Rnc

oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Robbin
http:///forum/post/2752067
hahhaah...OK if you say so
Do you know the difference between "legislative" and "executive" experience?
Have you lead people before, and been the one to make the final decision?
I lead about 100 physicians, PA's, nurses, techs, medics in my day to day job. Does this give me the same experience as a "community organizer"? My resume short of 148 days as a Senator is similar to Mr. Obama's. Does that make me "Presidential" material. I think not.
 
robbin

robbin

Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2752074
Do you know the difference between "legislative" and "executive" experience?
Have you lead people before, and been the one to make the final decision?
I lead about 100 physicians, PA's, nurses, techs, medics in my day to day job. Does this give me the same experience as a "community organizer"? My resume short of 148 days as a Senator is similar to Mr. Obama's. Does that make me "Presidential" material. I think not.
Funny you ask that. Sounds like you are in a similar role professionally as I am. I manage (in an executive director role) the entire SW region of this country in an operations capacity. So take your 100 physicians and mulitipy that by 60 outpatient oncology practices that I manage and tell me if i have leadership experience. I'm saturated with it....
And for the record, i'm not on here to cause conflict. I understand that conservatives are very passionate about their candidate (you were all on board with Bush too and yet most jumped right off his bandwagon when he screwed up)....
I'm not a fan of Obama and i find it amusing that you guys can't get that and spend so much time trying to quote stats and convince me otherwise. So please save yourself the time and effort of trying to have a debate and realize that I never claimed to be an OBAMA fan. But I am a liberal and I plan to cast my ballot straight democratic.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Robbin
http:///forum/post/2752078
....
have a debate and realize that I never claimed to be an OBAMA fan. But I am a liberal and I plan to cast my ballot straight democratic.

Then by definition you are an Obama fan. Will you jump off the DNC ship when they raise taxes, socialize medicine and take control of the whole economy?
I've pounded Bush on immigration, spending and medicare D.
We need a Constitutional Party.
 
ironeagle2006

ironeagle2006

Active Member
Boy at my last OTR trucking company I was one of the Senior drivers I was directly responsible for 200 drivers happines plus 5 dispatchers and 3 recruiters and 2 shifts in the Shops liasioned thru me. Now I answered to the Owner and the V.P. of Operations and the Head of Saftey does that give me more experiance than Obama I think it does since I also had to do my runs at the same time while helping 200 drivers get their bitching off their chests about their dispatchers and then also deal with customers. Is it any wonder my brain siad ENOUGH OF THIS SH*T and started having seizures.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2752082
Then by definition you are an Obama fan. Will you jump off the DNC ship when they raise taxes, socialize medicine and take control of the whole economy?
I've pounded Bush on immigration, spending and medicare D.
We need a Constitutional Party.
I disagree. Voting for the party that is most closely aligned with your political views does not mean you actually endorse the candidate or ALL of their views. I'm sure you've heard of voting for the least worst...
As long as Hillary cannot become President I will be content. For me this election is win-win but McCain is most closely aligned with my views.
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by Robbin
http:///forum/post/2751685
Comparison??? NO. I never compared the two. Nor will I. As I said before, I am voting straight liberal for a reason and Obama is not the reason.

....I never claimed to be an OBAMA fan. But I am a liberal and I plan to cast my ballot straight democratic.
This is a problem to me. To vote strictly on party lines without regard to qualification for a particular job or who may be the best person for the job is not reasonable (to me) and I am not referring to the President here but as a generality. While I don't like the two parties per se, a balance among them does in fact provide for the necessary checks and balances and a mix in Washington provides for the necessary balance of powers among the branches of government. I personally don't like it when we have one party running both houses of Congress and the White House, no balance of powers there. I don't include SCOTUS in this as they have little/no say until a case is actually brought to them.
Sometimes we, as members of a society, pick "our team" and want "our team" to win at all costs despite the fact that the members of our may not be the best person. We will vote for him/her strictly because is on "our team" and "I want to be the winner". We will put aside misdeeds of members our our team and exaggerate those on the "opposing" team.
Please don't confuse the above with a pro-McCain or anti-Obama stance, not the case by any means. I see it from both sides and would respond similarly either way.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I don't care for party line voters. Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders are in the same party and are polar opposites on many issues. If you take the time to look at the candidates and come to the conclusion all the candidates from one party really does agree with you then great. I find that the closer you get to local politics the less D'd and R's matter
 
robbin

robbin

Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2752082
Then by definition you are an Obama fan. Will you jump off the DNC ship when they raise taxes, socialize medicine and take control of the whole economy?
I've pounded Bush on immigration, spending and medicare D.
We need a Constitutional Party.
Come on now....raising taxes is a neccessity. Socialized medicine??? We both know from being in the health care industry that this will NEVE happen in the states. Just like RNC will never be able to ban abortion. So no, I do not plan on jumping ship and as far as "taking" over the economy, i remember when clinton was in office....economy was never better. So yah, I'm ok with the dems takingover the economy and raising taxes is fine with me too.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2752044
Please quote me where I belittled or name called...
I don't believe it is the Government's job to make my life better. The Constitution only guarantees me the right to pursue happiness. It should be up to me, not Washington, yo dictate happiness in my life.
Journey: Seems to me that there is a phrase in the preamble that government "promote the general welfare". The guarantee of the pursuit of happiness is not guaranteed, it is a goal stated in the Declaration of Independence which, of course, is not law of the land.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2752752
Journey: Seems to me that there is a phrase in the preamble that government "promote the general welfare". The guarantee of the pursuit of happiness is not guaranteed, it is a goal stated in the Declaration of Independence which, of course, is not law of the land.

