Page: 1

ol geezer

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Member since: Tue May 13, 2014, 04:13 PM
Number of posts: 6,229

Journal Archives

A Liberal cares for the welfare of the people in general.

A Conservatives only cares about themselves first, then their families.

Liberals put in place social safety nets to help those that need help for whatever reason. As the Bible says, "The poor will always be with us." That is no reason to brush them off, as is the excuse Conservatives use to not adequately help those less well off than themselves. They do not not understand the "But for the grace of god go I." - John Bradford concept.

Conservatives want to tear holes in those safety nets because, "they cost money". Then turn around and have no problem spending even more on a defense that is not really defense, but more like interference in the affairs of other countries.

Conservatives are afraid of change. They want everyone to be in lock-step, to think and be like them. Liberals embrace change and are much more tolerant of other views and ways to effect the needed changes to make peoples lives easier.

Conservatives are more money centered. Liberals are more people centered.
Conservatives are more likely to be paranoid. Liberals are more likely to to understand the why of those same events or whatever, and use them for learning how to properly deal with them in the future.

Conservatives see things in black and white. Liberals see the grey between the two extremes. And even the full spectrum of color. As a result a Conservative is less likely to notice a sun rise or sun set. Conservatives only notice it getting lighter or darker.

And as for the two extremes coming around and meeting? No. There are only cliffs to fall off of. There is no way a Right-wing nut will come around and become a Left-wing nut. They are two very different ideologies. Opposite extremes.

This Long-Lost Constitutional Clause Could Save the Right to Vote

With the exception of the early 1960s, the right to vote in the United States is arguably more embattled today than at any time since Reconstruction. In a quick succession of rulings in October, voter-ID laws, residency requirements, and the curtailment of early voting hours and same-day registration were upheld or overturned in states across the country. The Supreme Court permitted restrictions in some states for the midterm elections and prohibited them in others, but it refused to rule on the merits of the laws.

Amid the turmoil, voting-rights advocates cheered every small victory, however local or tenuous, and rued the many losses. The movement is still staggering from the body blow of Shelby County v. Holder (2013), in which the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965—the formula that determined which state and local governments had to submit proposed election-law changes to the federal government for advance approval.

The strategy at this point is still unclear. Some favor a constitutional amendment explicitly granting the right to vote. Others support the Voting Rights Amendment Act, which would repair the damage inflicted by Shelby County and create additional protections. Both are worthy initiatives, necessary components of a strategy to protect and expand the right to vote.

But an important tool remains unused, all but forgotten in a dark and dusty corner of the shed. Dating back to Reconstruction, it has the great merit of being already enshrined in the Constitution. According to Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, any state that denies or abridges the right to vote for any reason must have its congressional representation reduced in proportion to the number of citizens it disenfranchises. Arguably the most radical clause in the Constitution, it was designed to remake the government and the country. It has never been enforced.

http://www.thenation.com/article/195705/any-way-abridged?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow



The Constitutional Amendment:
Article XIV
2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,15 and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

In hindsight, removing the internal border checks was a poor idea.

Another stupid idea is for the United States to have military basses all over the world and use them to attack whomever WE decide are terrorists, blowing the designated terrorists and whoever is unlucky enough to be in the vicinity, to the promised land. Children, sons, daughters, husbands, wives, friends, relatives, the survivors of which become the new terrorists, which we then in turn, decide we have to kill.
Like any other "War on______" (drugs, poverty, etc.) this country has fought, the rules are stacked by the backers, in such a way, the war cannot be won. The profits must continue at any costs.
The growing world wide terrorism threat will not stop until we recognize our own roll in any terrorist attacks that occur.

How come?

The first Amendment says free speech shall not be abridged. Yet it is all the time. There are all kinds of limits on it.
The Second Amendment has something about belonging to a well organized militia, but no one is and many think the Second Amendment is absolute, that anyone can have as many guns as they want.
Cops are being murdered in cold blood with guns that many do not want controlled, but the problem is free speech, which needs to be controlled? They were not killed by free speech, they were killed by guns.
Something is not adding up here.
Go to Page: 1