Comrad Obama ...

E

elcivic420

Active Member
ViRedd, You campare Obama to a commie. Answer me this? RealID act? give me your papers! RFID in your ID that WILL BE tracked by sensors around various cities? This tracking is already in place in UK. This is what your lovely republicans want. How is this not a blatant insult to Democracy? Obama read some books. Its called learning about new things, it helps ppl to understand more than what is beyond the tip of their nose. I REAAAALLLY sugguest you try!
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
elcivic420 said:
ViRedd, You campare Obama to a commie. Answer me this? RealID act? give me your papers! RFID in your ID that WILL BE tracked by sensors around various cities? This tracking is already in place in UK. This is what your lovely republicans want. How is this not a blatant insult to Democracy? Obama read some books. Its called learning about new things, it helps ppl to understand more than what is beyond the tip of their nose. I REAAAALLLY sugguest you try!
Click to expand...
And I REAAALLY want to thank you for your thoughts. Like most unaware folks out there, you are assuming that if one is against what the Democrat Party offers, then one MUST be a Republican. Here in America, and I'm assuming that, based upon your post, you must be a foreign person, we have multiple parties and multiple candidates.

If you think the Republican Party is the only political party that is on a quest for complete control here in the States, you are grossly misinformed. I suspect that you are a Brit, and as such, get most of your news from the BBC and the Daily Mail. The fact that Obama "read a book," doesn't change my opinion that he's an ultra-left socialist with a Marxist bent. Listen to what the man says. Try to get beyond the Rock Star image and ingest his words into your brain. What exactly does he mean by his statement that if elected he will bring "shared prosperity" to the country? What? Please answer.

And yes ... the Republican policies are a "blatant insult" to "democracy," but even more so, are the policies of the Democrat Party. Both parties are anti-freedom, but the Democrats are more so ... and the more dangerous to liberty of the two.

Vi
 
E

elcivic420

Active Member
Now I can finally agree with you on something! what a wonderful day. I dont like either of these parties, I just disagree way more with the current republicans. Less of two evils sort of philosophy right now, and that sucks, I wish that there could be more choices.

And I am born and raised in the Rocky Mountains, not a foreigner my friend.
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
, we have multiple parties and multiple candidates. [/COLOR]



And yes ... the Republican policies are a "blatant insult" to "democracy," but even more so, are the policies of the Democrat Party. Both parties are anti-freedom, but the Democrats are more so ... and the more dangerous to liberty of the two.

Vi
Click to expand...

Bullshit Vi, The Republicans are even more Anti-democracy than the Democrats. The Democrats are at least trying to give the people what they want (Democracy's Literal meaning "what the majority wants, Majority rule") If anything they are anti-democracy. Pull your head out of your ass.

I hate to break it to you, the majority of the country has walked away from the conservative way of thinking.
 
mockingbird131313

mockingbird131313

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRedd
, we have multiple parties and multiple candidates. [/color]



And yes ... the Republican policies are a "blatant insult" to "democracy," but even more so, are the policies of the Democrat Party. Both parties are anti-freedom, but the Democrats are more so ... and the more dangerous to liberty of the two.

Vi


Bullshit Vi, The Republicans are even more Anti-democracy than the Democrats. The Democrats are at least trying to give the people what they want (Democracy's Literal meaning "what the majority wants, Majority rule") If anything they are anti-democracy. Pull your head out of your ass.

I hate to break it to you, the majority of the country has walked away from the conservative way of thinking.
__________________


Both of you are right. And are wrong. What we really have is a political polka dance. We see everyone swirling and twirling, but when the music stops, you are still standing in the same spot. For the last 20 years, very little has changed. Each party adopts the position of their opposition.

In your lifetime, you will only see a handful of politions adopt a position and stay with it forever.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
mockingbird131313 said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRedd
, we have multiple parties and multiple candidates. [/color]



And yes ... the Republican policies are a "blatant insult" to "democracy," but even more so, are the policies of the Democrat Party. Both parties are anti-freedom, but the Democrats are more so ... and the more dangerous to liberty of the two.

