Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Florida proposed Constitutional Amendments. This is SERIOUSLY F**ked up!!!

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 17, 2012, 11:48 a.m. EST by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Please take a quick moment to at least glance at the titles of 11 Florida Constitutional Amendments contained in this link. that are on the upcoming November 6, 2012 ballot.  A cursory overview will clearly show that most of them were likely placed on the ballot by Conservative and/or Republican efforts.  The most disturbing thing about these amendments is the very fact that they are just that -- amendments to the state constitution.  All of these attempts at change of law could have been enacted as regular Florida legislation without the need of state constitutional amendment.  But by presenting these as referendums to making them Florida State Constitutional law, the repeal process becomes much, much harder.  So this is some really serious effort here to push conservative ideology into the state constitution.

Let me just touch on some of the highlights for you.

Proposed Amendment 1 begins as follows: "Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage..."  etc. etc. etc.

This means whoever got this on the ballot is opposed to Obamacare and will try to prevent its implementation in Florida through state constitutional amendment.

Proposed Amendments number 2, 9, and 11 all have to do with changes in Homestead Exemption tax, and all of them want to lower that tax. Florida is one of the very few states in the country that has no state income tax.  That is the reason why everyone from all over the country flocks here when they retire.  But Florida needs income just as much as most other states do.  The Florida Lottery will not get it there.  This is a Republican tax-cut strategy at the state level, despite the need for taxes to run the state. 

Proposed Amendment 5 has to do with the State Court system, and this is an obvious conservative ploy.  The most disturbing sentence in this wording on the ballot is this:

The State Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts. The constitution further provides that a rule of court may be repealed by a general law enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This proposed constitutional revision eliminates the requirement that a general law repealing a court rule pass by a two-thirds vote of each house, thereby providing that the Legislature may repeal a rule of court by a general law approved by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature that expresses the policy behind the repeal.

What this means is that the Legislative body would be able to strip the Court of its ruling anytime it doesn't like the ruling and can muster a simple majority in both houses of state government.  Republicans complain about the court system legislating from the bench. This Amendment would give them the power to make the judicial system virtually meaningless on any significant legislation they might pass that the court would rule against. So why even have a court system at all?  This is an outrage and an insult to anyone who understands the purpose and function of the court system in the US. The court system is part of the checks and balances upon which our government rests (the famous three-legged stool). This law would try to effectively limit, if not actually abolish, the court's capability of keeping bad laws in check.

Proposed Amendment 6: Prohibition of Public Funding of Abortions;  Construction of Abortion Rights

Read it for yourself. It is a short proposal as stated on the ballot. Need I say more?  Do you think progressives put it there?

But I have saved the most serious proposed amendment for last.

Proposed Amendment 8:  Religious Freedom

This is so over-the-top I am reproducing it in full below.

Religious Freedom

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding or other support, except as required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.

WTF?  WTF?  WTF?  WTF?  WTF?  WTF?  WTF?  WTF??????

This is an outright attempt to create a Theocracy by rule of law, effectively merging Church and State, and eliminating the traditional wall that separates them.  If this passes, and the ACLU doesn't take it up and argue it successfully at the US Federal Court level (not excluding the SCOTUS), then this would be a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country.  Jefferson would be turning over in his grave about this one.  If you were an atheist or agnostic, would you want your tax dollars spent like this??? The nerve and audacity to plainly word this proposed amendment so openly by conservatives clearly indicates that they feel they have a good chance of voting this in.  And I wouldn't be surprised, given the fact that there are so many Republicans in this state and so many conservative retirees here. They are praying and appealing to their God that He will pass this into law. So let me appeal to Him and pray that he will piss all over them and not allow it to pass. FU Conservatives on this one!!!! Shame!!!

===============

I simply could not believe it when I saw all of these conservative proposals to alter the State Constitution. I could not detect ONE proposed amendment having to due with progressive policy changes. It is all about anti-tax, anti-abortion, anti-church/state separation, and all of the other conservative "anti-ism" that has been going around for decades.

If you are a Florida voter reading this, I strongly urge you to vote NO to ALL of these proposed constitutional amendments.  Even if you agree with them, you don't have to change the constitution to have them implemented. The same thing can be accomplished by simple passage of law in the existing state legislature.  But the conservatives want a constitutional amendment on ALL of these, because they know it will be a LOT harder to get these repealed if they become law as constitutional amendments rather than law enacted under the existing state constitution.

94 Comments

94 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

At our General Assembly tonight we are having the lead organizer to the Walmart Strikes speak. I'll bring this one up.

The only amendment I am for is the first one, because forced corporatism is a dangerous move for this country, and with it, universal healthcare will never be possible.

Curtis Hixon Park @ 700pm.

[-] 5 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Hey, thanks for getting the word out on this. I'm sure a lot of voters are not even focusing on the referendums given all the ads about Obama/Romney. I have not seen one ad related to these proposed amendments encouraging Yes/No.  There may have been some effort involved in keeping these out of the MSM here.  Have you seen any?

These conservatives are relentless in their insanity, and we need to be just as relentless in opposing their craziness.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

What happened at the GA?

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

It went good. The lady for the Walmart organization was incredible, it is so good to see individual people getting up and doing things.

As far as the amendments, most of em dont humor our current gov at all, so its always a little hard to gauge interest.

Occupy the Debates in Boca generated a lot of interest though, which was good.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

So you just engaged in casual conversation with others about the amendments, or did you bring it up formally? Was there any interest or thoughts in how this could be oppossed? I just know that many of these are going to pass because people will not think this through deeply enough. In particular, I am concerned about Amendment 8.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Talked about it informally, because I know how it usually goes with that stuff, and there was literally only about 15 people there last night.

