Yes, I am actually being serious...

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3232798
The is what's wrong with the conservative movement. Clemson simply asked what would the opposition to Obama, whether it be the Republicans or these Tea Baggers, offer to change whatever Obama has screwed up. The best you can do is sit here and rehash the same boring Constitutionalist mantra, and bashing Obama about what you 'think' he is doing wrong. This attitude is what got Obama elected in 2008. I don't want name calling or conspiracy theories, I want solutions. I'm actually hoping the Republicans regain the House and Senate in November. Then if it continues with what you feel is the 'same ole, same ole', I will ask, "So where's the magical 'change' the Republicans said would happen now?" If you regain the majority, then you can't use Obama as your crux any longer.

Why exactly is the Constitution boring? As one of the trinity of our founding documents, it should not be?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3233416
Why exactly is the Constitution boring? As one of the trinity of our founding documents, it should not be?
What's boring is hearing the same rhetoric OVER AND OVER of how Obama is destroying the Constitution. Obama has never intentionally went against any of the tenets of the Constitution. The Tea Baggers try using this argument because it's the only thing they have to try and rile up their constituents. Show me one amendment Obama has blatently tried to change.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233440
What's boring is hearing the same rhetoric OVER AND OVER of how Obama is destroying the Constitution. Obama has never intentionally went against any of the tenets of the Constitution. The Tea Baggers try using this argument because it's the only thing they have to try and rile up their constituents. Show me one amendment Obama has blatently tried to change.
You should try to attend a Tea Party rally. The media wants to try to paint it as a militia or something but it is really a bunch of people fed up with the federal government running wild. Too bad the media feels the need to point the spotlight on 10 or 20 percent of that crowd yet ignored the about 50 percent of the anti war crowd that where communists and anarchists.

 

[fishtaco]

Could any conservatives name a few fiscal conservatives that could be depended on to represent all American's and not just the special interests of what is todays conservative party? I think just like moderate Republicans they are either almost extinct or like the unicorn never existed. Also I heard a radio interview on a conservative station featuring a guy who wrote a book on Reagan and he said that Reagan was not welcomed by the conservative party when he first started running for President. If this is true, then there is no way on earth he would cut it as a conservative politician today, any comments? Reagan was the first president I voted for BTW and I would vote for him again, that has to say something since I am a moderate and remember his "big tent" policy which seems to have gotten a lot smaller as of late concerning the conservative party.
Fishtaco (Also paying more attention to Ron Paul these days)

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3233523
Could any conservatives name a few fiscal conservatives that could be depended on to represent all American's and not just the special interests of what is todays conservative party? I think just like moderate Republicans they are either almost extinct or like the unicorn never existed. Also I heard a radio interview on a conservative station featuring a guy who wrote a book on Reagan and he said that Reagan was not welcomed by the conservative party when he first started running for President. If this is true, then there is no way on earth he would cut it as a conservative politician today, any comments? Reagan was the first president I voted for BTW and I would vote for him again, that has to say something since I am a moderate and remember his "big tent" policy which seems to have gotten a lot smaller as of late concerning the conservative party.
Fishtaco (Also paying more attention to Ron Paul these days)
Reagan was shunned by the party elites but there was a grass roots swelling that pushed him in. I have seen this MANY times at the local level, we can't run so and so because he's too conservative. Perhaps they have learned their lesson. I knew when Bush was buddy buddy with Marc Rocicot who was governor of Montana that Bush was no Conservative because Rocicot wasn't. But the media has branded Bushes policies conservative more or less based on his stance on social issues where he was pretty conservative.

 

[uneverno]

There's a huge difference between "Conservative / Liberal" and "Republican / Democrat."
Ideology is one thing. Party affiliation is quite another.
I am a Liberal. I am NOT a Democrat. I find the Democratic party to be hypocrites to the ideals they profess. If I were a Conservative, the last thing I'd be is a Republican and for the very same reason. Both parties campaign on rhetoric they have no intention of upholding.
That's because they're both beholden to the corporations whose campaign contributions they are dependent upon to get elected.
Quixotically enough, the SCOTUS just granted corporations the same 1st ammendment rights that individuals have. Huh. A legal fiction has just been granted personhood. Nothing could possibly go wrong here...
Whose side are the "duly and fairly" elected representatives of We the People on?
You do the math.

