acemona

Agreed, we are always to be wary, but that is why we have an elected assembly of the people and an elected executive of the people to guard. My concern is always who's interest is being guarded and who's rights are being protected.

Simply don't agree. The problem with the Articles of Confederation was that it did not give the Central Government enough power, so it had to be changed and more power added. Again, the social contract theory - agreed to on some level by all of the founders - was about the people giving up some rights to the central government so that we could live in peace.

My point was that Obama falls much more in line with the stuff that I mentioned than any of the Republicans do. So who is the more libertarian of the bunch? I understand what a libertarian believes. The issue is that folks want to believe that Republicans are closer to that than Dems are and that is simply not the case. It is always on an issue by issue basis.

By individual liberty you mean to be able to MARRY whomever you like - to serve in the military if you wish regardless of your orientation. You mean the liberty of a woman to CHOOSE, with the advice of her doctor what to do with her body. Or are libertarians only concerned about economic freedom?

I wonder if the founders even considered capitalism as a right, and as the right way for an economy to work? I know they fought over the Central Bank and whether or not the country should carry debt. But part of the revolution was fought over government give aways to big corporations like the East India Tea Company. The other larger point is that the writers of the Declaration and Constitution were all influenced by the European Enlightenment and Locke's Two Treatises. The focus of much debate around the role of government centered on the Social Contract Theory. Hobbes - "man is basically bad and needs a government to reign in his 'urges'" - I am obviously paraphrasing - and Locke - Man is basically good and gives up some of his RIGHTS so that he can live better with his fellow man." Both of those discussions are alive and well, but they both have one thing in common. We give up, or have taken, some of our rights so that we can better get along. I think the social contract theory has been completely thrown out of the window in the current Tea Partyish discussion about the role/size of government.

I guess Obama is just smarter than Bush.

I am not outraged, at all. Just pointing out that Obama has made half as many of these appointments. The dems were wrong when they did it, but that doesn't make the Repubs right that they are playing loose with the "consent" clause of the constitution now. Don't be outraged and don't play like this is something awful. Advise and consent. Support or reject, but don't play games.

They are not in session. If they are, tell me what recent business they have taken up? I saw where they shut everything down when the senate democrats walked in and actually wanted to do some work, even shut off the CSpan cameras so the world couldn't see them "not working."

By turning them around you mean bankrupting them and selling their assets, correct. There was a net loss of jobs in the companies working with Bain when Romney was there. How is losing jobs a fix to this economy? He did save some companies and make them stronger, much like Obama did with GM (I think they are number 1 this year aren't they?)

Bush made 171 in 8 years or or over 21 per year. Obama has made a total of 29 in three years, or less than 10 per year. The Republicans have nothing here but hypocrisy.

Please just stop. He has had 30% fewer recess appointments than Bush. The fact is, it was the other way around, and I don't remember liberals lambasting anybody over it. Just vote on and it and get it over with, but the Republicans won't even vote up or down. The outrage, yours included, is just silly.

Our forefathers were masters of the English language, there is no doubt. Given that, your first paragraph is highly specious. The amendment is not divided into two sections, there is one section with only one sentence. It is you, and others who have made it into two things, which seems to fly in the face of some conservative expositors who want to strictly interpret the document.

Why did you not bold the first 4 words of the amendment, especially "well regulated"?

What have they done in three years to limit rights? Even when they controlled both houses of congress?

I could see her being the VP this time around.

They were meant only for comparison and to point out the fact that it is really just as easy for a poor white to get in as it is for a poor black. Having never been a poor black kid (kinda the point of the articles) I cant really comment on the difficulty of applying and being accepted to college. The % would seem to say that even with programs aimed at attracting minorities, they are not enrolling at a significant rate. RTS, you will be surprised to know that in many situations I do think it is best for a kid to get out of an unhealthy and even dangerous environment. Sometimes incarceration is even a good thing, but the state doesn't want to do that. We need more places that offer 24/7 supervision but also offers therapeutic and educational services. Even if it is just for a short time.

I agree, so what do we do for that kid?

In comparison to what? I was the rule. Those were set asides and programs for poor kids. What I am saying is that simply having a program doesn't mean that a kid chose not to take advantage of it. Sometimes there are circumstances that prevent it from happening.

