AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Google naitionalization of the banks, Cyclop. You'll find plenty of sources, including some very leftwing ones, that were talking this in January and the possibility is not off the table yet.

Ican's comments are in blue

parados wrote:

1. Provide evidence of Obama taking "foreign money" Snopes debunks foreign money claims

I provided that in 2008!

2. provide evidence he is doing things for this foreign money while not doing anything for American citizens (If you can find evidence of 1.)

I did not provide that! But Obama did provide that when he directed that Hamas--the shooters at Israel--be given millions of dollars in aid.

By seeking to aid Gazans but not Hamas, the administration is following the lead of the Bush administration, which sent money to Gaza through nongovernmental organizations.

3. Lacking 1 and 2 above and the argument about Obama's lack of citizenshipmakes the second paragraph moot. There is no "defrauding" to be found since there is nothing there for evidence of the 3 points used to claim he defrauded anyone.

We're. not lacking 1 and 2 above, but we are lacking evdence that Obama was born in America!

4. Provide evidence of legislation passed by Congress and signed by Obama that has violated the constitution.

I provided a plethora of evidence of that!

5. Provide evidence of a court deciding that legislation violated the constitution

I did not provide that!

You haven't provided any evidence ican. You have made up a lot of **** but when pressed you can't support it.

I have provided a plethora of evidence that Obama's presidential actions are unconstitutional!

If Obama is taking money from others in violation of the constitution but not you then tell us why their taxes are unconstitutional but yours are constitutional.

So far as I know, no one's income taxes now are different from what they were 2003 to 2008! Until TARP, I lacked sufficient evidence to show that Bush spending of income taxes was unconstitutional. However, when Bush signed TARP on Obama's recommendation, Obama made Bush do it? Bush had only a few more months to be president. Impeaching Bush after his term ended seemed nonsensical to me. But impeaching Obama for his continuation and expansion of TARP with his Stimulus plan is essential for the rescue of our country from the damage Obama is doing now.

Explain why your income taxes that are graduated like everyone elses don't violate your silly 'uniform' argument.

Currently, I'm paying income taxes that total less than 10% of my gross income--including taxes on the incomes of corporations in which I have invested. I think the tax rate for everyone should be 10% of gross income--no corporate taxes, no inheritance taxes, no deductions, no exemptions, no refunds, no paybacks, et cetera. A uniform tax rate for others as well as me would result as follows:
If your annual gross income were $10, you'd be required to pay $1 in income tax;
If your annual gross income were $10,000, you'd be required to pay $1,000 in income tax;
If your annual gross income were $10, 000,000, you'd be required to pay $1,000,000 in income tax;
If your annual gross income were $10, 000,000, 000 you'd be required to pay $1,000,000,000 in income tax.

I personally think they are on track to at the very least gain seats in one of the houses. I don't think O and the Dems have screwed up enough to lose the majority.

I think at this point you are stuck praying that the economy doesn't improve at all, in order to have any shot in hell in the next election.

The way it is shaping up, it could get really ugly.

Foxfyre wrote:

The way it is shaping up, it could get really ugly.

It is "really ugly" now. "The way it is shaping up, it could get HORRIBLY ugly."

Bottom line, by trying to impeach Obama now, we have a really good chance of impeaching him after 2010. Vote Republican November 2010, and the new Republican majoriities that would result will impeach Obama in 2011.

Time's a'wastin!"

Foxfyre wrote:

The way it is shaping up, it could get really ugly.

It is "really ugly" now. "The way it is shaping up, it could get HORRIBLY ugly."

Bottom line, by trying to impeach Obama now, we have a really good chance of impeaching him after 2010. Vote Republican November 2010, and the new Republican majoriities that would result will impeach Obama in 2011.

Time's a'wastin!"

It was debunked in 2008. I provided a link to Snopes. Just because you want to believe it doesn't make it so. Provide evidence.

Just because you want to believe Snopes doesn't make it so.

I don't see any evidence of Hamas giving money to Obama. You have not provided any so the statement he gave money to the foreign interests that contributed is NOT supported. ...

Those who supported Hamas contributed to Obama. So Obama reciprocated by giving aid to Hamas.

Actually you have plenty of evidence [Obama was born in America]. You just want to ignore it.

What's the evidence?

It's interesting that you now want to argue about the birth certificate. ...

I don't want to argue about Obama's alleged birth certificate.

You [claim] Obama's taxes violate the constitution but Obama has signed NO LAW concerning taxes.

Obama has advocated plenty of taxes that he has repeatedly said he wants to sign into law. True, he has not yet signed those taxes into law.

Your argument that "uniform" means something different than what the courts said does not prove Obama did anything. It only proves you are trying to make up stuff when the income tax laws have been in place sine 1913. They have been constitutional for 100 years but you somehow think they prove Obama is acting unconstitutionally.

Uniform means exactly what the founders and the USSC 1895 decision said it means. It means the tax rate on all the things of the same kind (e.g., on population, on dollars of income) shall be equal.

If Obama is taking money from others in violation of the constitution but not you then tell us why their taxes are unconstitutional but yours are constitutional.

Currently, Obama is not taking taxes from me differently than did Bush starting in 2003. Both Bush and Obama are taking, say, 10% of my gross income. That's constitutional for me--assuming 10% is sufficient to pay for constitutionally lawful federal expenditures--but not those who are having more than 10% taken or less than 10%. Everyone should pay the same percent on gross income that is sufficient to pay for constitutionally lawful federal expenditures.

What court has said TARP is unconstitutional? NONE. ...

I agree, no court. The Constitution's 5th Amendment says TARP is unconstitutional, because TARP gives tax money taken from people who have lawfully earned it, to people or organizations that have not lawfully earned it.

I see you didn't explain anything about WHY it isn't unconstitutional for you to pay 10% but it is unconstitutional for ME to pay 10% on the first $20,000 I make, 15% on the next $50,000, and 25% on the next $70,000. You would too if you made more than $20,000.

Answered above.

You didn't answer my question - do you honestly believe that the Republicans have the ability to capture either house of Representatives in the next cycle?

Bottom line, by trying to impeach Obama now, we have a really good chance of impeaching him after 2010. Vote Republican November 2010, and the new Republican majoriities that would result will impeach Obama in 2011.

Uniform means exactly what the founders and the USSC 1895 decision said it means. It means the tax rate on all the things of the same kind (e.g., on population, on dollars of income) shall be equal.

There is certainly no want of uniformity, within the meaning of the constitution, since we have repeatedly held that the uniformity there referred to is territorial only. Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317; Head- Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 , 5 Sup. Ct. 247. In the words of the constitution, the tax must be uniform 'throughout the United States.'

I posted the exact words from the ruling

I personally think they are on track to at the very least gain seats in one of the houses. I don't think O and the Dems have screwed up enough to lose the majority.