 

[aquaknight]

Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/3232852
The problem is with what the conservatives have to offer in the way of a great candidate. There are no shinning stars who could have come close to standing up to Obama in the attraction and charisma department. That's not to say that won't change in the next election, but I don't really see any up and coming superstars for the Reps. Yes, Sara Palin has that Obama-ish appeal for conservatives, but she doesn't have much in the way of know-how or substance, if you ask me.
I sorta thought Bobby Jindal was the Rep's Obama for 2012?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/3233540
I sorta thought Bobby Jindal was the Rep's Obama for 2012?
This is what you'd get if Bobby Jindal became President:
Mujibar was trying to get a job in India.
The Personnel Manager said, 'Mujibar,
you have passed all the tests, except one.
Unless you pass it , you cannot qualify for this job.'
Mujibar said, 'I am ready.'
The manager said,
'Make a sentence using the words
Yellow, Pink, and Green .'
Mujibar thought for a few minutes and said,
'Mister manager, I am ready.'
The manager said, 'Go ahead.'
Mujibar said,
'The telephone goes green, green,
and I pink it up, and say,
Yellow, this is Mujibar.'
Mujibar now works at a call center.
No doubt you have spoken to him.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233440
What's boring is hearing the same rhetoric OVER AND OVER of how Obama is destroying the Constitution. Obama has never intentionally went against any of the tenets of the Constitution. The Tea Baggers try using this argument because it's the only thing they have to try and rile up their constituents. Show me one amendment Obama has blatently tried to change.

