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

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179373
I sure hope you meant "were" not "weren't" etched in stone. Because, otherwise, I'm not at all sure I follow you here??? Are you saying the conservative ideology believes the document to be static and timeless? Sorta agreed on the first sentence. The second sentence has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Both dogmas have usurped the 10th on a Federal level when it suits them to do so.
See my upthread examples.
I believe it is etched in stone and that is why the provision to amend it was included, That doesn't mean you don't occasionally need to add a new line to it and in some instances use that new line to void a previous provision but it takes a strong majority of both elected officials and voting citizens to allow that to happen. The second amendment is a good example of this. If you read the writings of those who wrote and voted for the amendment there were several reasons why they guranteed the right to gun ownership but lets assume it were only to provide a militia. That was still only the stated reason for granting the right to keep and bare arms. If you were to allow a court to say that because there is no longer a militia the right to keep and bare is no longer needed thus removed you would also give them the right to do the same with any other provision in the document.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3179446
I believe it is etched in stone and that is why the provision to amend it was included, That doesn't mean you don't occasionally need to add a new line to it and in some instances use that new line to void a previous provision but it takes a strong majority of both elected officials and voting citizens to allow that to happen. The second amendment is a good example of this. If you read the writings of those who wrote and voted for the amendment there were several reasons why they guranteed the right to gun ownership but lets assume it were only to provide a militia. That was still only the stated reason for granting the right to keep and bare arms. If you were to allow a court to say that because there is no longer a militia the right to keep and bare is no longer needed thus removed you would also give them the right to do the same with any other provision in the document.
There was also some discussion of making the second amendment first, as you really have no free speech without the ability to defend it.
80% + of what the gov't does is extra-constitutional.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
How can laws be open to interpetation? This is the hardest thing for me to understand. Laws are just that, laws.....If you allow laws to be open to interpretation then they are no longer laws and more like loose guidelines.
The constitution should be set in stone...unless rattified by the majority needed. However, over the course of history to circumvent the original laws laid out, people came up with this "interpretation" crap.
And to everyone that thinks the constitution opposses and prevents a standing army during peace time...Then why is this in the constition?
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Article 1 section 8 congressional powers.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Which is why each year the budget is voted upon, and the military budget is voted upon yearly....so as to not have a funded bill for over 2 years.
There is nothing that I know of in the constitution that states the government can not have a standing army.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3179507
How can laws be open to interpetation? This is the hardest thing for me to understand. Laws are just that, laws.....If you allow laws to be open to interpretation then they are no longer laws and more like loose guidelines.
The constitution should be set in stone...unless rattified by the majority needed. However, over the course of history to circumvent the original laws laid out, people came up with this "interpretation" crap.
And to everyone that thinks the constitution opposses and prevents a standing army during peace time...Then why is this in the constition?
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Article 1 section 8 congressional powers.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Which is why each year the budget is voted upon, and the military budget is voted upon yearly....so as to not have a funded bill for over 2 years.
There is nothing that I know of in the constitution that states the government can not have a standing army.

The above plus "Provide for the common defense."
Some people need to read the Constitution
 

scottnlisa

Member
OMG, you people make me laugh. Reform healthcare is the way to go. People fear the unknown and Republicans feed and tells lies about the unknown. Plain and simple. Republicans and the drug companies don't want this because they think healthcare should be profitable. Well hate to tell everybody, healthcare isn't about making a profit. Do you really think the drug companies aren't raking in the money on scripts? Healtcare is about helping and saving everybody, not just the 1% of the population who can pay for the best healthcare. Everybody should be treated equal when admitted into a hospital but as everybody knows they are not. That is &^%$#$$ and the bottom line.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3179580
OMG, you people make me laugh. Reform healthcare is the way to go. People fear the unknown and Republicans feed and tells lies about the unknown. Plain and simple. Republicans and the drug companies don't want this because they think healthcare should be profitable. Well hate to tell everybody, healthcare isn't about making a profit. Do you really think the drug companies aren't raking in the money on scripts? Healtcare is about helping and saving everybody, not just the 1% of the population who can pay for the best healthcare. Everybody should be treated equal when admitted into a hospital but as everybody knows they are not. That is &^%$#$$ and the bottom line.

