Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, I'd like to hear that myself. So we are not entitled to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happinesss" anymore, huh? That's new to me.
Thats not what Republicans want, what does stopping gays from marrying, cutting welfare and Medicare, opposing universal health care have to do with like, liberty and pursuit of happiness, if anything thats wanting all those things at the expense of denying others the same thing.
Hey, Dodge, the question was, "How has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed?"
That's what you claimed ("... what [individual rights] meant in 1776 is not what it means today"), so how has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed?
That's what you claimed ("... what [individual rights] meant in 1776 is not what it means today"), so how has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed?
Uh huh.That's what you claimed ("... what [individual rights] meant in 1776 is not what it means today"), so how has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed?
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789.
So, you can't explain how the meaning of the Bill of Rights has changed.Thats not what Republicans want, what does stopping gays from marrying, cutting welfare and Medicare, opposing universal health care have to do with like, liberty and pursuit of happiness, if anything thats wanting all those things at the expense of denying others the same thing.
Hey, Dodge, the question was, "How has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed?"
That's what you claimed ("... what [individual rights] meant in 1776 is not what it means today"), so how has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed?
Yes, what you all call it today isn't the same, what are you quacks trying to conserve because what you're trying to conserve and what the Constitution says are two different things.
Uh huh.That's what you claimed ("... what [individual rights] meant in 1776 is not what it means today"), so how has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed?
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1789.
Not my question, but thanks for playing.
So, you can't explain how the meaning of the Bill of Rights has changed.
Hey, Dodge, the question was, "How has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed?"
That's what you claimed ("... what [individual rights] meant in 1776 is not what it means today"), so how has the meaning of the Bill of Rights changed?
Yes, what you all call it today isn't the same, what are you quacks trying to conserve because what you're trying to conserve and what the Constitution says are two different things.
I knew that already, but thanks for playing.
Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?
In 1980 Reagan was elected, and the modern conservative political movement began, not as a protest, but as a hegemony. The lasting accomplishments of the Reagan years may have been the changes in the tax code and regulatory regimes that had prevailed for nearly a half century. But that was not what fueled his electoral success; what fueled his electoral success was the fundamentalist movement represented by Falwell, Pat Robertson and what came to be called the social agenda. Censorship of Kurt Vonnegut, Judy Blume and others, movements to pass "creationist" statutes that attempted to elevate the book of Genesis to a branch of science; hostility to the claims of gays, women and reproductive rights all combined to generate what began to be called "the culture wars." To a very demonstrable extent, I think, the conservative movement of the last 30 years (absent the economic issues of deregulation, also supported by Clinton and Robert Rubin and beyond the comprehension or the interest of most voters) may be seen as a panic response to a crumbling world and to the rights expansions of the '60s that struck like a tsunami, washing away all the prior governing arrangements. For these people, reality itself, or at least a reality where they felt in charge, was disappearing. As always, it was the symbols of these changes that were attacked: the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, which (unelected) had rendered many of these decisions; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which had brought many of the cases or performed hated services; books and magazines and films; television and Hollywood and "eastern elites." When Pat Buchanan roared, in his quixotic presidential campaign, that "we" needed to "take back our country," he was talking about a country prior to the rights revolutions of the 60s, when people who looked and believed like him ruled the roost and did not have their powers limited by the rights we had won. What conservatives were desperately trying to conserve was not the values at America's origin (the Bill of Rights was, after all, ratified in 1791), but rather the privileges and powers of 19th century and early 20th century America. This is what has fueled the reactionary politics of the past three decades, and it is what we are seeing now in the Republican base and its candidates.
Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.
So, you can't explain how the meaning of the Bill of Rights has changed.Yes, what you all call it today isn't the same, what are you quacks trying to conserve because what you're trying to conserve and what the Constitution says are two different things.
I knew that already, but thanks for playing.
What is your interpretation of Life Liberty and pursuit of happiness, because what they thought those three things were almost 300 years ago are not the same today.
We already know the answer. 
Did you know that the Declaration of Independence is not the Bill of Rights?So, you can't explain how the meaning of the Bill of Rights has changed.Yes, what you all call it today isn't the same, what are you quacks trying to conserve because what you're trying to conserve and what the Constitution says are two different things.
I knew that already, but thanks for playing.
What is your interpretation of Life Liberty and pursuit of happiness, because what they thought those three things were almost 300 years ago are not the same today.