That stuff is best planned with the other ones that have given up/left for being "too political"...

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

underdog - since you are local- . what do "normal" Foridians say about these?
are they alec spawn?
are there any polls indicating they will pass or not?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I did a little research and found out that (1) all 11 proposed amendments were put there by the Florida legislature and (2) Republicans have a veto proof majority since 2010. So as long as the Republicans have that kind of stranglehold on govenment (including governor (R)ick Scott) things look very bleak indeed for progressives in Florida.

Below is from one of the articles:

“So, the way that it works in the Legislature is that they do require a 3/5’s supermajority to place something on the ballot, but the fact of the matter is we have a supermajority of one party control in both houses of the Legislature anyway. So, most things pass by an overwhelming supermajority in the Legislature. So, it really does make the bar very low for something to be placed that way.”

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I don't think there is such a thing as a "normal" Floridian. Very few Floridians are "Florida crackers", that is, born and raised here. People from all over the country come here, so it is a mixture of everything. However, the largest single demographic could very well be retired people who come here due to no state income tax and mild winters. There are a lot of northern retired people here. Traditionally this has been a conservative-Republican state. It went Republican after the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Although it has voted Democratic before (like when Obama was elected), usually it votes Republican/conservative.

I don't know if ALEC was behind these proposed amendments. I wish I did know. Maybe I'll try to do some Internet research and try to find out who got the required signatures to get these referendums on the ballot.

I have no idea whatsoever if any of these proposed amendments will pass or not. I would imagine that some of them will (or at least one). I am hoping that none of them pass (that's just me personally). I have never been very good at predicting what the Florida electorate will do. Sometimes it is predictable and sometimes not. Again, this is because there is such a mixture of people from all over. Florida is like the "melting pot of the melting pot". Lots of Latinos in southern Florida (actually, all over Florida now). Fair amount of African-Americans too. But the big block, like I said, are the retireds, and they are usually of a conservative nature due to age, regardless of R or D affiliation.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

I don't know if enough attention has been given to what the Obamacare penalty/tax really is.

As I understand it, the amount one would pay for coverage in a year's time would be added as income if a person did not want ObamaCare.

So if you're premium were 2,500 dollars a year and you did not want to pay it, you would then report the 2,500 dollars as income and pay whatever additional tax that 2,500 dollars in income would create.

I don't know if a person could then deduct whatever medical plan they did choose, assuming they could choose one outside of ObamaCare.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

That is how I understand it also. It is my understanding that those who are the very poorest have some type of option at the State Exchange that also includes an expansion of Medicaid. So everyone get's covered even if you are below the poverty line.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

lol, I think I just went to a survey about the healthcare plan. Those who make under a certain amount are supposed to get free care.

However, I pointed out that free is somewhat pointless if a person has to drive 50 miles to get it, or wait a really long time. I suggested that even those who can get it for "free" be allowed to upgrade with a small deductibe if they want a closer location or faster service.

Every little bit helps cover the cost.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Where did you go about the survey? I would like to check it out. There is still a lot about Obamacare that I would like to know more about. Seems hard to imagine that someone would actually have to drive 50 miles for care. If there are long wait times (which might be scare tactic propaganda because no one knows yet exactly what the wait times will be) then we need to take a look at how Canada manages their wait times. I saw something once where people were waiting in a clinic waiting room for about 20-30 minutes on average, which sounds very reasonable to me. Is that what you were talking about, or some other type of wait time?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

I'm making an assumption that if someone qualifies for free care because they don't make enough money, there will be a huge operation located in one central spot and people will have to go there from great distances.

If however, those who are not paying can go anywhere, and be booked at the same expediency as someone who is paying, then I would incorrect.

My idea is a compromise. Pay a small co-pay to go closer to home if one is getting healthcare for free.

If you sign up with those companies that pay you for your opinion, (but you may get called only once or twice a year), you might be in on this survey (and get paid a modest amount), I don't know when the cut off date is for this particular study.

I'm talking the companies that actually have a shingle set up, not the internet companies.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

It should be setup so that almost every doctor everywhere should take you. Most doctors take Medicare/Medicaid today. The poorest will likely choose the cheapest option, which would likely be the Medicaid-extension (if I am understanding the proposed changes correctly).

Here is a clip from a waiting room in Canada. Of course, they have single-payer, which is what I wish we would have. But Obamacare might turn into single-payer someday if we are very lucky (at least that is what I am hoping).

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

a friendly question- why do WE call it single payer?
why not call it Medicare for all?
and almost no one points out that Medicare HAS to be less expensive
2% overhead compared to 20% for insurance company overhead
why arent all Democrats screaming this fact?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I think that single-payer is more paletable from a political perspective. Medicare is widely viewed by the public as "socialized medicine", and those two words are anathema to a very large number of people who are oppossed to it. As you know, there is an effort by the Rs to privatize Medicare/Medicaid through vouchers. So it is already under attack, because the power-elite are engaged in an anti-tax jihad and don't want to contribute their fair share to help ANY social programs along. So it is all "PolitSpeak" and fancy dancing.

And you are absolutely correct that Single-Payer is far less costly to administer, as this short video details, along with other facts about single-payer vs. for-profit healthcare.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

ThanQ

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

I dunno, I got a call from a sales person once whose own father ran up a 10 million dollar debt because of advanced prostate cancer.

I don't see how they can maintain a healthcare system running up bills like that.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

That type of medical bill would be relatively rare, statistically. Most bills, even severe ones, are much, much smaller.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

according to the person who told me the story, their father ran up a 10 million dollar bill over 60 days time in the hospital for life ending prostate cancer treatment.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I found the below from this link.. You might find it interesting to scan the entire article for other specifics. I'm sure this is not definitive, but it's a start.

