Skip to main content

The DSCC is hitting Colorado Republican Ken Buck on his one-time support for repealing the 17th amendment--the one that provides for direct election of Senators. Once Buck realized that this was a slightly nutjob position to run a race for Senate on, he recanted. But it's still a good ad.

As crazy as repealing the 17th amendment, or the 14th, or really any of them other than the revered 2nd, sounds, there's crazier out there.

[O]ur favorite proposed amendment was introduced by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) of Minnesota. It would prohibit the president from “entering into a treaty in which he would recognize as legal tender currency issued by someone other than the United States.”

Take that, yuan. Euro not wanted here.

What she lacks in coherency, she makes up for in creativity.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 02:46 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Less democracy is what they really want: (12+ / 0-)

    For all the talk about "the people", what they want is to insulate the government from majorities and make sure that places like the Senate and the Supreme Court are there to keep the non Real American majorities from getting their way.

    Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

    by Inland on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 02:49:35 PM PDT

  •  They want to replace the entire (5+ / 0-)

    Bill of Rights with the Second Amendment, which they want to expand to specifically include the right to kill people who disagree with them.

  •  If I'm Ken Buck's opponent (10+ / 0-)

    I'd start running those ads where Ken Buck calls the Teabaggers - "dumbasses".

    "I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 02:50:31 PM PDT

  •  What is she afraid of with treaties? (13+ / 0-)

    I cannot figure out offhand what the issue is with this newest nonsense.

  •  Too funny... (9+ / 0-)

    I just mentioned this in the last thread, but it seems the DSCC is now taking the "She's too extreme" line Harry Reid is using here against Sharrontology and spinning it against Ken Buck in Colorado. Good. They need to lump together all the teabagger crazies and tell it like it is.

  •  So if the President (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atdnext, ER Doc, Matt Z, bythesea

    doesn't enter into the treaty - but instead the United States does - and the entity recognizing the other currency is not the President, but the Congress - then it's A-OK.

    Michelle's wording is curious, to say the least. It's not some future President she's worried about, it's BHO.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 02:53:32 PM PDT

  •  Yuan.... Did a Republican say something crazy? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atdnext, Kimball Cross, ER Doc, Matt Z

    Another day, another attempt to be a Constitutional Cootie.

    Sarah Palin 2012!!! Prove the Mayans right...

    by funluvn1 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 02:54:33 PM PDT

  •  Hell, why not just say it? (6+ / 0-)

    The Gopers are really royalists of old. Why don't they just ask for a return to Divine right Kings and ditch all this confusing democracy shit. Of course we need a Christian King.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 02:56:50 PM PDT

  •  SEE, YOU CAN'T TRUST THOSE FOREIGN CURRENCIES (9+ / 0-)

    BECAUSE THEY'RE FOREIGN.

    "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

    by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 02:59:07 PM PDT

  •  here in MN-06 we have many people (7+ / 0-)

    trying to by tickets to the local bar meat raffle using Euros. sometimes even South African Rand or the shell currencies of the Nicobar Islands. It's terrifying. This must be stopped.

  •  I have to respectfully disagree with (5+ / 0-)

    calling Bachmann crazier in this regard than those seeking to repeal the 14th Amendment.  Yes, she's crazy with the New World Order stuff, but it's not nearly as scary repealing the 14th Amendment.

    Those repealing the 14th Amendment are calling for repealing the Bill of Rights as it applies to the states because it is the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause that makes the Bill of Rights enforceable against the several states.  Thus, those that would repeal the 14th Amendment would give the states a free hand in establishing religion, restriction freedom of speech, the press, religion, and assembly, abolishing warrant requirements and jury trials, and abolishing any limitations on cruel and unusual punishment.

    Additionally, she doesn't have an understanding about how currency unions can and do work.  If there was a theoretical currency union, the currency could be issued in the name of all the member countries, and thus the currency would be issued in the name of, and by, the United States.

    I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat - Will Rogers

    by Mets102 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:08:33 PM PDT

  •  Joan, you're as bad as Ken Buck (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fizziks, ER Doc, wishbone, ban nock

    As crazy as repealing the 17th amendment, or the 14th, or really any of them other than the revered 2nd, sounds

    You support all the amendments... except the one you don't like?
    That's an echo of your average Teabagger...

