What has happened to our takeover of the courts. How can justices question the constitutionality of Obama Care? Please, write someone NOW and tell them we need free healthcare!!!! I fear there will be rioting, children will starve, old people will ... must I go on ...

I am gathering bras to burn, stones to throw and looking up curse words!!

"WE SHALL OVERCOME THE UN-OVERCOMEABLE! ONWARD COMRADES!"

Be sure to get the Bra from Tsarevna... Harvest time is so far away....

And Healthcare for all!

I really like that hand with the brown middle finger. It has a lot of possibilities.

Let's have a think-piece.

Do you think that we have rights to rights? Or are rights something that we make lots of noise about, before we take them from people?

I prefer the latter. Rights are a construct, just as life is. If it's a construct, then we can award them, and then arbitrarily take them away to suit our needs.

That reminds me. I told the proles working in the fields at the Rancho that I recognized their rights to enough food to keep them alive. I need to tell them that I'll keep them alive as long as they're useful to me.

Sort of like the old people under Obamacare, with a half trillion taken from Medicare, and double counting. But then who cares about proles who can't work?

Or the elderly?

Sorry. My bad. The same thing.

If it's of no use to you, get rid of it. That's the Prog Way.

As to thinking, let's think about my rights. For instance I have the right to work. This means that if I want to work for you, you must hire me. Then I have the right to a living wage, which you must pay me because I work for you. I have a right to decide what constitutes a living wage.

I am starting to like this "rights" thinking better the more I engage it. After the health care riots let's have worker's rights riots, followed by living wage riots. It is going to be a busy summer. I may not be able to start working for you until later in the fall.

Comrade Peoples Comrade,




You are so left about rights. It's one of the most brilliant successes of our long march to Progressivism: Conflating the concept of "right" with "entitlement" in the minds of at least 53% of American voters (actually the percentage is almost certainly closer to 85% if one were to conduct an accurate poll on the subject).




Most (but, fortunately for us, not all) of those tea-partiers understand the Constitutional meaning of the term "right" as describing a self-initiated/self-directed exercise of individual liberty which the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing. Virtually everyone else in America has accepted our Progressive re-definition of "right" as being synomymous with "entitlement." This made it easy for us to persuade such Americans to use the term "right" to describe whatever benefit they desire to receive from the government via its power to take from their less-unsuccessful fellow citizens whatever may be necessary to enable the the government to dispense such benefits to those desiring to receive them.



Most on our side (but few tea-partiers) recognize that this transformation of the meaning of "right" as merely a synomym for "entitlement" in the minds of the vast majority of Americans has become so transfixed that it's irreversible. What makes me confident that this is correct? It's because virtually no prominent leader among our adversaries even bothers to attempt to explain to Americans that within the context of our Bill of Rights, a "right" descibes a self-initiated/self-directed exercise of liberty which the Bill of Rights forbids the government from enfringing and that "entitlement" is nowhere in such Bill of Rights.




Such transformation has become so complete that our most progressive leader ever has successfully described our Bill of Rights as a list of "negative liberties" rather than a list of the kinds of self-initiated/self-directed exercises of liberties which the Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing. And then he adroitly explained how a correct interpretation of the Constitution would be an interpretation of "rights" as things the government ought to do "for" a person rather than a list of things the government can't do "to" a person.


Thus, unless and until there were to arise leaders able and willing to educate Americans on the denotation of "right," our side will be secure in continuing to rely upon, and benefit from, most Americans' connotative interpretation of "right" as a synomym for "entitlement."

Of course, I do give myself at least some credit for deconstruction of language such as my success in having become so popular in the pop-culture as the great clarifier of the meaning of "is."




We must never forget, the Current Truth is all that matters.


--Minister of Truth

We just need more training on how to cheer better for all of Dear Leaders plans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4D6S-W ... r_embedded

The Bill of Rights? How can anything containing the word "right" be true?

Comrade Shovel 4 U,
That Tim Kaine seems so "with it". Doe's he carry around a toy dog in a man purse?

Mark Twain said use the right word and not its second cousin. Which is good for exactitude of meaning but it's essential that we follow the lead of Dear Obozo's administration and use words as...sounds without meaning. He speaks words as though he were talking to a horse or a dog, but then Dear Obastard is so far above all of us, that we are but horses and dogs to him.

Things to be broken or shot; at the very least to be neutered.

I digress. From now on, I rule that the words "right," "entitlement," and "demand" are all synonymous.

Next we'll add desires, wants, volitions and velleities.