Cost of Care for Chemotherapy Patients

On an unadjusted basis, we found the average cost of care per episode for office-managed chemotherapy was about $19,640, while the average cost of care per episode for HOPD- managed chemotherapy was $26,300, a 34 percent difference. The lower cost for office- managed patients persists despite a longer average length for office-managed episodes: the average office-managed chemotherapy episode lasted 3.8 months versus 3.4 months for HOPD-managed patients. These costs are for all care provided to patients receiving chemotherapy, and may include costs unrelated to the cancer treatment. (See Appendix I for a full description of the methodology used in the analysis).

Office-managed chemotherapy episodes had lower costs regardless of the length of the episode. For episodes lasting one month or less, office-managed chemotherapy had an average cost of $7,350 per episode, while HOPD-managed chemotherapy had an average cost of $9,903 per episode, a nearly 35 percent difference. The largest difference was for patients with episodes of nine months: office-managed patients had an average cost of nearly $26,800, while HOPD-managed patients had an average cost of nearly $57,400, a difference of over 114 percent.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

Prostate cancer has it's own regimen of treatment that might be different than other types. Treatment may be done early on, then "watchful waiting" occurs. However, once the PSA level starts to rise, people want another shot at living as the cancer slowly grows.

However, if they got cancer radiation treatment years earlier, that can limit their treatment options later on. What makes it even more perplexing is if the prostate cancer spreads to the bones first, or other organs, first.

If it spreads to the bones first, then the treatment options are more known. If the prostate cancer spreads to other organs before the bones, the costs can probably spiral out of control since there may be more treatment options.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

The medical deduction has increased to a ridiculous 10%; the 7.5 was itself a prohibitive figure. They also halved the pretax medical savings accounts. These are NOT people who are interested in aiding the average person with healthcare costs. You will pay more for insurance, be taxed higher for that which is provided by an employer, and see a reduced deduction on your medical expenses.

These people aren't on our side - they're now looking at ways to tax text msgs and the Internet.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

The medical deduction has increased to a ridiculous 10%...

What does that mean exactly?

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Dude, if you don't know what a medical deduction is - if you've never even seen a 1040 - you should not be commenting on any part of Obamacare.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

Or, you could just answer the question based on what you think the right answer is.

I remember your kind of answer from grade school, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you", an all time classic.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

And why would I do that? You have a world of information at your finger tips.

The heretofore virtually unattainable cap which would allow us to deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5% of the adjusted gross income has been raised to 10%. This directly effects anybody with medical expenses of any kind, including the cost of insurance. Obama has made healthcare more costly so that he will have more money to spend on whatever the Fed desires.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

ah, a variation on the elementary school meme, "II you don't know, I'm not going to tell you".... "now listen up".

yeah, I remember zoning out on that deductible when I saw how ridiculous it was. Any expense that is required to survive so that one can work, should be deductible, end of story.

I tend to avoid memorizing income tax rules when they appear to have been thought up by demonically stupid and insensitive alien beings posing as human life forms.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I'm not memorizing them; I do my own taxes. What's amazing is the number of lines that permit corporate deductions that do not apply to the average person. Also the way in which the Fed promotes its agenda through taxes, deductions and credits.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

by memorizing I mean accepting. If in your heart you really believe something is unfair, then don't completely support it.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Actually I do believe in it; I believe that the government should take circumstance into consideration in demanding taxes. If families have medical expenses that exceed a certain percentage of their income, the government should cut them some slack. I think it's a worthwhile cause. But Obama does not; he has raised the deductible trigger while simultaneously reducing our medical savings accounts as the one vehicle that would allow us to offset this loss of deduction, which was virtually unattainable even at the 7.5% level.

Congress doesn't care, at all.

And essentially what Obama did with healthcare was give the shaft bigtime to anyone who does not collect Medicaid; for those with disposable income there will be less next year; for those with zero disposable income there will be a corresponding rise in debt.

In plain English, these people are real dirtbags and there is no way to peacefully get around that.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (586) 1 year ago

What I'm saying is there should be NO medical deductions on anybody's income tax for life threatening hospitalization.

Cosmetic surgery is a different issue.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

This is reminiscent of the push by ALEC for an Article V constitutional convention. How much do you want to bet ALEC is behind this insanity

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I don't know who is behind it, but the fact that there are so many proposed constitutional amendments that are clearly conse(r)vative in nature has to beg the question -- "Where are any progressive amendments?" Clearly, these conservatives are VERY well organized if they can get 11 amendments on the ballot and progressives can get none. There is something REALLY wrong with Florida progressive organizations. This almost leads me to believe that there are NONE!!! But then again, with (R)ick Scott as governor, and the voter suppression effort that was identified months ago here, I wouldn't put anything past the (R)s. They are playing VERY dirty politics, and appear desperate (at least to me).

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 1 year ago

A--L--E--C

[-] 0 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 1 year ago

Wow......working in the dark as moles.....yet it is here for everyone to see!

Remember......these are the "good ole boys" who want back "the good ole days"....Scary ain't it?

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

They've always been around, and they will never leave, and they are relentless...

"...because fanaticism and ignorance is forever busy, and needs feeding."

~ Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind" ---- watch the clip

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13105) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

this is insane - and hc runs around here supporting conservative ideology?

Conse(R)vatives are intent on coopting OWS - at least in FLA

maybe we should just erect a seawall - encourage all libs and moderates to leave FLA - and when the sea rises . . . .

  • close the flood gates
[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

At least you don't live in Florida like I do Zen. Are there any referendums on the ballot up there in Vermont that concern you?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13105) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Not that I've heard of. There is an issue regarding absentee ballots, they were printed late because of a recount issue from the primary. Some are claiming that as a result the state needs to extend the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots being sent back.

