreme court judge position to an inexperienced lawyer who’s entire life is consumed with activism and whom has never even heard a court case in her life would he?
Food for thought.
March 5th, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Thats a very pro hitler statement you just made there hector…now look at whats being revealed around here,
So be it.
March 5th, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Are you speaking toward the American policy which is supporting so far the only true democracy in the region… ??
Yes.
March 5th, 2012 at 1:38 PM
……..and he admits it……
March 5th, 2012 at 1:52 PM
#43 “It would be condescending to overlook Mr. Douglass’ error because of his status as a former slave, something’s that irrelevant to the current discussion.”
and yet- not to be too condescending to such an esteemed lefty “living” Constitutional scholar as yourself—
It was you who brought up the “irrelevant” topic of slavery vis a vis the Constitution in post #27!
March 5th, 2012 at 1:57 PM
” I think what happened here is that Mr. Douglass was making a political point, not a legal point. Like a lot of modern tea partiers, he was talking about the constitution as he wanted to be, not the actual document itself.”
Your ability in seeing things backasswards is unlimited (not exactly a useful life skill). You were the one to introduce the “slavery” meme in the discussion in your feeble attempt to slam the essential governmental principles that have made the US the freedom-beacon to the world- the most significant positive force for social change the world has ever known- your point is then completely shot down while you display a whiff of racism- and then you say it’s irrelevant to the current discussion anyway.
Your closing sentence is exactly opposite of reality and fully demonstrates the classic liberal mental disorder of Paranoid Projection, it’s your side that has found “emanations” inside of “penumbras” within a “Living Document”– “NOT the actual document itself”.
March 5th, 2012 at 3:04 PM
#43″I do understand that many of the founders thought slavery was a great evil. That’s why they dealt with the subject so carefully, so indirectly in crafting their document which accepted slavery in America. We have a government of limited powers, not because the founders were concerned about socialized medicine, but because some of the founders were concerned that an empowered federal government would eliminate slavery.”
You couldn’t be more profoundly wrong in your conclusion on the reasons for the implementations of limited government, although you are backing off from your previous perjorative stridencies. The majority knew that slavery would not last long-term and it was only a question of HOW it would be finally abolished, not IF. James Madison kept copious notes of the entire set of debates at the Constitutional Convention, crafted much of the document and the Bill of Rights, as well as penning many of The Federalist Papers. Here’s how he characterized the general sentiment at the Convention:
“[The Convention] as a body thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
– James Madison, Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787
“We must pursue all measures to end this dreadful calamity which has so long afflicted our country and filled so many with despair.”
– James Madison, Federalist Papers
“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”
–John Jay, First CJSCOTUS and co-author of the Federalist Papers, in a letter to R. Lushington, March 15, 1786
The central theme of the Convention was re-thinking the unworkable Articles of Confederation and re-crafting a more viable form of government for a nascent country in a precarious world position that would for the first time, celebrate the concepts of supremacy of the individual and liberty and in the process, conduct governmental affairs that were as unintrusive as workably possible while maintaining the means for viable self-defense. As Madison testified, slavery language was intentionally omitted to maintain the ideals of liberty expressed therein, not to maintain or “safeguard” the status quo of slavery.
Sorry to defer to source of authority argument, but they tend to work a lot better than using the post-modern crackpot historians from whose feet you lick and worship. In Federalist 51, Madison offered what is perhaps the best explanation of a system of government based on separation of powers that has ever been written. Acknowledging that if “men were angels” no government would be needed, Madison argued that any government “administered by men over men” must be so constituted so as to control itself as well as the governed. This would tend to argue the point that it was an evolution in thought AGAINST slavery and the road map to the means to its eventual abolition. I see no evidence of a movement within the Convention to make the permanent “safeguarding” of slavery as the reason for creation of the Constitution. Put up evidence to the contrary or STFU.
March 5th, 2012 at 3:15 PM
“So obama calls fluke on the phone, the 30 year old libtard activist, wanna be ambulance chaser….why?”
Mommy issues. I think he called the floozy fluky because of her close resemblance to Stanley.
March 5th, 2012 at 4:37 PM
I am sorry, jokin. I have constitutions all over the house, the result of picking up one whenever I see one offered, and the language I quoted is in all of them. Curiously, the language I quoted wasn’t read when the constitution was read aloud at the beginning of the last Congressional session. Apparently their form of decconstructionism permits them to delete text, or at least pretend it doesn’t exist.
I don’t deny that the founders knew the institution of slavery they were perpetuating was wrong. That’s why they dealt with this most explosive issue, indirectly. And that’s why they wanted to reserve the issue to the states, as Madison, himself a slaveowner, indicates in your quote. The key to the Constitution was to create a federal government that would give the south a de facto veto power over any action the federal government might take to eliminate slavery. And it’s not as if this issue was disposed of in Philadelphia and subsequently forgotten. The early history of this Republic and it’s expansion was dominated by slavery related issues. Every time the country expanded, the central question was always the maintaining of the political balance between slave and free states.