If only 1% can pay, why are (according to some polls) 85% happy with their current insurance?
Fear of the unknown? Do you work in healthcare?
You can "reform" healthcare without socializing more of the US.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3179633
If only 1% can pay, why are (according to some polls) 85% happy with their current insurance?
Is that 85% representative of people who've actually had to use their healthcare, or does it only represent those who have it in general?
Does the %age include those who have Medicaire/aid and VA?
Not arguing reform one way or another w/ the questions. I'm just generally inclined to be curious about phraseology and the questions that aren't asked when it comes to polls and statistics.
You can "reform" healthcare without socializing more of the US.
Absolutely agreed. I see no need to allow our Gov'mint to screw things up further than they already are. If We the People actually had representation in Congress, I might feel otherwise, but until we return to a representative system which favors Citizens over Corporations, I'm disinclined to consider a US Government run option preferable to the alternatives.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3179580
OMG, you people make me laugh. Reform healthcare is the way to go. People fear the unknown and Republicans feed and tells lies about the unknown. Plain and simple. Republicans and the drug companies don't want this because they think healthcare should be profitable. Well hate to tell everybody, healthcare isn't about making a profit. Do you really think the drug companies aren't raking in the money on scripts? Healtcare is about helping and saving everybody, not just the 1% of the population who can pay for the best healthcare. Everybody should be treated equal when admitted into a hospital but as everybody knows they are not. That is &^%$#$$ and the bottom line.
So far it appears to be your god Obama and his democrat allies telling the lies.
Lie number one.
"If you like the coverage you have now you can keep it"
Seeing as how you know all the facts would you care to quote us the section of the bill that would prevent an employer from dropping health coverage for employees and just force them on the government ran option
Lie number two
"This plan will strengthen and protect Medicare"
By adding more people to the already crowded pool of medicare patients how will that make the system stronger? It is already hard to find a doctor that will take new medicare patients. They are also planning on cutting out medicare advantage which will have an adverse effect on the 23 or so percent of those on medicare who have such policies.
Lie number three
"This plan will not add to the deficit"
Hello, how many billion over ten years? It is already been demonstrated that even if you accept the rosy scenarios laid out by the Democrats you would have to assume they can find and remove all the waste from the medicare system that money could be applied to paying for health care when Medicare will go into the red withing the next decade.
But yes, its the Republicans telling lies
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3179671
There are lies enough to go around.
When it comes to politicians, the word "truth" is an oxymoron all by itself.

Its true but I no longer look at the subject as a running joke anymore.I believe we are a historical point in time with our future hanging in the balance.
Time to start handing out Pink Slips.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3179830
Its true but I no longer look at the subject as a running joke anymore.I believe we are a historical point in time with our future hanging in the balance.
That is no joke. If Pelosi and Reid are both still in charge come January 2011 I fear our country will be lost. The Republicans seriously need to have their act together. If the current push towards marxism isn't checked by at least one house of congress I am afraid we will be beyond the point of no return by 2012.
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3179852
That is no joke. If Pelosi and Reid are both still in charge come January 2011 I fear our country will be lost. The Republicans seriously need to have their act together. If the current push towards marxism isn't checked by at least one house of congress I am afraid we will be beyond the point of no return by 2012.
I believe it goes deeper than Pelosi and Reid.There are a very few exceptions like Michele Bachmann for example that have spoken out in defense of the Constitution and is actively doing things to promote liberty.
All in all i think most all of Congress needs to be fired and replaced with true public servants.
 

reefraff

Active Member
It goes deeper but unless there is some kind of restraint in place it is only a matter of how far into socialism do we move. Even with Republican control of one or both houses of Congress we are going to be dragged further to the left but they can keep it in reason.
 

