55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
When you choose to argue the same point I'm making perhaps we can resume this.


What point are you trying to make, Fox? You have not been very clear on this. Clarify and I'll be happy to show exactly how your point is wrong, in detail.

I have provided evidence in the form of numbers and statistics; have you any numbers to provide proof?

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:32 pm
@ican711nm,
The Obama-crats however are proposing raping the taxpayer and spending gazillions of dollars on things never authorized by the Constitution. They have to ignore the Founders and the obvious original intent of the Constitution to justify that, and IMO that is where we have veered way off course. It certainly is not an original concept with them, of course, and we've both accused President Bush of the same thing. But it has never been quite this serious with such blatant fiscal irresponsibility or escalation of big government power before.

They would have a much tougher time justifying spending that kind of money on Constitutionally authorized debts, providing for the common defense, and promoting the general welfare as the Founders intended.

But you're right re the people and states will have to rein it in whether it is President Obama/Congress now or future administrations that are run amuck. Did you read the Walter Williams piece I posted earlier this morning? He didn't specifically say so, but just reading between the lines, I think he sees that as maybe our last hope here but some teeth will have to be added to the principles in the resolutions.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
My point Cyclop is that you don't seem to have a clue what either Sowell or I have said, much less the larger picture involved, and you are making all sorts of accusations and claims here that you can't support. And I am tired of trying to make you understand it and I don't choose to participate in that any further. Okay?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxie wrote:
Quote:
The Obama-crats however are proposing raping the taxpayer and spending gazillions of dollars on things never authorized by the Constitution.


Please show us where in the Constitution what Obama is doing "on things never authhorized?"

You are now Constitutional lawyer? Where did you earn your degree?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:39 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

My point Cyclop is that you don't seem to have a clue what either Sowell or I have said, much less the larger picture involved, and you are making all sorts of accusations and claims here that you can't support. And I am tired of trying to make you understand it and I don't choose to participate in that any further. Okay?


YOU don't have a clue what you are trying to say, Fox. It would have taken less time to re-state your position than to write this pouty little paragraph.

I assert that you and Sowell are completely incorrect, and what more, that you have done zero actual research into the issue. You have provided no evidence to support your position and each post on this issue seems to indicate less and less understanding on your part. Not a strong showing from the Republican side today.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
No I am not a Constitutional lawyer or any kind of a lawyer but perhaps you are so wise and brilliant and informed that you can tell us where the constitution authorizes:
1. Congress to threaten private citizens with publishing their names and addresses if they do not turn over bonuses that the same Congress authorized.
2. People to be required to pay for government mandated health insurance.
3. Billions of taxpayers money can be used to bail out private financial institutions and auto companies.
4. Billions of taxpayers money can be used for projects utilized by a relatively very small number of people in lawmakers' districts.

That's enough to start with. There's lots and lots more. Take your time. We'll wait.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Opinion noted Cyclop.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:46 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Opinion noted Cyclop.


Yeah, I bet it is. Why don't you have the ability to admit when you are wrong, Fox? It is indicative of a failing on your part that you go to these lengths instead of just saying 'Well, I'll have to do more research on that I guess.'

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 12:55 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Opinion noted Cyclop.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 02:28 pm
@Foxfyre,
Since you seem to think it's wrong, where in the Constitution does it say those things can't be done by our government?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 02:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The Constitution says
"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."

Now I answered your question. Please do me the courtesy of answering mine by showing me where the Constitution authorizes those things I listed.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 02:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
No, you didn't. What powers did the Constitution limit Obama's initiatives? What laws of the Constitution did Obama break? What was Obama's criminal actions?

You must show how the Constitution "limits" the powers of the president in regards to Obama's initiatives. You haven't done that.

If you make a claim that the president has broken the laws of the Constitution, you must also show how and why?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 02:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It's interesting to note that "only" Foxie sees Obama exceeding his Constitutional authority, but no other MAC or conservative leadership sees it.

What can we presume from this obvious fact? You would think the conservatives would be jumping all over Obama if Foxie were to be correct.

FIRE! Ooops, no fire.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 03:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
The Obama-crats however are proposing raping the taxpayer and spending gazillions of dollars on things never authorized by the Constitution.
...
you're right re the people and states will have to rein it in whether it is President Obama/Congress now or future administrations that are run amuck. Did you read the Walter Williams piece I posted earlier this morning? He didn't specifically say so, but just reading between the lines, I think he sees that as maybe our last hope here but some teeth will have to be added to the principles in the resolutions.