That's the only issue I'm aware of so far.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I think you are out of bounds here in judging those of another state.

And we need to talk about the interstate commerce clause. The interstate commerce clause was intended to prevent an adjoining state, or any coalition of adjoining states, from imposing tariffs that could intentionally impart a negative on another state economy. It was never intended to permit the national regulation of such things as health insurance.

Florida has adopted this position; they will seek to nullify through majority consensus, and the Feds can't argue with the people - they cannot force compliance without exerting a power they do not possess; to do so is tyrannical, it is subjugation. And if Florida chooses to uphold our Constitution and the Fed does not, who do you think the people will flock to?

Based on events of the past four years, all of this makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm not saying this as conservative; I am saying this as a liberal who believes in affording some maximum freedom.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

How am I out of bounds? I live in Florida. And these proposed amendments are mostly bullshit to any liberal-minded progressive, especially the anti-tax, anti-abortion, and anti-church/state seperation ones. Those are the "holy triumvirate" of the conse(r)vative agenda, and have been for decades. And now they have succeeded in getting this on the ballot as constitutional amendments, not just regular change in law. They want to cram their conse(r)eligious bullshit into the state, and never mind what the rest of free-thinking citizens want. Conservatives are DANGEROUS to freedom-loving people.

[-] -2 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Just so you understand, the "holy triumvirate" is this: "God, Liberty, and Free Enterprise." These were the three that America was founded on - our colonials worshiped all three equally; remove any one of these and the other two cease to exist.

Call them the mantras of the mindset; call them the Puritan holy trinity; call them an American triumvirate - this is America.

As conservative as that may sound to you, it has actually afforded tremendous freedom.

If these items are balloted, to be decided by a majority, what is the problem?

Most of these items seek to lower taxes; Florida also, as you know, affords tremendous freedom to the non-religious, so what is the problem?

Why is it the progressive mind is so compelled to force his will upon others?

As for obamacare, it matters not what the Supreme Court does here - if the people say no, it is NO... this is "nullification" and it's not something the Fed wants to challenge because they cannot win - if we can even regard the [court] decision of the few in this light - and continue to call this a free country.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I do not equate freedom with your definition of freedom, and neither would Jefferson who, arguably, was probably one of the greatest intellects and defender of the Enlightenment that this country has ever produced.  He well knew the danger of mixing Church and State, and fought vehemently against it, as did most of the Founding Fathers who knew of the tyranny that resulted in Britain from the Church of England having risen to great political power within the State.

Conservatives have the right to band together in their clans and scheme their plots to push their agenda into the state law. But your concept that might (of numbers) makes right is dangerous. If the majority of lemmings want to plunge off the cliff, I should follow the crowd and accept such bullshit? NEVER!!!

Fortunately, there is the ACLU which will hopefully get active on Amendment 8.

Do you want a state income tax to come to Florida someday? If the people of this state keep seeking lower tax revenue measures through popular legislation efforts, that will have to happen someday because somebody has to pay for state employees to run things, keep the roads in good condition, etc...  Oh, wait!!! I forgot. You guys want to privatize all of that. Get all the money you can any way you can.

Why don't you guys just rename the Republican party the Sc(r)ooge party. After all, Ebenezer Scrooge said (after two men asked him for a charitable contribution for the poor) "If they'd rather die then perhaps they had better do so and decrease the surplus population."  That sums up precisely the attitude of your beloved Free Enterprise, power-elite, Ayn Randian I've-got-mine-go-get-yours mentality.

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, ...Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still, and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."       ~Thomas Jefferson

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

I think you have an extreme case of misunderstanding; this worship of God in colonial America was intended as a perfect worship - separation of church and state dates in this country to John Wycliffe of the 14th century, provocative and an individualist, he was known as the "morning star" who gave birth to the Reformation. He demanded separation because he believed that ecclesiocracy would lead to the corruption of both church and state. Extremely intelligent, difficult to read, especially when he enters areas related to his interpretation of "Holy Ghost." But historically worthwhile because his writings relate even to such events as Anne Hutchinson.

Jefferson's separation is a cultural descendant of the Puritan. And when I say they worshiped all equally that's exactly what I mean.

I didn't read your last three paragraphs because I'm not a republican; I'm anti republican. And as you must realize, this proposal will not pass in FL due to this cultural mandate of separation; it is you that is fear mongering - but putting it to the test of the people in this world of moral dystopia is a very good idea, and as you know, the FL state legislature is very, very, religious, and I support sovereignty as the right of the people to decide for themselves the type of world they wish to inhabit in accordance with the bounds of civility.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I do not view what I am doing as fear mongering, but letting people know that the R agenda is very dangerous, as these proposed amendments surely prove. The R agenda has always been that way, but now it is extremely so, because they have moved to the extreme wacko Right.

If the FL state legislature is "very, very, religious", then that is a very sad and dangerous state of affairs. Let them worship at home and in church, but keep it the hell out of state government!!!. State government is supposed to represent all of the people of the state, many of whom are not particularly religious and, in fact, might be atheist or agnostic. I just completely fail to understand why people don't understand this. It was clearly understood in times past, even in my lifetime. But now there is this conservative agenda that wants to turn government into a Theocracy. That is dangerous as hell, and if the sheeple can't understand that then perhaps they deserve to get what will come.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

And wait a minute, you think what? That the voters will put blinders on as they enter the voting booth?

What you see is "backlash" against the rising tide of moral dsytopia which is a detriment to our society; this concern is not a selfish concern.