OK, quit with the tea bagger name calling. You and I both know what it means.
As to Obama "never going against the Constitution" he and many others have spent millions on extraconstitutional programs. Currently they are pushing toward federal healthcare...not in the Constitution. Control over auto industries... not in the Constitution. etc.
Let's look at the 2nd Amendment
Obama has supported hand gun and assault rifle bans,
OBAMA: "Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. "
HMMMM ban assault weapons? Funny the Constitution says we have the right to not only keep but also to bear ( or use) firearms. It also uses some pretty strong words like "shall not be infringed".
Where is the word "except" in the 2nd Amendment? In fact it is pretty general in saying "arms". That allows for changes in technology. An assault rifle today is just as deadly as a musket of 1776 was.
I'm still looking for the right to abortion in the Bill of Rights, yet here we have a right clearly stated, and it's trampled on every day.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233630
This is what you'd get if Bobby Jindal became President:
Mujibar was trying to get a job in India.
The Personnel Manager said, 'Mujibar,
you have passed all the tests, except one.
Unless you pass it , you cannot qualify for this job.'
Mujibar said, 'I am ready.'
The manager said,
'Make a sentence using the words
Yellow, Pink, and Green .'
Mujibar thought for a few minutes and said,
'Mister manager, I am ready.'
The manager said, 'Go ahead.'
Mujibar said,
'The telephone goes green, green,
and I pink it up, and say,
Yellow, this is Mujibar.'
Mujibar now works at a call center.
No doubt you have spoken to him.
You want a flaming cross with that racist post?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3233529
There's a huge difference between "Conservative / Liberal" and "Republican / Democrat."
Ideology is one thing. Party affiliation is quite another.
I am a Liberal. I am NOT a Democrat. I find the Democratic party to be hypocrites to the ideals they profess. If I were a Conservative, the last thing I'd be is a Republican and for the very same reason. Both parties campaign on rhetoric they have no intention of upholding.
That's because they're both beholden to the corporations whose campaign contributions they are dependent upon to get elected.
Quixotically enough, the SCOTUS just granted corporations the same 1st ammendment rights that individuals have. Huh. A legal fiction has just been granted personhood. Nothing could possibly go wrong here...
Whose side are the "duly and fairly" elected representatives of We the People on?
You do the math.
Actually your take on the SCOTUS ruling isn't quite accurate. Corporations cannot donate to a campaign period. They can run their own adds in support of the candidate they like which they were able to do through PACs before this ruling. Honestly the only thing that has changed is that now we will know who is really behind the adds rather than some contrived name of the PAC the corporation is funding.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3233654
OK, quit with the tea bagger name calling. You and I both know what it means.
As to Obama "never going against the Constitution" he and many others have spent millions on extraconstitutional programs. Currently they are pushing toward federal healthcare...not in the Constitution. Control over auto industries... not in the Constitution. etc.
Let's look at the 2nd Amendment
Obama has supported hand gun and assault rifle bans,
OBAMA: "Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. "
HMMMM ban assault weapons? Funny the Constitution says we have the right to not only keep but also to bear ( or use) firearms. It also uses some pretty strong words like "shall not be infringed".
Where is the word "except" in the 2nd Amendment? In fact it is pretty general in saying "arms". That allows for changes in technology. An assault rifle today is just as deadly as a musket of 1776 was.
I'm still looking for the right to abortion in the Bill of Rights, yet here we have a right clearly stated, and it's trampled on every day.
Name calling? Don't look at me. Blame the media for that one. I believe the organization is called the Tea Party Coalition or something. Whenever you see one of their rallies, the people attending wear these hats with tea bags stuck to them (i.e The Boston Tea Party). That's why they are called Tea Baggers. I know what you're referring to. Why don't you get your mind out of the gutter when talking politics.
If it's not in the Constitution, how can it be 'anti-Constitutional'? What has modifying health care for this country have to do with the Constitution? So no bill or law can be established unless it's somehow connected to the Constitution? That's why there is a right to have an abortion, because it's THE LAW. You expect every single law we are bound to abide is supposed to be contained in the Constitution? The Amendments define specific rights that makes us a Democracy. Many Socialist, Communist, or Dictatorship countries don't have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, allow minorities to have rights, allow individuals to drink alcohol, allow women to vote. That's what makes them different from the US. But these same countries do have similar laws to ours that aren't contained in the Constitution. So does that also make us Socialist, Communistic, or part of a Dictatorship? What do you want to do, have every single law and issue that is debated today be contained in the Constitution?
The 2nd Amendment flap has been going on since the Brady Bill was passed. This Amendment will always be 'taboo' when it comes to trying to change it. It's too volatile an issue when it comes to discussing modifying the 2nd in Congress, and there are way too many PAC's and lobbyist organizations (i.e. NRA) that are too powerful to let any ratification talks get any further than committee. You know it and I know it. You couldn't get enough states to ratify the bill in the first place. I personally don't see any problems limiting access to assault-type weapons, which are the only guns that have ever been discussed seriously. There's no practical use for an individual outside of the military to own one, with the exception of these fanatics that say they use them for some kind of sports shooting. How popping off 50 rounds in 10 seconds would be considered a sport is beyond me, but if that's what you need to do to prove your manhood, knock yourself out.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3233655
You want a flaming cross with that racist post?
Give me a break. Every comic in the country jokes about how major corporations have litterally outsourced 60% of American jobs overseas, primarily to India. I guess you have no problem when the Tea Baggers wave their signs of Obama with the Hitler moustache.

 

[reefraff]

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.
Show me where in the constitution the Federal government was given the power to take over health care.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233695
Give me a break. Every comic in the country jokes about how major corporations have litterally outsourced 60% of American jobs overseas, primarily to India. I guess you have no problem when the Tea Baggers wave their signs of Obama with the Hitler moustache.