Did you know that the Declaration of Independence is not the Bill of Rights?So, you can't explain how the meaning of the Bill of Rights has changed.
I knew that already, but thanks for playing.
What is your interpretation of Life Liberty and pursuit of happiness, because what they thought those three things were almost 300 years ago are not the same today.
I bet not.
Did you know that the Declaration of Independence is not the Bill of Rights?What is your interpretation of Life Liberty and pursuit of happiness, because what they thought those three things were almost 300 years ago are not the same today.
I bet not.
Try not to confuse him.
Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?
In 1980 Reagan was elected, and the modern conservative political movement began, not as a protest, but as a hegemony. The lasting accomplishments of the Reagan years may have been the changes in the tax code and regulatory regimes that had prevailed for nearly a half century. But that was not what fueled his electoral success; what fueled his electoral success was the fundamentalist movement represented by Falwell, Pat Robertson and what came to be called the social agenda. Censorship of Kurt Vonnegut, Judy Blume and others, movements to pass "creationist" statutes that attempted to elevate the book of Genesis to a branch of science; hostility to the claims of gays, women and reproductive rights all combined to generate what began to be called "the culture wars." To a very demonstrable extent, I think, the conservative movement of the last 30 years (absent the economic issues of deregulation, also supported by Clinton and Robert Rubin and beyond the comprehension or the interest of most voters) may be seen as a panic response to a crumbling world and to the rights expansions of the '60s that struck like a tsunami, washing away all the prior governing arrangements. For these people, reality itself, or at least a reality where they felt in charge, was disappearing. As always, it was the symbols of these changes that were attacked: the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, which (unelected) had rendered many of these decisions; the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, which had brought many of the cases or performed hated services; books and magazines and films; television and Hollywood and "eastern elites." When Pat Buchanan roared, in his quixotic presidential campaign, that "we" needed to "take back our country," he was talking about a country prior to the rights revolutions of the 60s, when people who looked and believed like him ruled the roost and did not have their powers limited by the rights we had won. What conservatives were desperately trying to conserve was not the values at America's origin (the Bill of Rights was, after all, ratified in 1791), but rather the privileges and powers of 19th century and early 20th century America. This is what has fueled the reactionary politics of the past three decades, and it is what we are seeing now in the Republican base and its candidates.
Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.
How about:
"What Are Conservatives Trying To Preserve?"
Liberty.
Unalienable Rights.
Human Rights.
Private Property.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Religion.
Human Life.
One Person, One Vote.
Consent of The Governed. Due Process.
The Establishment ad Maintenance of Justice for All.
I know it's hard for your Tiny Brain to Comprehend, but don't give up. To give up is to surrender to the Tyranny of the State. The Masquerade will be over soon enough.
"What Are Conservatives Trying To Preserve?"
Liberty.
Unalienable Rights.
Human Rights.
Private Property.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Religion.
Human Life.
One Person, One Vote.
Consent of The Governed.
Due Process.
The Establishment ad Maintenance of Justice for All.
Gay is a religion?Ira Glasser: What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?
Can the forum say Amen? I do, conservatives aren't conserving anything that works to the good of all Americans.
How about:
"What Are Conservatives Trying To Preserve?"
Liberty.
Unalienable Rights.
Human Rights.
Private Property.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Religion.
Human Life.
One Person, One Vote.
Consent of The Governed. Due Process.
The Establishment ad Maintenance of Justice for All.
I know it's hard for your Tiny Brain to Comprehend, but don't give up. To give up is to surrender to the Tyranny of the State. The Masquerade will be over soon enough.
Bullshat, if you guys were for freedom of religion you wouldn't be bashing gays and Muslims.
So, you can't explain how the meaning of the Bill of Rights has changed.
I knew that already, but thanks for playing.
What is your interpretation of Life Liberty and pursuit of happiness, because what they thought those three things were almost 300 years ago are not the same today.
Really??? Are you that stupid??? Trick Question.
Let's practice.
Obama: "Jump!"
Flaylo: "How High".
You do realize that the tax dollars of federal workers pays for the roads you drive on, the cops and military that protect you and social welfare just like everyone else? Private sector people don't drive on private sector roads last time I looked.
The tax dollars that federal workers "pay" come from the private sector. ALL tax revenue comes from the private sector, therefore the private sector pays for everything including roads.
Tell me where does the money come from to pay government workers?
Since you can't seem to figure it out I'll tell you. ALL the money used to pay government workers comes from the private sector.