Theocracy nothing; this has always been a theocracy - there is no people anywhere on the face of the planet that does not humble itself to its Gods - your fear is one of ecclesiocracy in the form of Sharia and in America that is an unfounded fear.

There is no escape from taxation; let the people decide what their regional tax dollars are to support.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

God of any kind has no place whatsoever in the business of running the State...PERIOD!!!

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Insanity... you promote insanity; if we were speaking of evil, I might agree, but as long as our Gods are "righteous" gods, you can never fully remove god from the law. Nor can you deny those of a religious persuasion from serving as politicians, if elected.

In FL, it's like a prerequisite. And that's a fact.

Review the state constitutions of all fifty states; I have read all of them - how many include a reference to either God or some higher power? And why do you suppose this occurs in virtually all fifty cases?

It has to due with the way subconscious desire manifests relative to codification; you can remove verbiage but you cannot remove God from law, which requires a voluntary submission - there is no other power anywhere in the world, amongst any people, capable of humbling survivalist driven self interest.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

How do you know what a "righteous" god is? Because some book defines it that way for you? And I don't care if all of the state constitutions in all the lands of all the world have the word "God" in them. This is not a consensus argument that can be won by the power of numbers. All of recorded history clearly shows that when god is mixed in with secular government you get "holy attitudes" that lead to "righteous holy wars", the Inquisition, the Crusades, and countless other bullshit carried out in the name of God, because the problem is not God...the problem is Man and his screwed-up flawed logic that thinks he must carry out "God's will", and that anyone else who has a different idea than his, well...they just have to be an infidel and we will carry out God's holy commandment and kill them and rid the world of all infidels. Isn't that what the extremist Muslims are trying to do? But our God is Holy and Pure and we must rid the world of evil that WE know must be gotten rid of because we have righteous God on our side and everyone else is wrong and infidels. So these insane maniacs are praising God while they are thrusting knives in peoples backs.

On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing  one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.  ~Thomas Jefferson

There would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest.     ~Thomas Jefferson

Spencer Tracy summed it all up in this clip from "Inherit the Wind".

And although the subject is evolution and not God and State, the principle is the same as this clip also indicates. God has no place in the state system whatsoever. It is far too corrupting an influence.

[-] 0 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Jefferson was a Nietzsche, absolutely, and an atheist and an evolutionist his entire life, despite all he later writes to posterity. He wrote his atheism right into the Dec, secreted behind words, as a deception that has defied all modern historians.

The problem, as you yourself must realize, is that these words are the product of an incredibly shallow philosophy - to put it another way, they are the words of youth.

Are our laws good or are they evil? If they are good, then they are "righteous," and as long as they are righteous you cannot wholly remove God from the law.

I have estimated Christian Holy deaths at 2.5 million; what of Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, or any handful of others?

This is a huge subject; our Gods are evolutionary, and they are here to stay. Also, good luck rewriting all those Constitutions.

It was my g-g-g-grandfather that threw Nietzsche out of university; I have always found that fact quite interesting. Because it would seem it centers on the challenge and battle of intellects.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Ok, now it is obvious that you are so desperate to win an argument that you are starting to make things up...either that are you are just ignorant of the facts.  So let me set you straight on some things. To do this, we will analyze what you said.

==========

You said -- "Jefferson was a Nietzsche, absolutely, and an atheist and an evolutionist his entire life, despite all he later writes to posterity."

==========

1) Jefferson died in 1826. Nietzsche was born in 1844. So it was impossible for Jefferson to be acquainted with the writings of Nietzsche.

2) Jefferson died in 1826. Charles Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859.  Again, impossible for Jefferson to have even known about evolution unless he could read in his coffin.

I'll only mention in passing that you write of evolution derisively, as if it is not science. But pure science has no agenda except to uncover the truth about the natural world, wherever it might lead, and it has a built-in self-correction mechanism that allows that to slowly occur, unlike religion which has none. I am making an assumption that you are likely Christian (if you are not I apologize). If so, it is obvious that you stand for Creation "Science" or some such other desperate attempt to explain "science" within the context of biblical perspective. All true scientists reject such stupidity since it does not follow the rigor of true science or the scientific method.

3) One of Jefferson's most famous quotes is literally carved in stone in big letters at the Jefferson Memorial. He said, "I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."  Does that sound like an atheist to you? Jefferson was a Deist (as am I) and one of the supreme Rationalists of his time. In case you don't know the definition of Deism, I'll paste in the definition of it for you.

Deism - belief in the existence of God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

==========

You said -- "The problem, as you yourself must realize, is that these words are the product of an incredibly shallow philosophy - to put it another way, they are the words of youth."

==========

Jefferson wrote the "On the dogmas of religion..." statement I quoted in 1816 in a letter to someone named Carey. Jefferson was born in 1743, which means he was about 73 years old at the time. Does that sound like youthful philosophy to you?  He wrote the other statement I quoted (there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest) also in 1816 in a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith.  So your "theory of youth" is complete hogwash.  I myself am 57, and the older I get the more in agreement I am on those quotes from Jefferson, so dismissing something away as "youthful inexperience" (which, by the way, just shows your built-in prejudice against someone younger than yourself) reveals your smug sense that you have earned somehow a greater worthiness of respect due to your age...and that is also hogwash.  Great things can be spoken by great men and women regardless of age.  Get over yourself.

==========

You said -- "Are our laws good or are they evil? If they are good, then they are "righteous," and as long as they are righteous you cannot wholly remove God from the law."