Vi


Bullshit Vi, The Republicans are even more Anti-democracy than the Democrats. The Democrats are at least trying to give the people what they want (Democracy's Literal meaning "what the majority wants, Majority rule") If anything they are anti-democracy. Pull your head out of your ass.

I hate to break it to you, the majority of the country has walked away from the conservative way of thinking.
__________________


Both of you are right. And are wrong. What we really have is a political polka dance. We see everyone swirling and twirling, but when the music stops, you are still standing in the same spot. For the last 20 years, very little has changed. Each party adopts the position of their opposition.

In your lifetime, you will only see a handful of politions adopt a position and stay with it forever.
Click to expand...
Yup. I'd say that the realization came to them right after they saw what that dumb bastard Nixon got away with. They right there decided the American public was braindead and that if they were smart, they could steal the country.
So steal it they did. I see they are already foisting off the home mortgtage debacle onto the middle class, (taxpayers).
I'm sure you wonder who "they" are. I think I'll tell you who they are: They are the people that live on the top floors of highrise buildings, The penthouse elite. These people speak and the world moves. They control so much money=power that they could wipe anyone off the map with a snap of the finger. They control all the wannabees. Capitalism is a system that rewards the suckass players, the related, and the owners. The owners are running the government that bends to their every whim and gets the congress to sneak into session with 9 fucking senators and pass a bill so billionaires can make more money. These are the people controlling our lives. Liars, crooks and thieves. That is the "they" of whom I speak. It's the wannabees that are the most ruthless, you know who you are.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Nixon was a freakin' socialist/fascist. I mean, what else can you call a politician who institutes wage and price controls?

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Nixon was a freakin' socialist/fascist. I mean, what else can you call a politician who institutes wage and price controls?

Vi
Click to expand...
A friend??? I hated Nixon, almost as much as I hate Bush. The two of them will be smoldering in hell when I arrive, I guess that's where we'll meet next, eh VI.
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Is Jesus a Republican? Would he be a Democrat OR Republican today? Well, it’s VERY hard for me to imagine him being associated with today’s machiavellian Republican party, and not easy to imagine him being officially associated with the Democrats. In his day he would not even take a political stance against Herod, Pilate, or Ceasar. But he undermined all of them AND the religious establishment by his clearly emphasized moral priorities.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Dankdude said:
Bullshit Vi, The Republicans are even more Anti-democracy than the Democrats. The Democrats are at least trying to give the people what they want (Democracy's Literal meaning "what the majority wants, Majority rule") If anything they are anti-democracy. Pull your head out of your ass.

I hate to break it to you, the majority of the country has walked away from the conservative way of thinking.
Click to expand...
Please point out where the Constitution authorizes the Democrats to "give people what they want."

Thanks ...

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Please point out where the Constitution authorizes the Democrats to "give people what they want."

Thanks ...

Vi
Click to expand...
Government "Of the people by the people for the people", Kinda say's it all, especially that "for the people" part. Democrats are more likely to adhere to those chaliced words than the repukes, who's mantra is: government for the corporations, by the corporations, of the corporations.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
Government "Of the people by the people for the people", Kinda say's it all, especially that "for the people" part. Democrats are more likely to adhere to those chaliced words than the repukes, who's mantra is: government for the corporations, by the corporations, of the corporations.
Click to expand...
Need I remind you that the words: "Of the people ... " were from a speech given by the politician Abe Lincoln? The request was ... Please point out where the Constitution authorizes the Democrats to "give people what they want."

Now have at it, Med ... point us to the clause or amendment in the constitution that authorizes the Democrat party to "give the people what they want."

Thanks ...

Vi
 
Dankdude

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
What does Jesus have to do with Obama being a Marxist?

Vi
Click to expand...
You have yet to Prove that Obama is a Marxist.

It would seem to me that you ( a conservative) and most people like minded would sell their immortal soul for the Almighty Dollar.

Now for your next question Vi, read the Preamble to the constitution,


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

it means that if the People (voters) Mandate something from their government by their voting, the Government is Obligated to do as the people (the Voters) say.

Your next question will be how are we going to pay for it?
Ask your old buddy BUSH, he seems to be able to run a war with no visible means of support. And now your going to Vote for McCain, a person who wants to continue the same war, the same way, and give the same promises his predecessor has made.

