"I believe those who attack America's flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.... But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expressions of patriotism."

The article where I read this is from Truthout and doesn't have a direct link, but I'll include the link where I got the quote. <link>

God Speed,

David

Obama is the greatest threat to the ideals of our founders than anybody who has ever had a chance to be president.

Our founders believed that allowing people to be Free was the greatest accomplishment of their new government. Obama wants to continue the transfer of power from the people to the central government.

Actually wmou people like you are among the greatest threat to our nation. You have no appreciation for the ideal of our founders to form a more perfect union or Jesus Christ who right wing hypocrites keep saying was a formative influence on our nation. To say Obama is a bigger threat than Bush just shows what a self interested ass you are.

wmou~

Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, and, while, I would have seen someone else selected, his nomination is the alternative to the growing threat of centralized rule foisted on the country by the current administration.

Democrats have frequently been faced with the lesser of evil in recent elections going back to '64, and each time the choices are more dramatic. The GOP has grown more and more reactionary in the face of milquetoast alternatives among Democratic nominees. Lil George is the product of that reaction and the loss of freedom is the result.

It does appear that the public has grown weary of the 'win at any cost' mentality that sacrifices principle to expediency. The public, this time, will need to continue to push hard for the Dems to follow through with their promises and not try to morph into GOP lite. Obama's legacy is yet to be written, but my faith is in the constituency that he will have supporting and pushing him. Still, he is surely a better alternative than Bush/McCain.

God Speed,

David

Mr. Bush and Obama have more in common than they have differences. Mr. Bush is by far the most liberal republican ever to serve as president. Both think the answers to almost all problems is a big government bureacracy.

There is little difference in the two major parties. Both want to expand the power of the federal govt. They just differ on which areas to expand first and the rate of expansion.

Listen to Obama. What is his answer to any problem? Government. Our founders believed free people could solve their own problems. The republicans and democrats want us to all be govt dependents.

“The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they’re an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They’ve got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying - lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else,"

And wmou is their greatest cheerleader.

re: Still, he is surely a better alternative than Bush/McCain.

Surely you realize from linked posts that a vote for Obama is a vote for The Bush Family DNA cousin's Dunham line as well as a vote for his half sisters and brothers and half cousins in Indonesia and Kenya!

As I recall Mr Mc Cain learned to swallow after being hit hard by the Senate Vote on his summer of 2000 Vets Bill which got Stopped until it was earmarked in back room Congressionally doors to include life and private healthe insurance for life for every Outgoing member of Congress and their LLC employed NGO spouses and children .

mark14:

They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear.

If you believe that, why do you vote for incumbants?

re: summer of 2000 Vets Bill which got Stopped until it was earmarked in back room Congressionally doors to include life and private healthe insurance for life for every Outgoing member of Congress and their LLC employed NGO spouses and children .

Should read that MCaian Vet Bill got busted and withheld in the summer of 2000 until behind closed doors to was amended to included for life every member of Congress and their staff private helath care insurance but also to include all outgoing members and their spouses!

future deficits off the PTSD backs of our guys and gals working the conflict wars of Stormin Norman that got stopped short of Bagdad by Russian built pipeline owners in Bagdad!

Our founders didn't dismiss the use of represenatative government to produce the general welfare of the public. How the public uses that social power is for us to decide.

My earliest radical political interests was Anarchism. As you may know, even the term is hard to define, but I found confort in their desire to have the commons determine our destiny. Then I found that their Marxist contemporaries in the 19th century shared that same view.

While a unanimous self definition of Anarchism is virtually non-existent, I do believe that most would say that the issue is not the existence of a 'state' but its nature. If we can sit down in local forums & discuss & implement decisions while looking to our broader neighbors to solve our common problems such as energy or transportation.

God Speed,

David

Joycean~

I do have trouble following the logic of your posts, but their seems to be a thread that escapes me. Re the DNA, I don't care: you probably already know about the blood ties of our presidents and other leaders. I'm more interested in the development of a social organization with a common consciousness.

I am not familiar with the vets bill you allude to, but I'll try to look into it.

God Speed,

DAvid

I vote for the best candidate with a chance to win. Recently I've been voting against incumbent candidates and their party. You give them grudging support though we are of course aware that they aren't right wing enough for you. You love the big corporations thoughyou antisocial reactionary which is why I ended the Carlin quote with the observation that you are in fact a cheerleader for what Carlin aptly points out is wrong with our society.

wobblies:

Our founders didn't dismiss the use of represenatative government to produce the general welfare of the public. How the public uses that social power is for us to decide.

My earliest radical political interests was Anarchism. As you may know, even the term is hard to define, but I found confort in their desire to have the commons determine our destiny. Then I found that their Marxist contemporaries in the 19th century shared that same view.

While a unanimous self definition of Anarchism is virtually non-existent, I do believe that most would say that the issue is not the existence of a 'state' but its nature. If we can sit down in local forums & discuss & implement decisions while looking to our broader neighbors to solve our common problems such as energy or transportation.

God Speed,

David

Our founders feared government. The main intent of the Bill of Rights was to limit federal power. It was no accident that they made the 10th Amendment the last bill in the Bill of Rights. They never intended for the congress to declare something was for our general welfare and that would make it constitutional.

I've read a lot of anarchy websites. They are not anarchists, they are totalitarians. That of course is always going to be the end result of anarchy.

Congress has a duty to regulate interstate commerce. Congress has a duty to declare War when necessary.

Congress has many other duties spelled out in the constitution. Instead of doing their duty they keep expanding their power into areas where they have no authority and they screw that up to.

As long as the people keep voting for democrats and republicans, nothing is going to change. Obama not going to change anything. He's as different from Mr. Bush as Coke is from Pepsi. A little sweeter and a little less carbonation, but essentially the same.

is mentioned 2x in the Constitution: in the preamble and in the section dealing with congressional powers. You already know that Madison had a very narrow view of the subject, but the language is plain in the document: we are to provide for the general welfare as a people and nation. How we choose to interpret that is for us to decide (I just said that some place else. Forgive the redundancy)

I don't think that I've been to any Anarchist website: the range of their views and composition is amazing and includes Fascists and Communists. My view of Anarchism has been of founder's views of the issue and some 60's Anarchists that were part of SDS.

I suspect that you are right re the common view of the role of the federal government at its founding, but I also believe that our social consciousness became move national in comparison to state after the war of 1812.