While the nation was watching football.........

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177371
That's kind of a broad statement.
It was Liberals who demanded public education. It was Liberals who put an end to child labor. It was Liberals that fought for the rights of women and people of color to vote. It was Liberals that established the 40hr work week. It was Liberals that established unions.
The Constitution neither addresses nor endorses any of those things, but the Fed legislates with regard to all of them. Shall we return to those days?
Dude read your history, Bull Connor was no Republican... Abe Lincoln was no democrat, and it wasn't till democrats took back over the south, and enacted polling taxes and other legislation that blacks were barred from the polls. That is why in the south you saw a wave of black politicians (while the carpet baggers, who were republicans, were rebuilding the south) then when they left, and democrats stepped back in, that blacks were disenfranchised. Now you are hearing the first black elected official since 1870's. It wasn't the republicans who disenfranchised minorities...
Public education has been a mainstay of our culture since the revolution. (it might have been the liberals who screwed it up however...) After all it wasn't till it was nationalized, that our testing scores compared to other nations began its nose dive...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3177377
Dude read your history, Bull Connor was no Republican... Abe Lincoln was no democrat, and it wasn't till democrats took back over the south, and enacted polling taxes and other legislation that blacks were barred from the polls. That is why in the south you saw a wave of black politicians (while the carpet baggers, who were republicans, were rebuilding the south) then when they left, and democrats stepped back in, that blacks were disenfranchised. Now you are hearing the first black elected official since 1870's. It wasn't the republicans who disenfranchised minorities...
Please.
You think I don't know history?
You're making my point. What I'm saying is that politics has become a struggle of which branch of the ruling class gets to make the rules. Either party will do whatever it needs to whenever it needs to, to gain the upper hand.
Wanna be a strict Constitutionalist? Go for it.
You know there's no provision for a standing army, right? You know there's no provision for a national transportation system, right? You know there's no provision for disease containment, right? You know that the Federal Reserve and the Graduated Income Tax are completely Unconstitutional, right? You know that only Congress has the power to declare war, coin currency and establish its value, right? You know that there is no Constitutional provision for the 2 Party System or its rules, right?
Srsly. There are all kinds of Federally provided things that we are perfectly ok with, which are also unConstitutional.
What determines which of those Unconstitutional things the Fed enforces or agrees to are Liberal or Conservative?
It's like arguing the Bible. At some point or another it becomes more important to establish whether or not eating shellfish is ok than whether or not there is a god (sic).
Really?
Labels are absurd.

 

[sandman181]

Harry Reid and Obama are buddies, pals, friends. Right? Then why would obama tell the american people to not go to las vegas for vacation and conventions. He helped kill our economy out here. over 33% of companies planning a convention here canceled. Then they want to fine us for not getting health insurance. I don't want the government in my life then they will start telling me when i can have --- and when i can't have ---.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by sandman181
http:///forum/post/3177382
Harry Reid and Obama are buddies, pals, friends. Right? Then why would obama tell the american people to not go to las vegas for vacation and conventions. He helped kill our economy out here. over 33% of companies planning a convention here canceled. Then they want to fine us for not getting health insurance. I don't want the government in my life then they will start telling me when i can have --- and when i can't have ---.
The first step in that fight is to rescind the Supreme Court decision that made Corporations the Constitutional equivalent of People.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177380
Please.
You think I don't know history?
You're making my point. What I'm saying is that politics has become a struggle of which branch of the ruling class gets to make the rules. Either party will do whatever it needs to whenever it needs to, to gain the upper hand.
Wanna be a strict Constitutionalist? Go for it.
You know there's no provision for a standing army, right? You know there's no provision for a national transportation system, right? You know there's no provision for disease containment, right? You know that the Federal Reserve and the Graduated Income Tax are completely Unconstitutional, right? You know that only Congress has the power to declare war, coin currency and establish its value, right? You know that there is no Constitutional provision for the 2 Party System or its rules, right?
Srsly. There are all kinds of Federally provided things that we are perfectly ok with, which are also unConstitutional.
What determines which of those Unconstitutional things the Fed enforces or agrees to are Liberal or Conservative?
It's like arguing the Bible. At some point or another it becomes more important to establish whether or not eating shellfish is ok than whether or not there is a god (sic).
Really?
Labels are absurd.
Dude, that is a rediculous argument. Do I need to link to the Preamble of the Constitution? Provide for the general defense isn't clear enough?
Isn't article 16 the article on income tax... If I remember right they were pretty sneaky on how they ratified that. (Not a fan of the graduated income tax I'd kill it if I had the chance not that I ever will)
you are right to a point, that politicians are a buncha crooks. And you're right, their are TONS of things that the government is doing that is unconstitutional. I'm all for doing an audit of constitutionality and ending the bloated wasteful government expenditures that has become today's government.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by sandman181
http:///forum/post/3177382
Harry Reid and Obama are buddies, pals, friends. Right? Then why would obama tell the american people to not go to las vegas for vacation and conventions. He helped kill our economy out here. over 33% of companies planning a convention here canceled. Then they want to fine us for not getting health insurance. I don't want the government in my life then they will start telling me when i can have --- and when i can't have ---.
Because Obama would throw his own grandmother under the bus to get what he wants. (oh wait he already did that)