Now if government workers pay taxes where does the money to pay those taxes come from? It comes from their salary which is 100% funded by the private sector. So ALL tax revenue is collected from the private sector.
Taxation is mandated by the Constitution. And the government provides a plethora of infrastructure that allows the private economy to thrive.
But if you are so into the "private sector", perhaps you can find a country started by the private sector?
Because I don't think one ever existed.
The tax dollars that federal workers "pay" come from the private sector. ALL tax revenue comes from the private sector, therefore the private sector pays for everything including roads.
Tell me where does the money come from to pay government workers?
Since you can't seem to figure it out I'll tell you. ALL the money used to pay government workers comes from the private sector.
Now if government workers pay taxes where does the money to pay those taxes come from? It comes from their salary which is 100% funded by the private sector. So ALL tax revenue is collected from the private sector.
Taxation is mandated by the Constitution. And the government provides a plethora of infrastructure that allows the private economy to thrive.
But if you are so into the "private sector", perhaps you can find a country started by the private sector?
Because I don't think one ever existed.
You're a bit misguided, Sallow. The US used to be a place where the government provided the means for the private sector to thrive but that was because we used to be a country of laws that private citizens could count on to protect them from that government. This Administration believes it has the duty and the right to change that. From the passage of health care "mandates" to the imposition of "moratoriums" on drilling to the Federal "lawsuits" against businesses opening plants in right to work States to the restructuring of who is first in line to receive debt payments in the GM bailouts to determining what private firms should pay their executives to new regulations on just about everything...this Administration believes that the Federal Government knows what is best for us and should have the power to force us to do what "it" wants regardless of what "we" want. That ISN'T the America that millions have fled other places in the world to come to. When this Administration talks about making fundamental changes to America what they are saying is that they want to do away with the very freedoms that made America what it was in the first place and replace it with a cradle to the grave "Nanny State" that makes decisions for it's citizens instead of the other way around.
Sure they do..both with providing services that allow private companies to profit and direct taxation. What do you suppose would happen if there was no patents handed out? Eh?
All those services could be provided for less cost if contracted out. Then the government would have more money without raising taxes.
And that's incorrect. Don't believe me? Try mailing a regular letter via FEDEX or UPS.
Federal workers contribute tax revenue, you pay your way and the fed workers pay their way. Are you tell me federal workers don't pat taxes? If they didn't you would some semblance of an argument but they do, so your argument is bullshat, private sector workers would be able to get to work without federal workers.
God you're dense.
If your pay comes 100% from taxes taken from me and then you give 20% of that to the government for taxes. where did the money to pay for those taxes come from?
It came from me not you.
Therefore ALL tax revenue is created by and taken from the private sector. Therefore the private sector pays for everything.
And where does mucn of the corporate private sector get THEIR money?
From the government they sell stuff to.
For example...BAth Iron works makes US warships.
Their workers DEPEND on US taxpayer to pay their PRIVATE incomes.
My point here is that huge DIVIDE you see between public organizations and private ones is wildly overstated, Skull.
Every cent the government spends ends up in the hands of the PRIVATE SECTOR.
Where it is taxed thus starting the whole cycle all over again.
Federal workers pay taxes and contribute to the economy, but you don't want to believe that.
My family is FILLED with federal workers. But just like the government everywhere, it is terribly over staffed. My husband for one said they were never really MADE to work hard. He did and a lot of others did, but they still would take one day a week have a potluck, they always took long breaks, long lunches, they worked when they absolutely had to. He got tons of vacation and made way more money that he would have doing the same job on the outside. Every little bit whoever the president was, the government would threaten to shut down and not pay them. He finally had all he wanted and took an early retirement. When he got on the outside and got a job, he admitted he was amazed that he was actually required to show up on time, stick to lunch hours and breaks and they actually expected him to work. Anyone, including my mother, my uncle and my husband all feel the same. Whenever he is doing a task around the house and it isn't turning out just right "it's good enough for government work" is the standard joke.
He saw the government spent thousands of dollars on toilets, on tools, furniture, you name it. And every other person could have been laid off, and the remainder work, it would be a tremendous savings. So, unless you have actually worked for the government, you really don't know what you are talking about. My husband never wants another government job. his motto is "don't steal from the government, they don't like the competition."
This is a facking biased opinion, I work hand and hand with federal employees since I am a soldier, they work no less hard than people in the private sector. you can find lazy, overpaid slackers any place in any sector.