    "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

    by Tom Seaview on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:15:18 PM PDT

    •  No. Tbaggers think the constitution is holy writ (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, atdnext

      and that a sacred priesthood has the power to discern the true meaning of the esoteric, hidden meaning of the text.  Like your usual "second amendment" enthusiast.

      Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

      by Inland on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:27:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "The revered 2nd" (12+ / 0-)

    I support the WHOLE Bill Of Rights, mcjoan, not just the parts I like.
    Can you, honestly, say the same?
    You threw an F-bomb at me when gun rights protections were added to the HCR legislation, in spite of my own personal experience showing that was necessary and wise.
    Why do you hate the human right to self defense?
    Human rights are the most progressive of values.
    Why do you appear to make an exception for that one?

    The music plays a second for a few.

    by kestrel9000 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:17:49 PM PDT

    •  Everyone loves the Constitution (14+ / 0-)

      Except for the parts that they hate.

      The Left is really no different from the Right in this regard.

      •  Not all of us... (5+ / 0-)

        I'm pretty lefter than left, and I honestly don't like guns, but now that I live here in "Open Gun Country" and I've come to know a number of sportsmen & sportswomen, I wouldn't want to take their guns away because of the recklessness of others.

        Honestly, I think most gun regulations should be left to the states and municipalities (with a few exceptions, like perhaps The Assault Weapons Ban).

        •  State's rights, eh? (7+ / 0-)

          Honestly, I think most gun regulations should be left to the states and municipalities

          Unless you want to repeal the 14th Amendment, local gun regulations stricter than Federal law are doomed... and good riddance: they don't acomplish anything, except to cost us elections.

          "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

          by Tom Seaview on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:40:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That assault weapons ban was (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, wishbone, KVoimakas, Mandell

          pretty idiotic. No, really, it was downright stupid.

          Does it fundamentally make the weapon more dangerous to change a polished wood shoulder stock for a black plastic one? Nope, it just makes it 'look mean'. And that's exactly the type of 'legislation' that the AWB was. Fluff, focused on superficial crap. And it embarrasses knowledgeable people to know something becomes banned if they do something as simple as screwing on an rail for attachments because "it now looks like it could be combat ready"...

          I almost want to say go ahead and write up a new assault weapons ban just so the leftist 2A supporters can make lots of youtube videos showing everyone how daffy it is. Seriously, it's almost the same caliber of complaint as the "Keep your government hands off my medicare" screed from last summer. Sorry if this was offending you, but sometimes positive encouragement doesn't appropriately lead folks away from making poor choices, and that's when sarcasm and snark come in - of which there is precious little being used these days.

        •  recced for an open mind (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, KVoimakas, Mandell

          just for the vocab, AWB has been renamed scary looking gun ban.

          And amongst people who are up on it they figure that a state can't deny a right.

          Did you move out west?

          "slip now and you'll fall the rest of your life" Derek Hersey 1957-1993

          by ban nock on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:59:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Rec'd for honest, polite and rational... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, KVoimakas

          statement of position.  

    •  (.......) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia

      Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

      ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

      http://www.theonion.com/...

      Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

      by Inland on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:29:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Serious discussion is offered (8+ / 0-)

        and you respond with a sidetrack from the Onion.
        Typical of you on this issue.
        When you're not, that is, busy deciding for others what are human rights and what are not.

        The music plays a second for a few.

        by kestrel9000 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:31:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't take you seriously at all. (0+ / 0-)

          Maybe you think "serious" is a pretend huff where you demand that everyone take the entire consitution as you imagine it as sacred, but I don't.

          I mean, what are we supposed to say?  Besides what I did say: it's not holy writ, and it doesn't say what you pretend it does.  Done and done.  All that's left is for you to pretend some sort of moral superiority...oh, wait, you just did.

          Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

          by Inland on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:37:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So that one part of the Constitution (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, Tom Seaview

            is less holy than the rest, in your view.
            Thanks for clearing that up.
            Not that we didn't already know it.