scottnlisa

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3179668
So far it appears to be your god Obama and his democrat allies telling the lies.
Lie number one.
"If you like the coverage you have now you can keep it"
Seeing as how you know all the facts would you care to quote us the section of the bill that would prevent an employer from dropping health coverage for employees and just force them on the government ran option
Lie number two
"This plan will strengthen and protect Medicare"
By adding more people to the already crowded pool of medicare patients how will that make the system stronger? It is already hard to find a doctor that will take new medicare patients. They are also planning on cutting out medicare advantage which will have an adverse effect on the 23 or so percent of those on medicare who have such policies.
Lie number three
"This plan will not add to the deficit"
Hello, how many billion over ten years? It is already been demonstrated that even if you accept the rosy scenarios laid out by the Democrats you would have to assume they can find and remove all the waste from the medicare system that money could be applied to paying for health care when Medicare will go into the red withing the next decade.
But yes, its the Republicans telling lies


Republicans BIGGEST LIE by I won't name the president " Saddam was WMD's". Hey where are those WMD's? ----? Craiglist? Under a rock outside? Hmmmmmm, nobody knows......
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3180206
Republicans BIGGEST LIE by I won't name the president " Saddam was WMD's". Hey where are those WMD's? ----? Craiglist? Under a rock outside? Hmmmmmm, nobody knows......
The people he gassed know.
I guess John F Kerry also lied when he thought Saddam had them too. I don't often agree with Mr. Kerry ,but the intelligence was that he had the stuff.
Just goes to showyou can win with a pair of dueces.
 

scottnlisa

Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3180218
The people he gassed know.
I guess John F Kerry also lied when he thought Saddam had them too. I don't often agree with Mr. Kerry ,but the intelligence was that he had the stuff.
Just goes to showyou can win with a pair of dueces.
The intelligence was a lie also. It didn't prove nothing but Bush wanted to go to war qith Iraq since his daddy couldn't get Saddam. Plan and simple.
Why are all you people who are upset about this socialized healthcare start being upset about car insurance, school, postal service. They are all socialized. What happens if you have no car insurance? Hmmmmmm jail. Yep that's right
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3180076
It goes deeper but unless there is some kind of restraint in place it is only a matter of how far into socialism do we move. Even with Republican control of one or both houses of Congress we are going to be dragged further to the left but they can keep it in reason.
I think at this point that we're going beyond right or left.
New terminology is perhaps required in order to discuss the argument on a common sense level. I frankly don't see the Republicans as any less Globalist than the Democrats are. It was Reagan who inspired Globalism, Bush I who pushed it further by proposing NAFTA, and Clinton who approved NAFTA.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3180229
The intelligence was a lie also. It didn't prove nothing but Bush wanted to go to war qith Iraq since his daddy couldn't get Saddam. Plan and simple.
It's not that plain and simple. The intelligence was much more likely a mistake than it was a lie. I'm not prepared to say Bush II did it for Daddy. I don't see evidence to that effect.
Why are all you people who are upset about this socialized healthcare start being upset about car insurance, school, postal service. They are all socialized. What happens if you have no car insurance? Hmmmmmm jail. Yep that's right
Agreed. At some point or another there is some necessity for Social Services. It's really a question of where that line gets drawn vis a vis the Constitution. I.e., does maintaining a healthy population fall under the auspices of "Providing for the Common Defense" or "the General Welfare?"
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3180206
Republicans BIGGEST LIE by I won't name the president " Saddam was WMD's". Hey where are those WMD's? ----? Craiglist? Under a rock outside? Hmmmmmm, nobody knows......
Hmmmm. Rather than try to show how the current administration isn't lying about their health care scheme you just attack the previous one

I guess England, the UN, France, Russia etc. all must have been liars too as they all supported numerous sanctions against Iraq due to the WMD's they were known to have but refused to allow the inspectors to verify the destruction of. Maybe if you would get your news from somewhere other than Mad magazine or the foil hat daily you would understand that
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by scottnlisa
http:///forum/post/3180229
The intelligence was a lie also. It didn't prove nothing but Bush wanted to go to war qith Iraq since his daddy couldn't get Saddam. Plan and simple.
Why are all you people who are upset about this socialized healthcare start being upset about car insurance, school, postal service. They are all socialized. What happens if you have no car insurance? Hmmmmmm jail. Yep that's right
You mean the Clinton administration lied as well? Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle too?. They all saw intelligence provided from both administrations and also "Knew" Iraq had WMD's according to numerous speeches and floor statements.
As far as the subject at hand goes driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege. To be granted that privilege you must agree to certain things like registering and insuring your car. Not the same thing.
 
Top