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by mastertech
http:///forum/post/3176985
what happens when a government gets in debt that she cant repay.........
bankrupt.
Technically, that is impossible....

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3177391
Dude, that is a rediculous argument. Do I need to link to the Preamble of the Constitution? Provide for the general defense isn't clear enough?
Take what you agree with and toss the rest? To refresh your own memory, here it is in its entirety: "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."
Emphasis mine.
Ridiculous? Really? How is providing for the health of the people NOT promoting the general welfare or defence?
Isn't article 16 the article on income tax...
Yes and No. The Constitution provides for a poll tax, not an income tax, i.e. you're alive, you pay X dollars in taxes. Not X percentage of your income.
The advantage of the system (and the wisdom of our Founders) is that the rate of tax cannot exceed what the poorest of the poor are able to pay. The disadvantage to the govmint however, is that they cannot require that the rich supplement the poor. In other words, the graduated income tax is far more Socialist in practical effect than universal health care ever could be.
The graduated income tax, along with the IRS and the Federal Reserve were established in 1913, in the dark of night, without a Congressional quarum. Check it.
you are right to a point, that politicians are a buncha crooks. And you're right, their are TONS of things that the government is doing that is unconstitutional. I'm all for doing an audit of constitutionality and ending the bloated wasteful government expenditures that has become today's government.
My primary concern would be an audit of the Federal Reserve: what they do with the money Congress (i.e. WE THE MUTHAFRIGGIN PEOPLE) borrows from them (to the tune of 300+ billion, and rapidly climbing, a year in interest to a PRIVATE CORPORATION), where it goes, and why they exist at all. It is generally the REPUBLICANS who oppose asking these questions.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...-FED-Secrecy,-
In presenting the points as such, here are my questions:
1) Are you 100% in agreement with the Republican party?
2) On the issues with which you disagree with the Republican party, do you agree with the Democrats?
3) If you answered No to both the above, who truly represents you?
4) Why does the law (despite the Constitution) favor those two choices alone?
5) Who established the law that set that system up?
If it's just America's history we're talking, let's start where it began and, ultimately, what the discussion comes down to, namely: Taxation Without Representation.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177380
Wanna be a strict Constitutionalist? Go for it.
BINGO!
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution isnt broke,however our overblown government is filled with corrupt politicians that have lost their way.
"We The People " need to take back our country and hit the reset button.If it means to undo all things unconstitutional then so be it.We are on a course of self destruction because we have fallen away from our basic building blocks.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177396

Take what you agree with and toss the rest? To refresh your own memory, here it is in its entirety: "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."
Emphasis mine.
First ill direct you to Amendment X, and now ill ask how do liberals fool themselves into thinking that "promote the general Welfare"translates into mandating or if you will, forcing an American citizen into purchasing health insurance by law?
This is not only unconstitutional is down right un-american.
SCOTUS
United States v. Butler

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3177396

Take what you agree with and toss the rest? To refresh your own memory, here it is in its entirety: "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."
Emphasis mine.
But surely you're smart enough to understand that today's usage (and might I add twisted by democrats) definition of the word Welfare, is entirely different (and basically opposite) of what the usage of the word was during that continental congress, and you'd have to be intellectually dishonest to even consider using that as a point to stand on for a liberalist agenda.
When they used the "to promote general welfare" You could have said to promote the enjoyment of life, peace and prosperity.
If anything the ideology of liberalism runs completely counter to that idea. Liberalism is a ideology using fear to control everything down to minuscule aspects of your life.

