AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

"Please be specific."

for the love of god, woman. give that one a rest until you use it both ways.

you LOVE to argue. we all get that.

you argue from a slant at all times. you are NEVER wrong.

go play with someone that enjoys your brand of abuse...

(I feel sorry for that guy)

Oh, and I forgot...

you have jesus on your speed dial, just in case you need back-up from your high horse.

I'll take this rant as your statement that you have no intention of answering the question and that you did come into the thread just to be snarky.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

see, you are correct again...

(nice last minute edit add of the nasty little snarky part, said the pot to the kettle)

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

<sitting around, waiting for the topic shift, popcorn's riding on the direction>

Actually, I am in the peanut section. The main attraction has me on permanent ignore so I only get to throw from a distance for the benefit of those of us in the cheap seats.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You do realize ican that using your standard of "treason", speaking out against the US government at time of war is committing treason.

"Speaking out against the US government" is not my "standard of treason."

IMPEACH AND REMOVE OBAMA BEFORE OBAMA IMPEACHES AND REMOVES US

The Constitution of the USA neither explicitly or implicitly grants to the Congress, or to the President, or to the Supreme Court, the power to transfer federal tax revenues to anyone other than federal government employees or federal government contractors.

When either Congress or the President or the Supreme Court transfers federal tax revenues to anyone other than federal government employees or federal government contractors, they are violating the Constitution; they are violating "the supreme law of the land."

Any American who violates the supreme law of the land is guilty of "adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort."

Therefore, any American who violates the supreme law of the land is guilty of treason.

The Stimulus Bill signed by President Obama, transfers federal tax revenues to persons not federal government employees and not federal government contractors, and therefore violates the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land."

Therefore, President Obama is guilty of transferring tax revenues to persons not federal government employees and not federal government contractors, and therefore violates the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and should be impeached.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

The only standard you don't seem to change ican is stupidity.

You claimed Obama was guilty of treason and you witnessing his speaking was evidence enough. You have also said that simply being associated with people met the standard of "aiding and comforting" the enemy.

Clearly your speech is aiding and comforting the enemy in time of war ican if what you said earlier was true.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

see, you are correct again...

(nice last minute edit add of the nasty little snarky part, said the pot to the kettle)

Thank you. I at least appreciate your admission that my observations are correct that you will not answer the question and that your only intent here is to be snarky.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You [ican] claimed Obama was guilty of treason and you witnessing his speaking was evidence enough.

Article II. Section 4.
states:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

President Obama said to me and millions of other witnesses that he signed the Stimulus Bill. Therefore, I believe President Obama signed the Stimulus Bill. I believe President Obama's signing of the Stimulus Bill is a treasonous act because it violates the "supreme law of the land." But may be I should agree President Obama's signing of the Stimulus Bill is not a treasonous act, and is instead a high crime and misdemeaner.

What do you think?

The Stimulus Bill signed by President Obama, transfers federal tax revenues to persons not federal government employees and not federal government contractors, and therefore violates the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land."

Therefore, President Obama is guilty of transferring tax revenues to persons not federal government employees and not federal government contractors, and therefore violates the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and should be impeached and removed.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

could you explain it one more time Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

What do you think?

The Stimulus Bill signed by President Obama, transfers federal tax revenues to persons not federal government employees and not federal government contractors, and therefore violates the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land."

Transferring Federal tax revenues to others doesn't violate the Constitution in any fashion. The courts have been very clear on this.

I'm afraid I must remind you that, once again, your opinion does not count, Ican. You can think that our country SHOULD BE different than it is, but those thoughts will have zero effect - unless you can recruit others to your cause. So far, the tax-denier movement has had extremely little success doing this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

When either Congress or the President or the Supreme Court transfers federal tax revenues to anyone other than federal government employees or federal government contractors, they are violating the Constitution; they are violating "the supreme law of the land."

Again, while I agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, the courts have not agreed with it. The Court has ruled that Congress can determine what is and is not appropriate use of the public treasury and that provides cover for both Congress and the President. Ever since the Court ruled that way, both Congresses and Presidents have increasingly abused their perceived right to increase their stature, position, power, and personal wealth with their use of the people's money. No court, and I believe few if any congresspersons or senators, would presume that excercising such perceived right would constitute a 'high crime and misdemeanor.'

In order to return the policy and practice to the spirit and intent of the Constitution, it will be necessary to elect a Congress and a President who respect the spirit and intent of the original 'general welfare' clause and make that law more explicitly the law of the land so that the court cannot misinterpret it.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I really enjoy watching the interplay between you and Ican on this issue, as I believe it is a microcosm for the struggle your party is going through right now: can the moderately sane wing of the Republican party talk the crazies down, in order to convince the independents to vote for your candidates again? Or, will the party become increasingly removed from the rest of the country, and force your candidates to pander further and further to the right?

It's actually somewhat exciting to watch.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I suppose - and that was the reason why I posted my comment above - in other countries, ican (and perhaps Foxfyre, too) would have joined a different party.

Or form a new, own "party list" (I don't know if such is possible in the USA: it's a kind of 'voter association', not related to any party, mostly only on local up to regional/state level).

