53
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 05:00 pm
disruptive, but at least it's funny !

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 05:37 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Parados, I do not "argue money is 'security'".

I argue, PRINTED MONEY are one kind of SECURITIES.


LOL.. yes, you did..
So..

Do Securities have value?
Can Securities be traded for other items of value?


If printed money are one kind of securities doesn't that mean they have value and can be traded for other items of value?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 05:39 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

I do not remember posting that 'only things that are EXPRESSLY in the constitution are constitutional." I remember posting that if a power is not delegated by the Constitution to the feds, then the feds do not have that power.

OK.. so where are the Feds given power to print money?
Where are the Feds given power to loan money?
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 05:43 pm
@wandeljw,
Check these links to learn some of what Glen Beck's 9.12 project is about!
http://www.the912project.com
The 9/12
http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:04 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Excluding the many kids they bring along with them to their town hall or tea party meetings, I judge the typical ages of the attendees I've actually seen up close are between 35 and 55.

Their typical cause for alarm is that they have an intense distrust of Barack Obama. Some distrust him because of his flip floping on health care. Some distrust him because they resent his efforts to control their health care choices. Some distrust him because of his giveaways of their tax money. Some distrust him because of his huge current and projected deficits. Some distrust him because of the high current and projected unemployment figures. Some distrust him because he has slandered them. Some distrust him because they think he wants to abandon our constitutional government to a far greater extent than any of his predecessors. Most distrust him because of a combination of these things.

A great many distrust other leadership of the Democrat Party for the same reasons.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:17 pm
@ican711nm,
And you left out the fact that a fair amount of them are thoroughly disgusted with the current crop of Republicans now in Congress and some of those guys, if they don't clean up their act and get in tune with their constituency, could pay a heavy price in the primaries next year.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:25 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Excluding the many kids they bring along with them to their town hall or tea party meetings, I judge the typical ages of the attendees I've actually seen up close are between 35 and 55.

Their typical cause for alarm is that they have an intense distrust of Barack Obama. Some distrust him because of his flip floping on health care. Some distrust him because they resent his efforts to control their health care choices. Some distrust him because of his giveaways of their tax money. Some distrust him because of his huge current and projected deficits. Some distrust him because of the high current and projected unemployment figures. Some distrust him because he has slandered them. Some distrust him because they think he wants to abandon our constitutional government to a far greater extent than any of his predecessors. Most distrust him because of a combination of these things.

A great many distrust other leadership of the Democrat Party for the same reasons.


I think that what you have listed here, are not reasons why people distrust Obama, as much as they are people's attempt to explain why they distrust Obama. I'm quite sure that a lot of the people in question are getting marching orders on this issue - straight from their gut. They then ask their mouths to justify their feelings.

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:28 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Do Securities have value?
Can Securities be traded for other items of value?

If printed money are one kind of securities doesn't that mean they have value and can be traded for other items of value?

OK.. so where are the Feds given power to print money?
Where are the Feds given power to loan money?

Yes securities can be traded for other items of value.
Yes, printed money can be traded for other items of value.
As I have already posted several times, the feds are granted power by the Constitution implicitly to print money (see below).
I do not know where in the Constitution the feds are granted power by the Constitution implicitly or explicitly to loan money to anyone other than current or retired employees, federal departments, or government contractors.

Quote:

Article I.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
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;

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:30 pm
@Foxfyre,
Yes! A large percentage of them "are thoroughly disgusted with the current crop of Republicans now in Congress and some of those guys, if they don't clean up their act and get in tune with their constituency, could pay a heavy price in the primaries next year."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I think that what you have listed here, are not reasons why people distrust Obama, as much as they are people's attempt to explain why they distrust Obama. I'm quite sure that a lot of the people in question are getting marching orders on this issue - straight from their gut. They then ask their mouths to justify their feelings.

I think that is why you and other Obama supporters trust Obama.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:34 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

And you left out the fact that a fair amount of them are thoroughly disgusted with the current crop of Republicans now in Congress and some of those guys, if they don't clean up their act and get in tune with their constituency, could pay a heavy price in the primaries next year.


Which constituency? The moderate Republican, or the Conservative one?

