How many in the current administration are former Goldman Sachs employees?
I give; how many?
I know what Marxism, Socialism and Communism are, Bob, although I'm sure we have different views of their ideologies.
That's an oxymoron, Denise. You are conflating Marxism, Socialism and Communism here with "evil," I suspect, and then acknowledge that their ideologies don't reflect that definition. Perhaps, even, that in Italy, France, Germany, Spain and many other countries where these parties function as part of the regular political structure there are many who would be quite puzzled by what you're saying, since they live with these parties on an ongoing basis with very little trouble at all.
Social Democratic parties, which are a bit further to the left than our Democratic party are often the party of preference in many of these places, and they do very well indeed.
How many of the people that this president surrounds himself with are self-professed Marxists, Socialists and Communists? How many are Mao admirers?
Again, I give; how many?
And so what? Are you worried that their ideas are so appealing that they'll take over the country by acclamation? This is the same sort of thinking that the Radical Right expresses about homosexuality, that it's like a disease that you can catch. This is a country that supposed to be founded on the open discussion of ideas. If I can listen to you, you can listen to me, too. Or at least we can try.
In what sense does the Left conform to the Constitution, you know, that document that Obama disparages as being a list of negative liberties, one that attempts to constrain government and also the document that he believes didn't allow the Warren Court 'to go far enough' in addressing redistributive justice?
When was the last time you read The Bill of Rights, Denise?
For your convenience, I’ve reprinted the original 10 for you, below. As you read them, I ask that you look at the way the language is cast. Only one of the ten Amendments is cast in the positive. That is amendment six, the one about trials and due process. All the rest are in the negative to limit what the government can do. The sixth is in the positive, telling the government what it must do.
Obama was correct. That is the way the framers put it. He is not disparaging the constitution, he is looking at it with a clear and exact focus, at the actual text. You might try the same.
I have no idea what you mean by “Redistributive Justice.” Perhaps you could clarify that for me by giving me a reference to the text of some speech that President Obama gave so I could get some notion of the context he used the phrase in? Sometimes, these phrases crop up from the right without there being any support at all, like “death Panels,” which was a fiction made up out of the whole cloth, so a clear reference would help me address your question. I do assume it was a sincere one, and I’ll try my best to give you a straight answer.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
What I find objectionable about Alinsky tactics are its 'ends justify the means mentality'.
If I’d said that about The Tea Party folks, you’d really want to know where in the Dickens I’d come up with such an absurd notion, wouldn’t you now, Denise? So I hope you won’t fault me when I do the same here. Where did you get such an idea? Not from the Alinsky I heard speak.