            The music plays a second for a few.

            by kestrel9000 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:40:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You didn't ask why, did you. (0+ / 0-)

              You were asserting the sacred nature of the entire constitution as it exists in your head, because, well, you don't really care what anyone else thinks.

              And solemn prounouncements are fine, if you didn't dihonestly pretend you wanted a discussion and I'm somehow denying you.  Really, what crap..."Oh, I wanted a serious discussion".  

              Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

              by Inland on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:50:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bad puppy. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                Go lay down.
                You're not debating, you're whining.
                WHich is what you usually do with respect to the particular human right you don't like.
                Gnite now.

                The music plays a second for a few.

                by kestrel9000 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:54:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Man, you really can't stop. (0+ / 0-)

                  Again, pretending that you want a debate, when all you do is make pronoucements and personal judgments with the expectation that everyone back off just because you've called something a "human right", and if they don't, well, you swell up with umbrage at the offense that anyone would be so presumptuous to question.  

                  Again, I don't mind so much that you pretend to be god dispensing holy writ, but the hypocrisy of pretending that it's me that won't debate is really disgusting.  If you're going to be a god, be a god, not a hypocrite.

                  Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

                  by Inland on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 04:30:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

                    this is all I'm gonna get out of you.
                    Sigh.
                    It is ever thus.

                    The music plays a second for a few.

                    by kestrel9000 on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 02:05:05 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you wanted a debate, I'd give you one. (0+ / 0-)

                      But you don't.  You want to make pronouncements and end discussion, and insult everyone who dares to question the human rights that exist only in your head.  You want your ring kissed.  

                      No, thanks.  Your ideas suck, and I'll tell someone who isn't you, why.

                      Someone on daily kos called me a poopyhead. My life is SO like Nelson Mandela's.

                      by Inland on Wed Aug 25, 2010 at 04:07:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc

      I have a problem with the people who hold it paramount over every other amendment and who use it as a political bludgeon in every issue.

      I didn't throw an F-bomb at you, IIRC. I said something to the effect that I'm sick of every "fucking" issue being held hostage to "fucking" guns. Or something to that effect. Which was hardly leveling an f-bomb at you personally.

      •  Yeah, well you threw one at me too that day (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kestrel9000

        I were expecting more F-bombs today, frankly... you've done better than we expected.

        "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

        by Tom Seaview on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:42:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "It's a fucking health care bill (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishbone

        not a fucking gun bill" was what you said, iirc.

        Without respect to the fact that certain people would like to restrict gun rights by calling it  a health care issue.

        That part, you kind of ignored, regardless of my admittedly anecdotal personal experience that left ME convinced......

        Held hostage?

        The idea was to make sure they couldn't deny or restrict access to health care on the basis of whether or not guns are in the house. To make sure they could not even ask the question.

        See, I'm cool with that.

        Because it's not a proper question.

        Because I personally have seen that kind of shit. I told you about it at the time.

        If they want to make those two issues intertwined? Well, I can do that too.

        The music plays a second for a few.

        by kestrel9000 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:47:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And you're ignoring my point (0+ / 0-)

          which is I'm fine with the 2nd Amendment--all of them actually, though I'm pretty partial to the extremely beleaguered 1st and 4th. You glossed right over that one, didn't you?

          As to the specifics of the health bill, have I got a problem with the fact that guns are paramount over uteruses, you bet.

          I'm glad that you're not going to be discriminated against, but will remain pissed at a Democratic establishment that kissed up to the NRA and threw millions of low and moderate income women under the bus.

    •  Proud history of the word "FUCK"... (0+ / 0-)

      http://www.youtube.com/...

      Why don't we all get a fucking sense of humor?

      Obama is NOT a Socialist, damn it! But, I'll go ahead and vote for him anyway.

      by tekno2600 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:53:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Wait. Why is repealing the 17th crazy? (0+ / 0-)

    I see good, sound, systemic reasons to return the power to appoint Senators back to the state legislatures. Think about it for a bit.

    If the States need federal support to maintain funding levels (as they do now), where does this funding usually get stuck? In the Senate.

    Which offices require the most campaign money? In order: President, Governor, Senator. Is there something wrong with reducing the influence of big money campaign contributors?