==========

Our laws are written by men and women, not God. God is not necessary, or even desired, to write laws.  I know you probably believe that God literally carved out the 10 commandments on Mt. Sinai.  If one wishes to believe that, that is their business.  We have no proof how they were written.  But we know how human laws are written.  They are gradually accumulated down through time and thus, like science, undergo an improvement process slowly (as in evolutionarily) over time as mankind gains greater experience in dealing with good and bad law. God is not needed to do that. In fact, God in the legislature is a confusion to rational thought, not an advantage and, as I have already said, is a dangerous thing to mix in with secular government.  Our Founding Fathers knew this, and that is why they tried hard to setup separation of Church and State.  That wall of separation stood for a very long time until very recently, but has come under attack by the conservative Christian Right in recent decades after they decided to come out of the Church and get politically active with their religious freakjob leaders like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and others.  So now that wall is teetering on collapse, and the strangest thing about it is that people can't even understand the danger, or else don't care because they are too busy to notice. 

So Spencer Tracy's words from that "Inherit the Wind" video clip that I provided you are coming true right before our eyes (did you watch it?):

"And soon, your Honor, with banners flying and with drums beating we'll be marching backward, BACKWARD, through the glorious ages of that Sixteenth Century when bigots burned the man who dared to bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!"

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Jefferson was a paleo-anthropologist, biologist, taxonomist - an evolutionist - who believed that our gods were evolutionary; he states this in his writings.

He believed in the "tree of life" in the very same sense that an evolutionist does; the absence of genetics does not dismiss this sense of an evolutionary progression. While Darwin articulates Natural Selection, Darwin himself was the product of an exploration that can be traced to at least the mid 1700s.

What I find so amazing is that even after hundreds of years, we are still chasing this "tree of life" in the sense of single life origin of some form - evolution is capable of anything - and this is a false approach.

Jefferson was an atheist along the very same lines as a Nietzsche; your quote is a reference to the public God introduced to us by Washington; this public God is with us still - I here submit our recent Pres debates as evidence of this political mandate of a public God. None of the Founding Fathers were Deists - they would have denied such an allegation - because the Deists were an entirely different sect; nor can they be defined as deists under any present definition - each grasped at the gods most familiar to them - Washington and Jefferson, for example, were Anglicans and not deists.

I am an evolutionist - our Gods are evolutionary - but I am no more an atheist than Jefferson or Nietzsche were, because there are no true atheists that exist anywhere in the world. Jefferson acknowledges this.

And as raised in America, I am also a Christian - the mindset of America, virtually all of it, including many of the things secularists feel very strongly about, date directly to the continuously evolving mindset of the Puritan. Whether one believes or not is irrelevant - the Puritans are with us still; I am one of them - and there is no one in America that is not "Christian." How radically different your opinions had you been born in China, or anywhere else in the world.

You are also incorrect about the "wall of separation" - the Founding Fathers intended separate entities, such had been the practice since our very first "planting" in the form of a "civil body politik," but the First Amendment's "shall make no law respecting... or prohibiting the free exercise of" is not a wall; if it were none of our state Constitutions would contain reference to our public god, and virtually all do. The "wall" is a direct descendant of the Puritan as disciples of Wycliffe, who demanded separation. (So sorry to inform, what you view as secularist belief is actually religious belief.)

You, whether you realize it or not, are witnessing "Backward" - our current mindset is one of reprimitivism; culturally we are regressing.

So... what we have here, is a failure to communicate - I don't blame you - I blame the shallow circumspection of those who must oppose as secularist education; an institution which could not have freely pursued knowledge without consideration of other possibilities, therefore a defensive "wall" to shield us of establishment and the religious fanaticism which was America at the time of Jefferson's William and Mary, and even, unto this day.

Even so, many scientists juggle a dual or even equally relevant triple belief system; everyone does in some form.

I am with you on the religious Right; ecclesiocracy is but a corruption of both church and state - they should not be politically empowered on the national scale; on the other hand, there is national concern over our present state of moral dystopia - murder in my city was up an alarming 18% last year - additionally, we have no business in overruling the desires of such generally peaceful communities of people who have come under attack for their beliefs. People should be permitted to live and let live.

Oh... in reference to the Ten Commandments - I would say that several of these "religious" mandates are common amongst all people - they are the product of an innate morality; meaning subconsciously we find such actions, and others, repugnant, and we are biologically powerless to overcome this repugnance. In terms of their public display, this is symbology and it's a symbolism that all in America of any religious persuasion recognize, as intended to humble us before law (here, in this very instance, in this sentence, such a humbling would serve to literally capitalize, as "Law"). Heretofore, such displays had been very effective and the need of such devices has not diminished.

Good luck to you in your battle; "God" has already won.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I don't know where you have learned all of your history about Jefferson, and it is your right to believe whatever you want to believe, but your views about him are certainly outside of what mainstream historians have to say. If you want or choose to believe that which supports your preconceived ideology, then that is your business. But to state it as a matter of "factual history" is a "bit of a stretch" at best, and outright falsehood at worst.

Read this Wikipedia article completely for what the majority of historians have to say about Jefferson and religion.

[-] -1 points by yobstreet (-575) 1 year ago

Historiography itself is a huge subject but briefly... to understand a Jefferson we must first recognize some basic facts: one, that he was no different than you or I in that he was born into this world possessed only of that innate knowledge, and innate desire, that inhabits us all. Two, that there are those of the time period who are intelligent and those of the time period that are extremely intelligent; those who are educated, and those who are extremely well educated - where do we place Jefferson? Three, we must recognize that Jefferson is a student of the universe; he studies several hours a day through much of his life; he is, first and foremost, possessed of huge curiosities and a personal quest: to be recognized, to attain some relative status as intellectual exemplar. He is therefore a writer, and he himself, as the author, is only accessible through the mind of a writer.