 

[reefraff]

Aint no way the currenbt supreme court will sign on to the government forcing insurance on people,
If you watch the polls this is reaching crisis time for the Ossiah, He is going to have to decide if socialized medicine is more important than getting re-elected cause he isn't going to do both.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3177503
Aint no way the currenbt supreme court will sign on to the government forcing insurance on people,.
I'd like to think that, but I don't know.

 

[stevedave08]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3177481
Liberalism is a ideology using fear to control everything down to minuscule aspects of your life.
That has got to be the one of the most ironic statements ever to defend conservatives. To quote Mrs. Sarah "most people who support me didn't get through grade school" Palin: That is "backasswards".

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by SteveDave08
http:///forum/post/3177526
That has got to be the one of the most ironic statements ever to defend conservatives. To quote Mrs. Sarah "most people who support me didn't get through grade school" Palin: That is "backasswards".
umm, lets take a look and see. Liberal ideologies and their end results.
Political Correctness - Used to sensor opposing views. "If you don't support obama you're a racist."
Climate Change - The government controls how much water your toilet uses to flush. California liberals tried to pass legislation that would have giving the state control of theromostats in their house. Cap and trade's end result will be the destruction of private industry making people more dependent on the government...
Nationalize healthcare- If I have to pay for you I'm going to tell you how to live. (The argument is already prevolent via the bailouts...) And this one is the big one...
I can go on and on and on.
Other liberal ideologies have been destructive.
FDR's legislation turned a recession into a decade long depression...
50 years of keynesian economics ( a liberal idea) created the collaspe of our economy during the carter years.
Social programs have created a (minority) social class unable to care for themselves... And conviniently a very loyal voter base...

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3177521
I'd like to think that, but I don't know.
Have you driven without liability insurance lately? I guess government can require individuals to have insurance, and fine those who don't comply.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3177540
Have you driven without liability insurance lately? I guess government can require individuals to have insurance, and fine those who don't comply.
Is that the best argument liberal academia can come up with?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3177540
Have you driven without liability insurance lately? I guess government can require individuals to have insurance, and fine those who don't comply.

I love this argument....Liability insurance is required by law because it protects others from negligent or dangerous actions done by yourself with a motor vehicle against another, which can include death.
If I have aids, and give it to someone else, does my health insurance cover their expenses for my negligent actions?
If I have H1N1, does my health insurance pay the costs of others I pass it on to?
See the difference yet? Probably not.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3177540
Have you driven without liability insurance lately? I guess government can require individuals to have insurance, and fine those who don't comply.
Liability insurance is mandated by the individual states not the federal government,you also have the right not to get auto insurance if you dont mind losing your privilege to drive a auto or being sued if you get into a accident. Your trying to compare apples and oranges.
Driving is a privilege, choosing not to have health insurance is liberty and fundamental right.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3177646
Liability insurance is mandated by the individual states not the federal government,you also have the right not to get auto insurance if you dont mind losing your privilege to drive a auto or being sued if you get into a accident. Your trying to compare apples and oranges.
Driving is a privilege, choosing not to have health insurance is liberty and fundamental right.
The ideology behind requiring every person to have health insurance is simply because taxpayers will pay either way. You don't want to be forced to purchase healthcare you claim you don't need. So you refuse. However, when you have a situation where you do require medical attention because it will threaten your life, you end up going to a county health facility where the taxpayers have to pay for your care. So as that taxpayer, why should I have to pay for your healthcare if you in fact need it? Pay for it yourself.
Let's say you can. You make $50.000/year. I haven't seen any tangible numbers yet as far as cost, but let's say it'll cost you $3,000/year for this Obamacized Health Plan. You don't want this Socilaist Pig forcing you to buy that insurance, so again you refuse. Oh wait. You need a apendectomy that will cost $30,000 minimum to perform. Better yet, you've learned you have thyroid cancer, and you'll need at least 10 chemo treatments at $80,000/pop. That's more than you make in 16 years. What to do? Deny the surgery or chemo and die, or file for bankruptcy and get your home foreclosed on? Either way, again, my taxes will have to bail you out (welfare, food stamps, pay for your treatment, etc.). So unless you want to go with the mantra of "the survival of the fittest", I'd prefer everyone having to get insurance so I don't have to pay for their catastrophic healthcare.