    When the Feds impose an unfunded mandate on the States (a la No Child Left Behind or the Drug War), what Federal body has an interest in defending State coffers? It used to be the Senate, but now they're directly elected.

    I understand the argument for direct democracy, and I understand that the Progressives argued for the 17th Amendment as a solution to the corruption of the process at the state level. I'm not sure that the experiment has been more than half successful, and it may have actually been quite harmful.

    I'm all for calling Teabaggers out on being anti-Constitution, and have no illusions that we agree on the issues (we don't even agree on epistemology!), but that's one issue I'd like to see given a little more consideration.

    --- Perma-ban or bust. - opendna

    by opendna on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:28:18 PM PDT

    •  Another brain-dead libertarian (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, David Fetter, tekno2600

      Why do you think they passed the 17th Amendment. State.
      The rich had enough money to buy every state legislator in the country to protected their trusts in the 19th century.

      You think it can't happen now?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      •  Another illiterate "lefty". (0+ / 0-)

        What's the matter? Was my comment so long that you didn't read all the way to the ninth sentence?

        The rich had enough money to buy every state legislator in the country to protected their trusts in the 19th century.

        You think it can't happen now?

        Apparently you think they no longer have that much month and that it hasn't already happened.

        That kind of innocence is always refreshing to encounter.

        --- Perma-ban or bust. - opendna

        by opendna on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:57:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then what is your point? (0+ / 0-)

          If you are saying that the rich would just buy out the legislatures, then why would any of the stuff you mentioned in the original post get done?  You are arguing enemy of the people is naive to expect the rich can't buy elections now, but your supposition is that they will unfailing work like you expect if we repeal the 17th, which is magnitudes more naive (oh, hell, it is so stupid you need to go get a MRI to see if any of your brain matter is in your skull).  History showed quite strikingly that the idea of a legislature-elected Senate giving a plug nickel about anything but pleasing their lords and masters to be complete horse shit - the 17th was used to fix a retardly obvious problem.  Remember that the Senate and most of the state legislatures had to pass the Amendment; so the very people benefiting from the set-up were the ones that killed it - when the crooks think the situation is so bad that they need to legislate away their money-train, the situation is pretty epically bad.  enemy of the people can point to stark historical fact as to why your idea is bad; you can only point to stark-raving hysterical froth ("If we only let the top 1% directly appoint Senators, puppies and rainbows will fall across the land, because Daddy can't help but think of the welfare of the lessers, tee-hee") to attempt to obfuscate the fact that we have the current system because the old one sucked so hard even the Senators appointed under it saw the system as too corrupt - that is the equivalent of robbers putting money into a bank because they are embarrassed at their haul.

          •  Despite your comment, I'll take you seriously. (0+ / 0-)

            Before I get into it: Your insults, incidentally, are fucking pathetic. You should work on that.

            If you are saying that the rich would just buy out the legislatures, then why would any of the stuff you mentioned in the original post get done?  

            The more money it takes to run a campaign, the stronger the influence of monied interests at that level of power. Compared to state-wide offices, it is much easier for a local legislator to be challenged with a small campaign chest and a lot of volunteers. I've seen state senators elected with a $10,000 campaign chest in California, but you won't see a Senator win for less than a few million.

            Why would appointed Senators get things done for the states? Because if they didn't, they'd get replaced ASAP. At this moment in history, where government provides essential services, almost everything that needs getting done - and most of the important stuff already getting done - happens at the state level. From education and health care, infrastructure, job creation and environmental protection... all that happens at the state level. Do you think state legislators like going to their voters and tell them that they've slashed education and services? Hell no. They'd rather the feds cough up some money for those federal mandates.

            No matter how corrupt they might be, state legislatures still have an interest in protecting their own power by bribing the voter. If you're a progressive, you believe in the government provision of services. Given a choice between geographically remote elected Senators, who only have to answer to voters and campaign contributors, and appointed Senators, who have to answer to state legislators who are very personally exposed to their constituents, the former seems more likely to cause deadlock and "Starve the Beast".

            You are arguing enemy of the people is naive to expect the rich can't buy elections now, but your supposition is that they will unfailing work like you expect if we repeal the 17th, which is magnitudes more naive (oh, hell, it is so stupid you need to go get a MRI to see if any of your brain matter is in your skull).