Therefore, the obama-crats are gangsters, criminals, and must be removed from office.

Yes, I read the Walter Williams piece you posted earlier. I think he does in fact see that the removal of the obama-crats by the states and/or the people is our last hope for rescuing our country from these obama-crat gangsters. AND yes, "some teeth will have to be added to the principles in the resolutions."
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=gangster&x=32&y=9
Main Entry: gang•ster Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: ga zt (r), gai -, - (k)st-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: 1gang + -ster
: a member of a gang of criminals : GUNMAN, THUG; also : a person who uses violence, intimidation, or other extralegal means of coercion for business ends : RACKETEER <a gangster ... in some kind of syndicate that controls stores and nightclubs -- Chandler Brossard> <named one gangster as the real boss of the city -- Current Biography>

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=criminal&x=33&y=10
Main Entry: 2criminal Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: "
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: French criminel, from criminel, adjective
1 : one that has committed a crime : MALEFACTOR
2 : a person who has been convicted of one or more crimes <habitual criminals>

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 04:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's interesting to note that "only" Foxie sees Obama exceeding his Constitutional authority, but no other MAC or conservative leadership sees it.

You continually fail to understand that the Constitution is a granting of specific powers to the federal government. If the federal government exercises a power not granted in the Constitution, then the federal government is violating the Constitution. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government, are powers the federal government does not legally have.

Here again below for the umpteenth time is a listing of powers granted to the federal government. If any member or members of the federal government exercise a power not listed in the sentence quoted below, or elsewhere in the Constitution, then that member or those members are violating the Constitution, and therefore are exercising an illegal power.
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I.
...
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

In brief, a power not listed in the Constitution, cannot be legal, lawful, or not a crime for anyone in the federal government to exercise it.

When a not-listed power is exercised by the federal government, a crime is committed. Those who commit such a crimes are gangsters. Since the obama-crats are committing such crimes, the obama-crats are gangsters.

For example, no where in the Constitution is any member or members of the federal government granted the power to transfer wealth from those people who have lawfully earned it, to those people who have not lawfully earned it.

But the obama-crats are doing exactly that. Therefore, the obama-crats are gangsters.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 05:09 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Here again below for the umpteenth time is a listing of powers granted to the federal government. If any member or members of the federal government exercise a power not listed in the sentence quoted below, or elsewhere in the Constitution, then that member or those members are violating the Constitution, and therefore are exercising an illegal power.


I guess your statement would be true if Article I was the only part of the constitution.

By your statement, it means Bush violated the Constitution when he acted as Commander in Chief since the sentence doesn't authorize him to do so.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 05:44 pm
@parados,
parados, All kinds of strange interpretations of the Constitution by the MACs on a2k; they don't see the Constitution mangled by Bush in obvious ways (such as illegal wiretaps), but can see Obama breaking the laws of our land without being able to tie the laws to what Obama did through his initiatives.

Quote:
Poll: Americans Support Bush Impeachment for Wiretapping
Submitted by Bob Fertik on January 13, 2006 - 10:34pm.

For Release: January 16, 2006

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 06:49 pm
I just came up with a scathingly brilliant idea:

Why doesn't President Obama put ALL the Democrats on the cabinet? The back taxes should cover the budget shortfall and he can do anything he wants. Smile

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius recently corrected three years of tax returns and paid more than $7,000 in back taxes after finding "unintentional errors""the latest tax troubles for an Obama administration nominee. The Kansas governor explained the changes to senators in a letter dated Tuesday that the administration released. She said they involved charitable contributions, the sale of a home and business expenses.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979AVVO2&show_article=1
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 07:13 pm
To: all those Conservatives who claim the Democrats used the Filibuster as much as the Republicans

From: Reality

Subject: Lay off the crack

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/filibusters-1101.gif

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate

Good enough proof for you guys? The Republicans are the KINGS of obstructionism in Congress. It's getting to the point where I would consider supporting the so-called 'nuclear option' just to get rid of the time wasting assholes on the Republican side.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 07:28 pm
@Foxfyre,
You call that "brilliant?" ROFL That's about your speed - very s l o w.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 11:17:55