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Which constituency? The moderate Republican, or the Conservative one?

I don't know. So many people I know have switched from Democrat or Republican to Independents. I do not know the percentages.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What the American people are reacting to is the misinformation and the inconsistent message they're getting from Obama and the media. We are all confused! We still don't know how much it's going to cost and how we're going to pay for it.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:46 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
I do not know where in the Constitution the feds are granted power by the Constitution implicitly or explicitly to loan money to anyone other than current or retired employees, federal departments, or government contractors.

Where is the Federal government given the power to loan money to current employees? let alone former or retired employees?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:51 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
Yes securities can be traded for other items of value.
Yes, printed money can be traded for other items of value.


ican711nm wrote:
I don't like paper money that is not convertible to something of value equivalent to the value of what the paper money is alleged to be.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 06:53 pm
@ican711nm,
you'd think they would be visible in at least some of the videos.

i just keep seeing people with gray hair jabbing their fingers around and screaming.

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:47 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Where is the Federal government given the power to loan money to current employees? let alone former or retired employees?

I claim the underlined constitutional grants of power to the feds listed below, require the feds to be able to loan as well as pay money to their current employees or to their contractors, plus promise loans to retired employees (e.g., retired military) in order to enable the feds to attract the employees or contractors the feds require to competently employ the feds powers.
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;[/u]
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.

I think that if the power to make such loans were not granted explicitly or implicitly by the Constitution, then the exercise of such powers by the feds would be illegal. If such powers were illegal, managing the federal government would be extremely difficult if not impossible, because hiring employees and current contractors without the ability to make loans to them, say for purchase of health insurance or retirement insurance, would be extremely difficult if not impossible.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 07:51 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Those talking , listening, and non-screaming 35 to 55 year old people are visible on the videos I've seen, as well as from attending those meetings myself. Perhaps you watch videos from which such people are edited.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:00 pm
@ican711nm,
Why on earth would they need to LOAN money to do any of those things?

If you think it authorizes the loaning of money then why can't they loan money to anyone? If they can loan money for commerce as you underlined doesn't that authorize the government to loan to businesses?
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 09:09 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

A dollar bill--or a multidollar bill--is PRINTED MONEY. From the following definitions, a dollar bill--or a multidollar bill--is PRINTED MONEY and is one kind of note and therefore is one kind of security.

This is a good place to assess what we have learned so far:

1. If it wasn't obvious before, I think it's abundantly clear now that a truly literalist approach to constitutional interpretation yields nothing but absurdity. As Thomas pointed out, one can't not interpret the constitution. It was, after all, designed to be interpreted -- something that Chief Justice Marshall noted 190 years ago in McCulloch v. Maryland, the necessity of which "tenthers" like Ican have never been able to accept in principle but which they themselves inevitably resort to in practice.

2. And while "tenthers" have no trouble claiming that social welfare programs lack any explicit constitutional authority, even Ican is reduced to increasingly preposterous circumlocutions when it comes to inventing constitutional justifications for government programs that he likes. Thus, when presented with the discomfiting paradox that the constitution doesn't explicitly authorize congress to print money, he ends up deciding that paper money must constitute government "securities." The other option -- following through with his literalist interpretation and admitting that congress is not permitted to print money -- is just too monstrous for him to accept. He is left, then, to advert to the unimpeachable authority of Messrs. Merriam and Webster and declare that the framers of the constitution actually provided for the punishment of those who would counterfeit paper money even though they never got around to granting congress the power to print that money.

3. It should, therefore, be evident that Ican and those of his ilk fit the definition of "cranks," the main characteristics of which are:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Check, check, check, and check.

4. Is it any wonder, then, that the only authority Ican ever uses is the dictionary? And note, he doesn't even use a legal dictionary, even though there are some available on the web. It's because he either doesn't understand enough of the law to read the supreme court opinions, or, more likely, because he doesn't like how the court interprets the constitution. I'll end the suspense for you, Ican: the supreme court said that congress does have the authority to print money, although I'm sorry to report that it never said anything so ridiculous as to equate money with "securities." Maybe if it had a Merriam-Webster dictionary available, the outcome would have been more to your liking.
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 05/22/2022 at 10:12:20