You guys realize that Berea College's mission is to serve the poor of appalachia, don't you? You also realize that I (poor white kid from from Bell County) qualified as a minority student for Ivy League admissions. You also realize that Centre College gave me a huge grant because I was poor so that I would be able to afford to attend that fine College. Your "world view" simply does not jive with the facts. Let's look at a few more. Black/Hispanic% at UK = 6% Black/Hispanic% in Lexington = 18% Black/Hispanic% at UL = 14% Black/Hispanic% in Louisville = 18% Black/Hispanic% at WKU? = 10% Black/Hispanic% in Bowling Green = 16.8% Black/Hispanic% at EKU = 9,4% Black/Hispanic% in Richmond = 9.4% Black/Hispanic% at NKU = 5/9% Black/Hispanic% Highland Heights = 2.9% So only two of our major state universities even reflect the diversity of the city in which they are located and in those cities the minority population is under 10%. So I have no idea where you are getting your "privilege" information, but it simply does not jive with the facts. BTW what has this to do with the topics? . . . Oh yeah, more of the stuff the "poor blacks" should take advantage of - gotcha.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-emdin/if-i-were-a-poor-black-kid_b_1159059.html?ref=education http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/12/12/if-i-was-a-poor-black-kid/ http://www.good.is/post/an-ode-to-a-poor-black-kid-i-never-knew-how-forbes-gets-it-wrong/

From the same blog I believe a good arguement can be made that whats important is only the cross and that everything else stems from it and what it represents. I also believe that the Bible's defintion of sin has to do completely with the verse, Love your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your spirit. And love your neighbors as your self. These are the two commandments in which the law holds (ruff remembering of that verse). I also believe that the Bible has built in it a way for the church to adapt (acts) and that the church was never meant to so strictly adhere to the Bible that it may contradict the core of the message stated in the love verse referred to in the last paragraph. Inerrant Biblical Theologians often state a verse I believe in either Timothy or Peter stating the inerrancy of the Bible. Yet they forget that the Greek really suggests absolutely NO mechanical dictation i.e. God spoke the Bible word for word as everything needs to be applied as exact as it was stated, this would be what inerrant theologians believe. Rather the Greek suggests only that the holy spirit was in the Authors when they were writing the Bible. In fact, if homosexuality can be proven to be normal, or at least suggested to be normal, then it would contradict directly the romans verse (so they exchanged natural relationships with the unnatural).... Notice how the primary crime in this though was that they did not love God, so God gave them up to their sinful desires. Also because of Peter's dream (do not call unclean what I have made clean), a reasonable arguement can be made that God is able to change things and alter things so that all things go in accordance to his will ya know? When judging Christianity, focus on the core of what the Christian message is. The cross. here is the link http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110205205214AASxSQf I am not saying I agree with either of these folks but certainly succinct.

I found this on a blog on Yahoo answers, not sure how to site it, but it is very interesting. Jesus says to "judge not" and so for Christians, we cannot judge what anyone else does with their lives. But allow me to expound on what the Bible does say about homosexuality and why the HEbrews dreaded it so much. The land of Israel was constantly being occupied by other societies and this made it very difficult for the Hebrew people to maintain their own way of life, their own religion and their own societal ways. And so remember that they believed themselves to be God's own race and the chosen people. Now what could be worse than to have their own young people, on whom their future hopes are laid as a nation and as a people, influenced by other cultures that occupy their land? Young Hebrew men were attracted to the Greeks and their forms of recreation and their value systems. Greeks encouraged homosexual experimentation among young men because adolescent guys are ALL sexually preoccupied and the Greeks wanted to keep their young daughters off limits to the adolescents. And so, homosexuality was common and accepted, especially as experimentation among adolescent boys. Hebrew boys were expected to take a wife when they became sexually preoccupied and they were taught to avoid "spilling" their seed through masturbation. The happy adolescent couple was supposed to live with their parents and were not expected to be self sufficient, unlike the Greeks. We know through the work of Dr. Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute that homosexual human beings are made that way by God himself. Through the many autopsies that Dr. LeVay performed, we know the physical differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. They are made differently at birth by their creator. And so, we know that homosexuality is not a sin. However, to the ancient Hebrews, it was because it took their young men away from procreation of God's race. I hope this clears it up. Never heard of Simon LeVay, but am going to look it up.

We have a mixed market economy.

No it is not. For people to really assert that is naive at best and perhaps intentionally disingenuous. Wages have not kept up with the cost of living and manufacturing jobs are no longer plenty enough to guarantee an honest days pay for an honest days work for enough people. Not everyone is cut out to be a financial planner, entrepreneur, or engineer. Some are workers, and good honest workers and the American dream is disappearing for them because our corporations are multi-national and would rather pay a slave's wage in Asia and sit on the profit than pay a good wage in America. Before the economy was as global as it is now, I would have said that the dream is alive, it is not now.

The 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth. The 1% take home 24% of the national income. The 1% own half, HALF I SAY, of the stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. The 1% has just 5% of the nations personal debt. The 1% are now taking home more of the nations income than at any time since the 1920s. So who is doing what on the back of whom?