AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

President Bush wasn't consolidating power except in the realm of national security which 90+% of Americans thought appropriate in the wake of 9/11. Otherwise he was being quite divisive and weakening his position in areas that I thought he should have been standing strong (i.e. global warming, illegal immigration, control of the nation's ports, etc.)

You seem to defend your guy by attacking and accusing his critics.

I have not been clamoring for Obama's removal other than through the elective process, nor are most conservatives clamoring for his removal other than through the elective process. Do you dare tell me that none on your side were clamoring for George Bush's impeachment?

Another thing I try not to do is misrepresent what people say or what they draw parallels to. You could take lessons from me in that regard.

In Article I. Section 8., the Constitution grants the federal government the power: "To coin money, to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures;"

A Congress of the United States and a president have chosen to regulate the value of coin money by printing money. If that is not a power that clause has granted to the federal government, then the federal government printing money is unconstitutional until such time as an amendment to the Constitution is passed that grants the federal government that power.

Does the power granted by the Constitution to the federal government to coin money and regulate the value thereof include the power to print money? I think so!

When money lended by the government to persons or organizations is not paid back, that money constitutes a transfer of wealth, unless the government can seize other assets of the persons or organizations equivalent to the money it has lended.

Quote:

When money lended by the government to persons or organizations is not paid back, that money constitutes a transfer of wealth, unless the government can seize other assets of the persons or organizations equivalent to the money it has lended.

But if the government lends money to a bank and then takes the value of stock in the bank to cover what was lent, that IS a transfer of wealth?

Foxfyre wrote:

President Bush wasn't consolidating power except in the realm of national security which 90+% of Americans thought appropriate in the wake of 9/11. Otherwise he was being quite divisive and weakening his position in areas that I thought he should have been standing strong (i.e. global warming, illegal immigration, control of the nation's ports, etc.)

Of course it was "in the realm of national security" and many people, though not nearly the 90% number you pulled out of your ass, did support it. Every power grab was in the name of national security because your lot love that sort of thing. Whatever it takes for security! Hang 'em high! Power to the sherrif! You gave him the future of our children in the name of safety. They played you like a fiddle and you're still dancing to their tune. But now a bill comes out that would give this president power to protect critical infrastructure from a cyber attack and security is no longer high on your list. Suddenly it's an unprecedented power grab! Far worse than the power to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. (For the record, I'm not crazy about that bill either for the same reason, but you've got some hypocrisy to explain on that.)

Foxfyre wrote:

You seem to defend your guy by attacking and accusing his critics.

This thread is littered with examples of people, myself included, rebutting your accusations with facts only to have you retreat to the safety of your suspicions anyway. You have no interest in facts if they contradict your preconceptions.

Foxfyre wrote:

I have not been clamoring for Obama's removal other than through the elective process, nor are most conservatives clamoring for his removal other than through the elective process. Do you dare tell me that none on your side were clamoring for George Bush's impeachment?

Oh, you weren't just having a conversation with ican about how everyone he knows wants to impeach the president? As for Bush, (and I don't have a side, for the 850th time unless being against ignorance is a side) yes, many wanted him impeached, but not in his first year for chrissakes. Not until he prosecuted an unnecessary war in Iraq and politicized the justice department, attempted to legalize torture, signed away congressional lawmaking powers, eavesdropped on Americans without a warrant, and declared that he had the power to interpret away any human rights protections in the Geneva Conventions did people start talking impeachment. And you dare tell me that Bush wasn't consolidating power... yeah, you weren't paying attention.

Foxfyre wrote:

Another thing I try not to do is misrepresent what people say or what they draw parallels to. You could take lessons from me in that regard.

Fox, I've said my piece and I'm happy with it. This ^ however has to be the most absurd of many absurdities you've had the audacity to write here. I had to mop the coffee off of my keyboard when I read it.

If I criticized Bush and have not critized Obama as much it's because 1) I think Obama is a better president and 2) Obama has not had as much time as Bush had to screw things up. And I think he's better not because he's a Democrat but because he's smarter, less easy to manipulate, and he's actually interested in the job. That doesn't mean he's going to get everything right but that's not what I expect, and I'm withholding most criticism until the fog of economic crisis lifts -- as I withheld criticism of Bush until he went all Rambo on us. You are not the arbiter of what constitutes partisanship and I have no interest in proving myself to you.

So you can accuse me of pulling the numbers out of my ass if you wish, but I think history is closer to my side than yours about that.

But if the government lends money to a bank and then takes the value of stock in the bank to cover what was lent, that IS a transfer of wealth?

What can you find in the Patriot Act that gives the President, or Congress for that matter, unprecedented ability to wag the dog or abuse power on a broad national scale?

I can't find a poll for the Patriot Act at the time it was passed, but at that time President Bush's approval was in the 90 percentile range.

A Gallup/CNN poll in 2005 still had approval for the Patriot Act at or close to 60% and that was after the ACLU and people like you had been trashing it for four years.

Rebutting my opinions with facts you can't back up with anything but other partisan opinion isn't exactly an indictment of me. I don't claim to get everything right and I don't presume to judge others or attack them when they get something wrong. But if I'm going to tell them they're wrong, I figure I need something more than partisan bullshit to back up my opinion.

Naw you aren't partisan and no blinders at all. And almost no partisan opinions and no spouting of the traditional party line re Bush at all. (cough)

But you presume to indict me because I've had a conversation with Ican re impeachment? A conversation in which I disagreed with Ican about that? You have a very different definition of blinders than I do.

And you might think it well and good to withhold criticism of Obama's actions and policies for now because after all he is so new at the job. Those of you who so vehemently opposed the Iraq war after the fact might want to rethink that a bit. What if you have vehemently opposed the Iraq war before Congress voted on it? Before the decision was made? Maybe we wouldn't have gone to war then and you would be happier. (You actually probably wouldn't have been happier but it's a nice thought anyway.)

At any rate, I would rather criticize the President and Congress now before they do something really stupid that will be extremely difficult if not impossible to reverse. I think patriots should always make their voice known re the wishes of the people.

Unlike you and Thomas, I don't meekly hand the government license to decide what is best for me and trust that they will make good decisions.

More especially I don't when I do not believe the government has my best interests at heart or has an agenda to which I strongly object.

I prefer to fight these battles while they can still be won instead of waiting until its a done deal and then carp and criticize and condemn.

I wonder what Ican will say, if the government recoups it's losses on the TARP funds loaned out to banks - as we have already done with much of the money.

I wonder how many people like myself who only disapprove of how Obama is handling the healthcare bill BECAUSE he hasn't done enough to explain how it will not increase the deficit.....

....ColorofChange's hateful effort to silence Beck. ...

no. you wise up.

the constitution clearly states that they can collect taxes from you. they don't have to ask you **** about how it gets spent.

you're really kind of a bitter old goat, aren't ya.

Foxfyre wrote:

....ColorofChange's hateful effort to silence Beck. ...

DING DING DING DING DING...... TALKING POINT ALERT !