            I don't expect that it would end corruption. I figure it would spread it, dilute it. It might empower local power brokers and political machines over national ones, but I'm not sure that's the worst thing possible right now. At present, local monopsonies are suffering while global oligopolies block efforts to help communities. Which one would you rather own your officials? The one who has an investment in your community, or the global that exists in The Cloud.

            History showed quite strikingly that the idea of a legislature-elected Senate giving a plug nickel about anything but pleasing their lords and masters to be complete horse shit - the 17th was used to fix a retardly obvious problem.  Remember that the Senate and most of the state legislatures had to pass the Amendment; so the very people benefiting from the set-up were the ones that killed it - when the crooks think the situation is so bad that they need to legislate away their money-train, the situation is pretty epically bad.

             

            Here's another reading for you: the direct election of Senators simplified the management required to corrupt the national legislature. Instead of having to control 50%+1 in a state legislature, you could fund your senator of choice directly. Local lords and interests would have to compete for influence with national powers. The local union boss used to be the big man because he could deliver votes locally, now it's the corporation's BOG that can deliver the contributions.

            No doubt about it: the 17th Amendement was supposed to solve a pressing problem. The question is: did it work, and did it cause other problems that are worse?

            Just because it was the solution to a problem, doesn't mean it's worked. Consider: Around the same time California amended it's constitution to allow direct legislation and amendments. Never mind the perenial efforts of corporations to bankroll propositions for their own special interests, the people of California voted themselves a constitutional tax cut which is now literally bankrupting the state. Still, no matter how bad the situation, there is no chance that Prop 13 will get repealed.

            enemy of the people can point to stark historical fact as to why your idea is bad; you can only point to stark-raving hysterical froth ("If we only let the top 1% directly appoint Senators, puppies and rainbows will fall across the land, because Daddy can't help but think of the welfare of the lessers, tee-hee") to attempt to obfuscate the fact that we have the current system because the old one sucked so hard even the Senators appointed under it saw the system as too corrupt - that is the equivalent of robbers putting money into a bank because they are embarrassed at their haul.

            Actually, I've got historical facts to back up the suggestion that the 17th Amendment failed: In 1912, the US Senate was able to pass a constitutional Amendment to abandon the privilege which had sent them all to Washington. In the 1990s and 2000s, the US Senate is barely able to pass a budget. If you want a do-something Congress, the contrast might suggest the former was preferable.

            --- Perma-ban or bust. - opendna

            by opendna on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 05:06:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Direct democracy 'may be actually quite harmful' (0+ / 0-)

          Go back to Redstate, tea-bat.

          •  Go back to Wichita, three-legged badger. (0+ / 0-)

            Ad hominems work better when they have at lest some tangential relationship to reality.

            Poser.

            --- Perma-ban or bust. - opendna

            by opendna on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 04:25:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Oh fine. You want to trade flames? (0+ / 0-)

            If your whole contribution to American democracy is (as you claim in another diary) "hanging out on DailyKos" and calling everyone a libertarian, then you make a smaller contribution to the nation than the average homeless junkie. Their presence, at least, is a daily reminder of need to address poverty.

            You make no one smile, make no one think, you change no minds and you can't seem to find a single informed contribution to make to even the most trivial topics. I note that you appear to hold your own opinion in such high regard that all others are below contempt. It's not evident from your behavior that such a high opinion is justified, so I chalk it up to self-preservation. If you had the same assessment as the rest of us, you'd waste your mind on crack cocaine and call it an improvement.

            You have the attention span of a fruit fly.

            See? I put that on a separate line because I know you find paragraphs very challenging.