To understand a Jefferson we must determine what served to influence... this would include not only the cultural mindset, the product of some one hundred plus years of colonial experience, but also as peculiar to this particular microcosm which is the Jefferson family in Virginia. We must then determine what influenced - family, life experience, education, mentors, studies... when we study Jefferson's education, for example, we study his mentors, we study not the only the curriculum but the very books and opinions presented as tools of that curriculum.

On and on... and when all of this is said and done, we turn to Jefferson himself to read his writings, which in all fairness, have only recently been published; I myself have only read some thousands of the 14000 plus pages he left to posterity (few in America have yet achieved this). But here we are introduced to his mind, his interests; we begin to grasp his logic; at times silence itself speaks volumes because we can follow the mind's progression; we gain access to that which he unable to say. It must be added, too, that Jefferson's writing style itself, as a means of conveying thought, has a history which dates to early colonial America.

There are many different ways to approach history - various disciplines, different avenues, consider them all - bear in mind that they must align. Bear in mind also that no two individuals will peer through the same eyes, even when in agreement in relating some commonality, no two will react emotionally in precisely the same manner; we seek some generality. And ultimately we must define the word history itself - what is "history"?

Where have I learned my history? Well, I began by emptying local libraries, scouring bibliographies in search of more info on particular subjects; I then began to reach out to the sources available on the Net - books, Google books, Google scholar, JSTORS, websites, genealogical collections - it's endless. Fifty years, that would be my goal, to dedicate fifty years to an unbiased history; do this and you begin to enter the realm of "historian," which is an infinitely more qualified expertise than that presented by the "mainstream." Which is a subject in itself.

Maybe this serves to give you some insight, maybe it does not. But apply this method to a one thousand year time period to encompass the entire western world, and more, and you begin to grasp where my mind has been, in search of - some of what's been revealed, or realized, is admittedly rather startling.

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

No one wants obamacare and business's and big corporations are already saying they will lay off or make some of their workers temp

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Nobody wants Obamacare? I do! And a lot of poor people do and would benefit from being covered.  Do you prefer the current lack of coverage on 40 million uninsured Americans that today simply go to the ER to get medical care, and thus pass those costs onto current insurance providers who, in turn, pass those costs on to you?  So one way or another their medical costs have to be paid for.  At least with Obamacare they will be required by law to get their own coverage or else pay the penalty.  Obamacare was admittedly a bad compromise on the road to Single Payer like Canada, England, France, etc.  Republicans oppose Obamacare because it adds a 3.8% tax on Medicare for anyone making $250,000 per year or more to help pay for it. And that is THE reason why the rich and super-rich are opposed to it, because they don't want to give up one stinking dime of their wealthy booty to help those who need medical coverage. It is the same old tax-cut song they have been singing for decades. Republicans are on an anti-tax jihad. Republicans are Misers!!!

Threatening to layoff workers if Obamacare goes in is just another scare tactic. If they are going to do it, they are going to do it, and they don't need Obamacare as an excuse to layoff workers, as the last 30 years has proven. But threats are indicative of the mentality at work by the Rich Owners of this country.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

You need to listen to some progressives who are outside the duopoly on what this law will do. 10's of millions will still be without coverage, because they simply cant afford it. And it does nothing to control costs. This is outright criminal that they are doing this, and its only going to spread to other bullshit.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I want to see Single Payer in this country someday. I'm the first to admit that Obamacare isn't perfect. But it gets everyone covered at long, long last. Having Single Payer like Canada, England, France, etc. could very easily work here, but the anti-tax jihad that the (R)s are waging will likely never allow it.

I don't understand these (R)ich "people". Obamacare actually expands the customer base of all the healthcare insurance providers, thus gaining them more revenue in their premiums. They should be jumping for joy about that, being able to mandate that 40 million uninsured Americans sign up for healthcare (which, btw, I consider reprehensible as capitalistic healthcare is bottom-line driven and puts profit ahead of people every single time). So what is their problem?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Universal would lower the costs of healthcare, including how much the gov ends up paying. Its not about money, its about a very powerful lobby getting their way with both parties.

Obamacare is still going to leave millions, some say 10's of millions, without insurance becuase they simply cant afford it.

Obama's entire arguement against Mitt, which I agree with, is that you cannot have gov and private competing at the same time, that the private will find a way to take over.

That is the ensense of what he just passed with Obamacare. Which is why stocks are continuing to go through the roof.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Please provide some evidence to support your claim that Obamacare will leave "10's of millions" without insurance because they can't afford it. My understanding is that the poorest of the poor will be umbrella'd under Medicare/Medicaid that is currently not available to them, so what "10's of millions" are you talking about?

It is true that the insurance lobby had a big impact on the final draft of what Obamacare ended up being. That's because they could hear the "great sucking sound" (as Ross Perot once called jobs going to Mexico with NAFTA) of all their customers signing up for Single Payer. Yes, crapitalism is alive and well in the Healthcare industry. Obama caved-in because about 17% of GDP is healthcare, so they have some really big bucks to throw around. But the dirty little secret is at the state exchanges where people will shop for insurance. Depending on the state, they might end up with Single Payer like 'Vermont, which plans to ultimately transform its state exchange into a single payer system,...". So it all really depends on the states at this point I think. But I am hoping that Single Payer goes national eventually, and that the rich and super-rich get taxed like hell to help pay for it.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Your article states a few key things. First of all, and should be an alarm to everyone: This was orginally a Republican idea. That right there should be enough to seal the deal.

CBO is estimating that about 16 million will be added to medicaid by 2019 (thats a freakin long ways out). And that another 16 million will be forced into the pool (paying the cartel for shitty service).

Theres around 50m with no insurance right now. So even if we take the 2019 projections, and dont add anyone else, we would currently have 18million still with no insurance.