They learned the Hitler mustache deal watching 8 years of anti Bush rallies

Did you hear the crap Glenn Beck took over his crack about the Gingiss river? It's only funny when a liberal says it I guess.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3233696
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.
Show me where in the constitution the Federal government was given the power to take over health care.
'The people' ARE the Federal Government. At least that's my interpretation of our representatives in the House and Senate. Their jobs and main function is to represent 'the people' to the best of their ability based on the desires and what are the best interests of their constituents. That's why WE elected them. If you think health reform isn't in the best of your interests, then vote your representatives out of offfice and put one's in there that best represent your beliefs.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233700
'The people' ARE the Federal Government. At least that's my interpretation of our representatives in the House and Senate. Their jobs and main function is to represent 'the people' to the best of their ability based on the desires and what are the best interests of their constituents. That's why WE elected them. If you think health reform isn't in the best of your interests, then vote your representatives out of offfice and put one's in there that best represent your beliefs.

Dang, you are not making a lot of sense today.
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.
Hello? So if the constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to do something that power is given to the states or the federal government? What would be the point of making that clause in the constitution? Is there no aspect of our lives that was intended to be left to our own discretion, we the people?

 

[browniebuck]

Does anybody else think, like I do, that it makes NO difference who we elect to run this country. All politicians lie to get elected, lie to get re-elected, and lie to cover up their lies. I am so ungodly sick and tired of hearing politicians say that "while I am in office, I plan to fix the broken educational system in this country" only to have them then run for re-election on the same damn platform.
Obama ran on hope and change...I hoped that he would change the way that politics happened...but, he is like all the rest. He wants everyone to play nice, but he takes any opportunity that is available to "gently" throw those that don't agree with him under the bus. Is he as bad as Bush...I don't know...but, I haven't seen things get much better since he has been in office. I am sick of people saying that he has only been in office for a year...if I didn't do the freaking job that I was hired to do for a year, I would be looking for another one WELL before a year passed.
Take me back to Old Slick Willy Clinton...at least people had jobs when he was in office.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by browniebuck
http:///forum/post/3233814
Does anybody else think, like I do, that it makes NO difference who we elect to run this country. All politicians lie to get elected, lie to get re-elected, and lie to cover up their lies. I am so ungodly sick and tired of hearing politicians say that "while I am in office, I plan to fix the broken educational system in this country" only to have them then run for re-election on the same damn platform.
Obama ran on hope and change...I hoped that he would change the way that politics happened...but, he is like all the rest. He wants everyone to play nice, but he takes any opportunity that is available to "gently" throw those that don't agree with him under the bus. Is he as bad as Bush...I don't know...but, I haven't seen things get much better since he has been in office. I am sick of people saying that he has only been in office for a year...if I didn't do the freaking job that I was hired to do for a year, I would be looking for another one WELL before a year passed.
Take me back to Old Slick Willy Clinton...at least people had jobs when he was in office.
I just wish the news media would call these politicians on their crap.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233700
'The people' ARE the Federal Government. At least that's my interpretation of our representatives in the House and Senate. Their jobs and main function is to represent 'the people' to the best of their ability based on the desires and what are the best interests of their constituents. That's why WE elected them. If you think health reform isn't in the best of your interests, then vote your representatives out of offfice and put one's in there that best represent your beliefs.
No, if anything, people are the state governments.
The framers deliberately limited the scope of the federal government in order to prevent the type of thing that is happening now from happening.
The articles of confederation state that each state maintains its sovereignity, and basically everything that is not specifically granted by the constitution as a power of the federal government is reserved to the states.
The early members of government believed so strongly that this would be needed that some 15 years later they passed the 10th amendment to restate it. You can't get much clearer than that.
Ultimately, the framers envisioned that this type of thing could happen, that we'd be stuck in a political quagmire where corruption and self-serving polititians were so rampant that it could get nearly impossible to get them out of office in sufficient simultaneous numbers as to effect real reform in Washington. So, they limited the scope of the federal government to keep such a situation from FUBARing the entire country. They knew that ultimately, the principle of "vote them out of office" sounded good in principle, but would not work in practice - the situation we are in now. So, they set it up so the states handle most government functions, so if you don't like the state you are in, you can move to another one while still staying within a country run by the same basic framework.
Unfortunately, they never realized or foresaw that the federal government would pass laws where they could manipulate the state government through federal funding restrictions et al in order to force the states into doing what they want, as well as literally give the constitution the finger while they did whatever bought them the most votes.