            --- Perma-ban or bust. - opendna

            by opendna on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 07:10:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Senate candidates against senatorial elections!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Matt Z, enemy of the people

    It makes about as much sense as the teabaglicans who run on an anti-government platform while at the same time asking us to elect them to some of the most powerful positions within that selfsame government ;)

    Obama is NOT a Socialist, damn it! But, I'll go ahead and vote for him anyway.

    by tekno2600 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:32:30 PM PDT

  •  teabaggers are NOT "A well regulated militia (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    PavePusher

    nor are their anti-government screeds conducive to a "free state." So, I can only conclude that their reasons for being obessed with guns have nothing to do with the 2nd ammendment, but instead are due to:
    #1. Small pensises
    #2. Very small penises
    #3. A cowardly inability to defend one's self mano-a-mano, so they must instead resort to using lethal weapons in inappropriate situations.

    Obama is NOT a Socialist, damn it! But, I'll go ahead and vote for him anyway.

    by tekno2600 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:42:45 PM PDT

  •  What Buck really thinks of teabaggers. (0+ / 0-)

    All bullying needs to cease immediately. Be nice or be gone. We are not them.

    by reddbierd on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 03:54:22 PM PDT

  •  Wouldn't the bill itself be unconstitutional? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV

    Per Bachmann crazy overdrive, a bill to prohibit the President from entering a treaty I believe is unconstitutional. Doesn't the Senate have sole authority to ratify or reject treaties? Wouldn't this interfere w/ that because the House would get to vote on a bill to prevent the Senate from exercising their constitutional separation of powers?

  •  To be fair, plenty on the left want to shred 1st (0+ / 0-)

    as well as 2nd Amendment, whether in calls to ban "hate speech," or to overturn Citizens United via Constitutional Amendment.

    Wisconsin's Republican candidates: Paper and Plastic.

    by ben masel on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 04:02:29 PM PDT

    •  Citizens United = constitutional right to bribe (0+ / 0-)

      You can't see the difference between free speech and offering a bribe to a public official?

      "Libertarianism is a mental disease"(stolen from Michael Savage)

      •  This is dailykos. You don't get to make stuff up. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        opendna, PavePusher

        The Citizens United ruling did not change the law on direct contributions to Candidates, or bribery. It merely allowed for profits, non-profits, and Unions to publish their own speech.

        Wisconsin's Republican candidates: Paper and Plastic.

        by ben masel on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 04:40:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're dancing on the head of a pin if (0+ / 0-)

          you think these aren't completely entangled.

          Citizens United = corporations are people

          The point was to overturn a law to restrict campaign financing which is always an invitation to bribery.

          I doubt the writers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights thought that corporations were people or that a right to 'petition' was the same as a right to bribe.

          The 90-page dissent held that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution."

          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    •  Neither of those actions would shred anything (0+ / 0-)

      In fact, certain forms of hateful speech, like "fighting language," and even some form of fucking profanity have long been ruled permissible to ban. Teabaggers just don't want any prohibition against their calls for violence, sedition and racial hatred.

      The also don't believe the 1st Ammendment should protect Muslim cultural centers.

      Plus, only some teabaggers support the idiotically unconstitutional views of some of the ideological nuts on the Supreme Court that (1) corporations are people, and (2) money = speech.

      The vast majority of Democrats, Republicans, and even Teabaggers believe the "Citizens" "United" decision was incorrect. It's really only the truly unsalted nuts who would consider a democratically passed law or a legally ratified constitutional ammendedment on this to be "shredding" the constitution.

      Obama is NOT a Socialist, damn it! But, I'll go ahead and vote for him anyway.

      by tekno2600 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 04:40:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I rest my case. (0+ / 0-)

        Wisconsin's Republican candidates: Paper and Plastic.

        by ben masel on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 04:52:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But, since you can't make an intelligent response (0+ / 0-)

          I am the only one of us who can rest my case successfully.

          For future reference, when people tell you that if you don't know what the hell you're talking about you should STFU, that isn't violating your 1st Ammendment right. It is just making a helpful suggestion to save everybody's time.

          Obama is NOT a Socialist, damn it! But, I'll go ahead and vote for him anyway.

          by tekno2600 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 at 05:21:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Buck - Loon....Bachmann - SPACE ACE!!! (0+ / 0-)

    I have to differ, with great prejudice, on your characterization of Ms. Bachmann as 'creative'...It's NOT creativeness, it's utter STUPIDITY!

    We should find a spacious corner for Michelle, give her some small Tonka-Toys and let her alone... she'll keep herself amused for decades...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site