The insurance compenies wrote this thing. Its over a 1000 freakin pages. Its not good news for us at all. I wish I could be proud of it, but I cant. Its a disaster. And it sets the ultimate fascist precident.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

I guess I'm dense. Just don't understand what you said below. Please provide links/explanation for greater clarity.

"CBO is estimating that about 16 million will be added to medicaid by 2019 (thats a freakin long ways out). And that another 16 million will be forced into the pool (paying the cartel for shitty service).

Theres around 50m with no insurance right now. So even if we take the 2019 projections, and dont add anyone else, we would currently have 18million still with no insurance."

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

We better watch what we post on here or someone is going to report us to attackwatch.com

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

If you want it then you better get in line to see a doctor, only if you are worth treating

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

That is a total shitpie and you know it.  Where is one shred of evidence to support it? Hell, it hasn't even gone into effect yet, so how do you know what the ramifications will be?

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Ask anyone in Canada and they will tell you

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Here are personal testimonials from both Canadians and Americans as to the Canadian system and the propaganda against it.

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

That is probably why so many Canadians are flocking to the US to obtain treatment. Anything the Gov gets involved with ends up in a disaster. USPS, the Fed, just to name a few

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

...so many Canadians are flocking to the US...

Where is your data to support your assertion? The truth is, American Capitalism has waged an all-out propaganda war against Single-Payer healthcare because they don't want the American public to wake up and realize what a sham the mega-giant for-profit healthcare companies like CIGNA, Aetna, and others are. If S-P was implemented in the country, those companies would go under (or at least be greatly reduced in their customers). That is why S-P has failed to pass multiple times...because the Big Business Healthcare companies don't ever want it to pass and lobby like hell against it. But study after study has shown that costs to administer S-P are much lower than our current for-profit healthcare system. So S-P failed to pass again, and Obamacare was a compromise to get everyone covered, and make the for-profits happy by forcing everyone to purchase their shitty plans (except those that are too poor and will be umbrella'd in under Medicaid).

If you have the fortitude to watch it this video tells the truth about the American healthcare system from a former healthcare company VP insider.

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

The Pres stinks and America does not want his healthcare either

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Facts to support assertions please, otherwise STFU.

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Here ya go and facts are super easy to find on this loser http://www.newsmax.com/politics/reuters-poll-obamacare-romney/2012/07/01/id/444101

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Alright genius. That article is from back in July and is ancient history in politics. And it just says Republicans are against Obamacare and Democrats are for it, so that means some of the country is for it, and some are against it (big surprise in a divided country like ours). Romney says he will repeal it on his first day in office. But you and I know that will be impossible unless both houses of Congress are also R. If the Senate stays D, then there will be stalemate government just like we have now. So the plutocrat will be sitting around trying to get legislation passed and the Dems will prevent it, just like the Repubs have blocked Obama on everything he tried to do just to make him look bad. Mitch McConnell = "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Its a huge payout for the insurance companies. The Republicans are hugely funded by them. Obamacare aint going anywhere regardless of who gets power.

Just like the Bush cuts, Afghan war and the Patriot Act.

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

If Romney was elected and repealed it then taxes would go up for business's. On the other hand if Obama is re-elected then up to 67% of employers say they will make their employees part time. Either way it is a no win for anybody. Obama while on the campaign trail does not say much about obamacare either

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Those employers don't need Obamacare as an excuse to layoff workers or make them part-time. There is a conspiracy among some power-elite CEOs to spread that threat around (absolutely reprehensible to politicize the workplace btw, and just shows the mentality at work amongst the Aristocracy...might be illegal, or should be if it isn't). Have companies had Obamacare in the past 30 years as an excuse to layoff workers? This is election-year dirty politics being played out in the workplace, and it stinks so bad it makes a shitpie smell like perfume.

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Also there is some business's that are exempt from obamacare for their vote in the election

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

This interview was made in Canada.

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Sorry cannot watch that, anything that comes out of those vocal chords is a lie.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

It is actually possible for someone to utter all lies? Does Myth Rob Me utter all truth?

Come clean for everyone on this forum. You hate Obama for reasons other than truth or falsehood (gee...I wonder what those reasons could be).

[-] -1 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Obama is no leader

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

Was the Shrub? He was/is a complete imbecile. And the Mitwit is a 1% plutocratic puppet of the super-elite. I'll take someone who seems to care about 47% of us than one I know doesn't, and speaks lies just to get elected (and is called out for those lies constantly). At least Obama appears to be a humanitarian. Romney is a tool for a purpose. Aristocracy = 100. Everyone else = 0

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

You're not allowed to question the candidate.

It's not fair buddy.

[-] -3 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

Obama cannot make a speech without his teleprompter, he is incompetent and a big liar worst pos we had since Carter

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 1 year ago

You are insane and an imbecile if you think Obama is worse than the Shrub. That nazi put us into this mess that Obama has been trying to dig us out of (and would have by now if the Rs in congress had not obstructed him on everything he tried to do like his Jobs Act, etc.). Obama is not perfect, but he is political Christ compared to Shrubbery.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shooz (17656) 1 year ago

OIC. You are extremely frightened by Canadians.

Good to know.

[-] -2 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

No not really and if you read the prior post, I said that I will not listen to anything obama says because it is all lies

[-] 1 points by shooz (17656) 1 year ago

You mean your lies and half truths?

Or just the bullshit?

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 year ago

Those businesses are traitors to the 99%

[+] -4 points by WeThePeop (-259) 1 year ago

No their not, they are the few smart ones. Hey please do not report me to attackwatch.com hehe

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 year ago

"the few smart ones"? You speak them up, and in so doing put yourself down.

Their brainwashing of you is complete.