Just the fact that you would Vote for McCain even when you say that you don't like him, proves my point that you would sell your soul for the almighty dollar. Remember Vi, when you pick the lesser of two evils, you still lie down with evil.


My question is this:
Which is worse, being Marxist or being Machiavellian?

US Supreme Court: General Welfare

Congress is granted authority under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution to “pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” The meaning of this Taxing and Spending Clause provoked controversy as early as 1792. One interpretation is that it gives Congress broad power to legislate in the public interest. Such a view is inconsistent with the concept of a limited constitution, however. A second view, promoted by Alexander Hamilton , suggested that Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare was additional to its other powers. A third view, represented by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison , argued that the phrase was simply a summary or general description of the specific powers and that it gave Congress no additional power.8


The Supreme Court had no opportunity to interpret this clause until 1936, in United States v. Butler In striking down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, Justice Owen *Roberts, writing for the majority, held with Hamilton's view, saying that the Taxing and Spending Clause was indeed a separate grant of power to Congress. Because the Court could determine for itself whether a particular tax or expenditure was in the general welfare of the country, however, Roberts read the clause as limiting Congress's reach to matters of “national, as distinguished from local welfare.” The limitation proposed by Butler remained hypothetical, however, since the Court struck down the statute in question on other grounds.

In any event, the expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause has rendered the question almost moot since Congress's authority, in practical terms, now reaches most of the concerns that might come under the rubic of “general welfare”.

Law Encyclopedia: General Welfare
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.


The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. Promotion of the general welfare is also a stated purpose in state constitutions and statutes. The concept has sparked controversy only as a result of its inclusion in the body of the U.S. Constitution.

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction — the limitation of federal power — eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would "naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress." The Court then obliquely confided, "[H]ow great is the extent of that range … we need hardly remark." "[D]espite the breadth of the legislative discretion," the Court continued, "our duty to hear and to render judgment remains." The Court then rendered the federal agricultural spending program at issue invalid under the Tenth Amendment.

With Butler as precedent, the Supreme Court's interest in determining whether congressional spending promotes the general welfare has withered. In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 107 S. Ct. 2793, 97 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1987), the Court reviewed legislation allowing the secretary of transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states that did not raise their legal drinking age to twenty-one. In holding that the statute was a valid use of congressional spending power, the Court in Dole questioned "whether ‘general welfare' is a judicially enforceable restriction at all."

Congress appropriates money for a seemingly endless number of national interests, ranging from federal courts, policing, imprisonment, and national security to social programs, environmental protection, and education. No federal court has struck down a spending program on the ground that it failed to promote the general welfare. However, federal spending programs have been struck down on other constitutional grounds.


 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Need I remind you that the words: "Of the people ... " were from a speech given by the politician Abe Lincoln? The request was ... Please point out where the Constitution authorizes the Democrats to "give people what they want."

Now have at it, Med ... point us to the clause or amendment in the constitution that authorizes the Democrat party to "give the people what they want."

Thanks ...

Vi
Click to expand...
You know Vi, You are such a bore. always trying to get me to do your bidding. I'll just say this: If you were my boss, you'd be missing some front teeth and I'd be out of a job, a shitty job at that.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
You know Vi, You are such a bore. always trying to get me to do your bidding. I'll just say this: If you were my boss, you'd be missing some front teeth and I'd be out of a job, a shitty job at that.
Click to expand...
You've got that completely wrong, Med. If you even made one feeble attempt to commit violence upon my person, I would hand you your ugly, mother fucking head.

Your threats of violence, including the one where you threatened my life via PMs are getting old.

You are a fat-assed old man who couldn't get out of your own way if you tried. You may consider yourself to be a bad-ass, mother fucker, but there are plenty of folks who are not intimidated by your key-board bravado ... and I'm one of them. Now go play with your needle dick.

Vi
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
From Dank's post:

"The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction — the limitation of federal power — eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause."

Thanks for making my point, Dankster.

Now again ... point to the clause or amendment in the Constitution that authorizes, as you said, "The Democrats to give people what they want."

Thanks.

Vi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top