March 5th, 2012 at 4:55 PM
and yet- not to be too condescending to such an esteemed lefty “living” Constitutional scholar as yourself—
Is the alternative a dead constitution? The constitution was not drafted to be a policy document. It doesn’t tell us how to decide controversial issues. I don’t think it was intended to freeze us in the world of 1787. Among other things, the constitution was drafted to avoid controversy. The framers were very much concerned with securing approval from a divided nation, and they employed the common technique of negotiators everywhere by avoiding the most divisive issues wherever possible. The result was the construction of a federal government unable to peacefully resolve the central issue of American politics in the 19th century, that is, slavery. And that’s why, despite the extraordinary efforts of a succession of great statesmen who worked to keep the union together, the scheme created in 1787 ultimately failed resulting in the Civil War.
March 5th, 2012 at 4:57 PM
People have this idea that the Civil War happened over night. That there were the Lincoln Douglas debates, John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry, Fort Sumter and there we were. That’s not the way it happened, or at least the way it happened was a lot more complicated than that.
March 5th, 2012 at 8:32 PM
#45
Moron, I said nothing about turning American foreign policy over to Israel.
Israel, you fool, has its own interest in neutralizing Iran before that litle Hitler SOB Achmadinnerjacket (who by the way held our Embassy staff hostage for 400+ days) launches a nuclear holocaust on Israel.
March 6th, 2012 at 6:22 AM
Well, good. I agree with President Obama (and Hitler it seems) that American foreign policy should be set in Washington, not Jerusalem, and in fairness to myself, not in Berlin either.
March 7th, 2012 at 11:33 PM
hector, any credibility you had left here was just lost in this thread. Your a terrorist sympathizing Jew hater…we understand now…
March 8th, 2012 at 5:42 AM
The contrast is interesting. I think American foreign policy should be made by Americans. Here it seems, the prevailing view is that American foreign policy should be dictated in Israel, and not only that, but to even disagree with that notion is anti-Semitic.
Interesting.
March 8th, 2012 at 4:27 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/03/employment-situation-january
March 12th, 2012 at 2:02 PM
64) Hitler, (just another socialist), thought the same about German internal and foreign policy regarding the Jews.
March 12th, 2012 at 4:48 PM
I am sure Hitler did.
March 13th, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Are we to conclude that this site is dead until further notice?
March 13th, 2012 at 12:26 PM
#66
Wulf, apparently we can just say, “Heil Hector” in the future.
March 13th, 2012 at 12:28 PM
I shouldn’t be surprised since liberals are basically fascists anyway.
March 13th, 2012 at 12:29 PM
#65
Danny boy, no one is going to ever go to a link or site provided by you.
None of us has the least interest in ending up on a child porn website where you spend all of your time.
March 13th, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Montego..
The link confirms the consistent and positive job creation reality under President Obama.
You don’t want to know? Knock your socks off.
March 13th, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Quit posting with your employer’s computer on work time or you will get fired (again).
March 15th, 2012 at 8:53 AM
MDE appears to be dead, someone just needs to remove the life support.
The people commenting on this site most days are the same old folks day after day and it is getting extremely boring. Hector the self proclaimed DFL insider and danny boy the retarded troll who occasionally escapes from the home to make insane comments.
Conservatives who keep responding to these idiots are no better. All are self proclaimed “true conservatives” and anyone who does not fall in line with their politics is either a democrat or a RINO. Get over yourselves and work to elect a Republican that can get the socialist out of the White House and more conservatives in the Congress.
May MDE RIP.
March 15th, 2012 at 9:07 AM
I am not really that much of a DFL insider. A little bit, but not much.
March 19th, 2012 at 8:05 AM
Woot!, made delegate and heading to District and state conventions!…
Good to have friends… I was on both the establishment and Ron Paul slates. LOL
March 19th, 2012 at 8:35 AM
#76
Wulf, glad to see that you are a GOP insider. LOL
March 19th, 2012 at 9:56 AM
What happened to the Santorum bandwagon?
March 22nd, 2012 at 2:47 PM
Oh, so The Regime is going to try our own soldier for murder because he shot up some Afghans. Do we have proof they weren’t aiding terrorists or actually terrorists themselves? Nope.
Meanwhile, The Regime does not seem to care that 16 NATO soldiers have been slaughtered by our so-called Afghan “partners.”
Where is the justice?
March 22nd, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Give the soldier a medal and call it a day.
May 14th, 2012 at 3:57 PM
What? No more Minnesota Democrats to expose?