Like them or not, they are life time appointments and define law for us. Many very important decisions hinge on as little as one justice. Abortion is one of them. Just think, if one of the old liberal or neutral justices had of kicked the bucket before Obama took oath and abortion could be illegal in the US. Not only that, but Presidents appoint people who decide policy on some very important issues. Before Bush left office they were going to make it policy for individual pharmacists to refuse to fill any prescription on their religious beliefs. And their jobs would have been protected. Here in Tx we have had a few nutjobs who have refused to fill birth control for women (and why is it always womens meds that are so controversial?). It scares the shit out of me to think that an individual working behind a counter WHO IS NOT MY DOCTOR could decide if I can have my prescriptions filled as I have taken bc for migrains. So yeah, who sits in the Oval Office is paramont importance to the everyday meager lives of us ordinary folk.
Putting aside your interesting interpretation of the 10th Amendment, what you're implicitly saying is that Obama should abolish these institutions?
Well, I don't think it's an "interesting interpretation" at all. The 10th Amendment limits federal power to those powers spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The politicians and the courts ignore it and call it a truism. But to answer your question, I do think those agencies should be abolished.
So by virtue of the fact that Obama has not abolished said institutions, he's somehow violating the Constitution? It seems that the only thing being violated is your interpretation of it. The enumerated powers don't expressly forbid the creation of the institutions you don't find favor with either.
I take it Russians are excluded from the quiz. Marx's Manifesto was first published in 1848 and called for the workers of the world to unite. Marx believed that power lies in owning the means of production, and workers should take control of them - everything should belong to the state, except for minor private property. Marriage as we know it should also be abolished as a form of servitude of the woman. Under Communism: to everyone - according to need, from everyone - according to ability. If I missed anything - I last studied this almost 20 years ago.
I agree. Fortunately for me Obama comes pretty close to my ideals and values, but I can totally see what you're saying.
My parents apparently think a black man in office is laughable. Recently I walked out of the room while my dad blithered on about the First Lady planting a garden and something about black eyed peas. They think he's a baby killer and a probably runs a spa for prisoners. Or something.
Any Russian who grew up during the Soviet era and paid attention in school is cheating, but fair enough. The highlighted portions of Mosk's post are of the greatest importance here, as there are multiple (countless) schools of Marxism, but the gist of it can be understood as a theory that views historical development in terms of class struggle. The current manifestation of this struggle falls between those who own the means of production (capitalists) and the rest of us who must enter the marketplace and sell our labor power (workers) in order to meet our subsistence needs. As Marx conceived it, history progresses as the dialectical tension between classes gives rise to negations which cancel out both pre-existing sides. The interests of the capitalist (exploitation of labor, profit) are negated by the interests of the worker. capitalists<----negation--->workers negation of the negation = socialism, then later communism. Why all of this boring theory? Because the next time someone calls Obama a "socialist" or "Marxist", you should ask them what exactly those terms mean and see if they give you an intellectually respectable answer. Chances are that, unlike Mosk, they won't even know what in the hell they're talking about.
My father likes to appear "liberal" and "progressive" so he thinks Obama's great - although he doesn't know much about the policies.
when you are through with them, and have shined his shoes and drank the Kool Aid we dont for a guy because he is black, but thats your choice. I vote for the policies that best serve my interests--thats why the vote is an individual thing, so unless you are me, then i dont think you know what policies i support or dont. stop with with the trolling
My mom was pretty much the same way. I just don't understand it. I'm not gonna vote for someone on the basis of color
no not angry at all, but this thread was to answer a question not hurl personal insults--its seems karmacoma was here getting personal, not just answering the OP which was a question for each person to answer for him or her self
