Comments on: Senator Feingold on the 10th Amendment

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:35:35 +0000

I didn’t have a problem with the tone, either. Personally, I don’t have any respect for these thugs in office – and the guy actually went out of his way to say that he “respects the office” – to make sure his “tone” was “acceptable”

Feingold was happy to give him the ok. Guess Senators just like feeling powerful like that…

By: Michael D

Michael D — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 02:52:12 +0000

I respectfully disagree with larry f, in that the tone actually helped emphasize the articulate manner in which the argument was presented. Bottom line, however, is if this will bring about change. If nothing else, the argument about the items not found in the first 9 amendments should be under the states rule is a very valid one, and one that should be communicated more and more until the idea of the 10th amendment is clear to all potential voters.

By: larry f

larry f — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:57:45 +0000

The guy asking the questions is way to confrontational.. he needs to change his tone. It’s one thing to get worked up and passionate, But his tone and anger and lack of eloquence is taking away from his argument.

the guy should have had someone else express his views for him..