"Provide for the common defense" comes before "promote the general welfare".
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2752752
Journey: Seems to me that there is a phrase in the preamble that government "promote the general welfare". The guarantee of the pursuit of happiness is not guaranteed, it is a goal stated in the Declaration of Independence which, of course, is not law of the land.
Nor is the Preamble in any way.
The Preamble establishes the context or purpose of the Constitution, the spirit of the document, ie., it explains the reason "why" we have the Constitution. It carries no powers nor force of any law. If you read any part of the Constitution and ask yourself "why is that there?" the answer is in the Preamble. In Jacobson v Mass (1904) the Court wrote that "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and went on to point out that "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..." .
If we took the argument many have made about promoting the "general welfare" (in modern context) to the extreme, this would be a Marxist state.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Robbin
http:///forum/post/2752078
...
And for the record, i'm not on here to cause conflict. I understand that conservatives are very passionate about their candidate (you were all on board with Bush too and yet most jumped right off his bandwagon when he screwed up)....
...
Actually...
Many of us here are not McCain fans. We simply are fans of the Constitution. I personally don't like many of McCain's former positions. I'll take McCain of a far left Socialist with sympathies for Hamas any day of the week, however.
I've never "jumped ship" regarding President Bush. I believe, especially today of all days, his success in protecting the homeland for 7 years will go down in history as a tremendous accomplishment. That said, President Bush certainly did not do everything I wanted him to do (borders, cut spending)
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2753221
Nor is the Preamble in any way.
The Preamble establishes the context or purpose of the Constitution, the spirit of the document, ie., it explains the reason "why" we have the Constitution. It carries no powers nor force of any law. If you read any part of the Constitution and ask yourself "why is that there?" the answer is in the Preamble. In Jacobson v Mass (1904) the Court wrote that "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and went on to point out that "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..." .
If we took the argument many have made about promoting the "general welfare" (in modern context) to the extreme, this would be a Marxist state.
I agree. I was just getting a free shot at Journeyman1, who always has the facts, and I was excited to catch him in an error. I also agree that taking the "general welfare" clause to the extreme would lead to a Marxist state, but taking almost any statement to the extreme...for example, "common defense" in the extreme could leave a planet denuded of life except for the USA, but reducto ad absurdum is never a good argument.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Robbin
http:///forum/post/2752739
Come on now....raising taxes is a neccessity. Socialized medicine??? We both know from being in the health care industry that this will NEVE happen in the states. Just like RNC will never be able to ban abortion. So no, I do not plan on jumping ship and as far as "taking" over the economy, i remember when clinton was in office....economy was never better. So yah, I'm ok with the dems takingover the economy and raising taxes is fine with me too.
*Raising taxes is a necessity??? Feel free to pay the IRS more of your paycheck if you want, but don't expect me to join you. History has shown raising taxes stifles the economy and lowers Federal Revenue. The Government loses money when it raises taxes...
*The RNC doesn't want to ban abortion. They do, however, want to give States the right to regulate, per Constitutional law.
*The economy under President Bush, on average, has lower unemployment, higher stock market, higher GNP, lower interest rates, and lower taxes. Please explain how it was better under Clinton? The only thing that was noteworthy under Clinton were his tax cuts and the balanced budget he signed after the Republicans shut down Washington until he signed it.
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2752752
Journey: Seems to me that there is a phrase in the preamble that government "promote the general welfare". The guarantee of the pursuit of happiness is not guaranteed, it is a goal stated in the Declaration of Independence which, of course, is not law of the land.
"Promoting the general welfare" does not equate to mandated Socialism. Further, you failed to quote the entire preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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"
Liberals are trying to remove the blessings of liberty in favor of mandating what they perceive to be "promoting" the general welfare.
Promoting the general welfare means they answer to us, the people. It does not mean the Federal Government has the right to dictate socialized helathcare, education, energy, etc. as made clear by the 10th Amendment.
I quote the Declaration of Independence as one of the founding documents of the US. You are correct, of course, I misquoted and mispoke when I said it was the Constitution that said that and not the DoI. See, for the record, I do may mistakes occasionally, though freely admit to doing so :)
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2753221
. In Jacobson v Mass (1904) the Court wrote that "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and went on to point out that "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..." .
If we took the argument many have made about promoting the "general welfare" (in modern context) to the extreme, this would be a Marxist state.
The Constitution really is not a document to empower the gov't. It is the opposite, it defines and LIMITS the power. It specifically states the powers granted, and then goes even farther to state that if it is not specifically enumerated as a power of the feds, then that power falls to the states.
We still have ended up with the type of gov't the Founders were fighting.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2753250
"Promoting the general welfare" does not equate to mandated Socialism. Further, you failed to quote the entire preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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"
Liberals are trying to remove the blessings of liberty in favor of mandating what they perceive to be "promoting" the general welfare.
Promoting the general welfare means they answer to us, the people. It does not mean the Federal Government has the right to dictate socialized helathcare, education, energy, etc. as made clear by the 10th Amendment.
I quote the Declaration of Independence as one of the founding documents of the US. You are correct, of course, I misquoted and mispoke when I said it was the Constitution that said that and not the DoI. See, for the record, I do may mistakes occasionally, though freely admit to doing so :)
Journey, you could have simplified this response by telling the Poster to just look up the definition of PROMOTE, then look up the definition of PROVIDE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top