I think, complaining about "those politicians" and "the party" is quite common everywhere.
But why don't those who complain, try to change it? Democratically, in that party? And when they don't succeed - well, that's democracy, you still can .... see above.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

that was not my only intent, you did the rest for me...

(keep spreading the Love, foxy)

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I think, complaining about "those politicians" and "the party" is quite common everywhere.
But why don't those who complain, try to change it? Democratically, in that party? And when they don't succeed - well, that's democracy, you still can .... see above.

That sir was the primary purpose for this thread in the first place. It is the purpose of all those tea parties and protests, a few of them organized, at the town hall meetings. It is the purpose of emails, telegrams, letters, and telephone calls as well as tweets on Twitter and comments on Facebook et al. It is the purpose of many letters to the editor, some purchased advertising, billboards, and the agenda of a number of conservative think tanks and advocacy groups.

It is an attempt by the majority of active Republicans and conservatives and conservative moderates to convince the GOP of how out of tune they have been with grass roots America and to convince them to return to MAC basics. (Few define it as MAC of course, but the definition of MAC is essentially what they want.) It is difficult for them to gain traction because they are dismissed as irrelevent by most of the mainstream media and are trashed as hateful and extreme on forums like this.

By contrast many Democrats adore, even worship their liberal leaders, are unable or refuse to see or acknowledge that they have anything but the people's interest at heart, and approve and defend their most radical agendas.

Our main obstacle in effecting real and positive change is that too many Americans are uniformed to the point of ignorance about many issues and/or are complacent and apathetic. But we are adding to the number of those who do care day by day and eventually, hopefully by the weight of sheer numbers, we can turn around the destructive course our country is currently on and get back to some semblance of the conservatism that created and until recently sustained the great experiment that is the USA.

Sometimes failure is simply not an option. And we may have arrived at that point at this time.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

God is on the team of whoever loves and obeys him.

Quote:

I am a MAC because I believe it is the more honest, more defensible, more humane, more compassionate, and more honorable way to govern ourselves and to live. I think it gives the most people of all stripes the best chance for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think the liberal way, as it is defined in modern America, does not offer or promote opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yup, the MACs, the people of Reagan. Such dear compassionate souls.

http://hungryblues.net/2004/06/11/remembering-reagan/

0 Replies

Quote:

Foxy wrote [no, really, she did]: By contrast many Democrats adore, even worship their liberal leaders, are unable or refuse to see or acknowledge that they have anything but the people's interest at heart, and approve and defend their most radical agendas.

See my last posting.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

By contrast many Democrats adore, even worship their liberal leaders, are unable or refuse to see or acknowledge that they have anything but the people's interest at heart, and approve and defend their most radical agendas.

Worship?

I wonder how you felt about all the right-wingers who consistently claimed that Bush was a 'man of God' and doing 'God's work' in the Middle East all those years. Or the fact that your side worships Reagan, has made a minor Deity out of the guy.

Quote:

It is an attempt by the majority of active Republicans and conservatives and conservative moderates to convince the GOP of how out of tune they have been with grass roots America and to convince them to return to MAC basics.

I find it odd, then, that the focus of the protests have been Democratic politicians, if the attempt is to convince the GOP of anything. Why are we not seeing these protesters at GOP town halls? I think you are dead wrong on this one; your explaintion certainly doesn't match the actions of your party.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I find it odd, then, that the focus of the protests have been Democratic politicians, if the attempt is to convince the GOP of anything. Why are we not seeing these protesters at GOP town halls? I think you are dead wrong on this one; your explaintion certainly doesn't match the actions of your party.

You're looking at this from a perspective of honesty, Cy, while Foxy looks at things from a perspective of truthiness.

How do they jive, let me try to imagine even one way.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

That. madam, wasn't what I thought of.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is the purpose of all those tea parties and protests, a few of them organized, at the town hall meetings. It is the purpose of emails, telegrams, letters, and telephone calls as well as tweets on Twitter and comments on Facebook et al. It is the purpose of many letters to the editor, some purchased advertising, billboards, and the agenda of a number of conservative think tanks and advocacy groups. ... ... ...

I - and others - have discussed my/our different opinions with my party or with those I've elected (from my party) with them.

Facebook, letters to the editors etc - well, okay, if someone/something from a different party I don't agree with. But generally, it's there business.

Tea parties, protests? I have done and do such/similar only when the fascists/neo nazis make a demonstration/have a meeting here. (And it seems, we got them out. and succeeded.)
I'm not really a fan of the rule of the street.

If I don't like what a party does - I don't vote for them. If they get elected, my bad, but as said: democracy. (And I'm honestly glad that since 1947/8 we are able to elect our leaders again - no matter if I agree with them or not.)

If you or I or someone else, no matter what country it is, if we want to change our party's policy, want to address our party's lawmakers - that's not at all a problem of what is published by the media, when and where but how I get heard in the party.
If it's just my single voice ..... but it's a lot of people, as said: democracy.

And be assured, Foxfyre, I'm not just speaking my little place. (The most impressive what I have seen and heard was in the UK, where Labour members discussed with their MP, who was and is a cabinet minister.)
The demonstrations against the war were .... well, not really a party issue. Thses party meetings were the essence.)

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know