AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

Hmmm . . . .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

I think that were his ghost to walk among us, the general-turned college administrator-turned president might take arms against a sea of troubles in the form of Blackwater, former vice president Cheney, Wall Street and Goldman Sachs in the name of the citizenry.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I have to disagree with you and set the weight of history traveling in your direction. The left has now and has always moved the nation toward the recognition and implementation of increased personal liberty and the adoption of increased personal responsibility. Today's left is heir to the legacy of the Abolitionists and the Suffragettes. Today's right is heir to the slave owners, the KKK, the sheriffs who imprisoned black men on trumped up charges and the people who criticized Republican president Teddy Roosevelt for inviting pioneering Black educator Booker T. Washington to the WH.

Today's righties are the military industrial complex. Today's righties are Christian fundamentalists that Jesus would chase from the Temple with his bullwhip.

0 Replies

@okie,

No one cares about your misguided perceptions.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Wait? You think the people that destroyed the economy will rescue it? Sugar, the American right . . . whether the racist right or the Fundamentalist right or the corporate right or the banking right . . . destroyed the economy and then begged Washington to help them out.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

T
K
Okie has fascist sympathies and admires bigots.

Wrong, I do not sympathize with Obama, nor do I admire you.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

T
K
Okie has fascist sympathies and admires bigots.

Wrong, I do not sympathize with Obama, nor do I admire you.

Prove that you don't sympathize with Obama or admire me.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

1) You didn't answer my question.

2) The presidential oath to office does not exclude a marxist of leftist from holding office even if Obama was one.

3) Do you just keep your posts in separate text files or just one long one to cut and paste from?

The President's oath of office requires the President to limit his/her powers to those granted him/her by the US Constitution. The US Constitution does not grant the President or the Congress the power to transfer money or other property from those who have earned it to those who have not earned it.
However, the Odem (i.e., Obamademocrats) have been transfering money and other property from those who have earned it to those who have not earned it. They are thereby violating the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land." The Odem are not only thieves, they are lying gangsters.

I cut and past from those articles I discover to be relevant to the discussion. I save those I think are likely to be relevant to the future discussion.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

The President's oath of office requires the President to limit his/her powers to those granted him/her by the US Constitution.

Technically, it does not. The Prez only swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. There is no language about limiting his powers.

Quote:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Quote:

The US Constitution does not grant the President or the Congress the power to transfer money or other property from those who have earned it to those who have not earned it.

Yes, it does. You are simply incorrect on this issue, the same way that tax deniers have been incorrect on this issue for more then a century. See the many SC cases which have universally ruled against you.

Quote:

They are thereby violating the Constitution, "the supreme law of the land." The Odem are not only thieves, they are lying gangsters.

If the Obama administration really were 'gangsters,' like you all allege over and over, then what they really would be doing is killing people like you, Ican. That's what Gangsters do to people who get in their way: they murder them.

So until you can provide evidence that this is what is going on, perhaps you will rethink your adjectives, no? You sound as ******* stupid as Michelle Bachman does when she says it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Contemporary American Conservatives are equivalent to 18th and 19th century liberals.

Contemporary liberals are equivalent to Odem (i.e., Obamademocrats). Odem are racist demagogs who steal what others have earned and give it to those who have not earned it. They accuse whites, a minority of the human race, of being racist, when they, the Odems, are in fact racists. Odems accuse those with whom they disagree ,of those very things the Odems themselves perpetrate.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

The US Constitution does in fact limit the powers of the Congress, of the President, and of the Judiciary to those powers the Constitution has in fact granted them.

Quote:

Amendment X
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
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.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Gansters are not necessarily people who murder!

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=gangster&x=14&y=9
Main Entry: gang·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>

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

In reality that's exactly what they do. Otherwise, what you are really talking about are bankers.

I mean, how ******* dense can you be. What do you think 'violence, intimidation, or other extralegal means of coercion' means? It means they threaten to physically harm or kill people.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Contemporary American Conservatives are equivalent to 18th and 19th century liberals.

You mean their understanding of economics is limited to Adam Smith and an agrarian society?

That does sound about right.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn, what in the definition of gangster do you think other extralegal means of coercion' means?

It obviously means something other than 'violence, intimidation." It means gangsters are also people who threaten to steal from people by means that do not require 'violence, intimidation or even the threat of 'violence, intimidation. Lying, fraud, disception are three such means. Those are the gangster techniques of the Odem (i.e., Obamademocrats)..

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

You simply have no understanding of the concept of theft ican. There is no theft taking place. None.

Taxes are not theft.
K
O

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn, what in the definition of gangster do you think other extralegal means of coercion' means?

It obviously means something other than 'violence, intimidation." It means gangsters are also people who threaten to steal from people by means that do not require 'violence, intimidation or even the threat of 'violence, intimidation. Lying, fraud, disception are three such means. Those are the gangster techniques of the Odem (i.e., Obamademocrats)..

Not only is TKO right - taxes are not theft and never have been - but you are incorrect that the defining characteristics of gangsters are that they engage in 'lying, fraud and deception.' These characteristics are secondary to their true nature, accomplices of their willingness to back up their threats by force.

Be honest - you just like the way the term sounds. You have no evidence of Obama or his admin taking any actions of this type. If 'lying' is a sign of gangsterism, then ALL politicians are 'gangsters' under your definition. Clearly this is unworkable and stupid, not the actual definition; not that this will stop you from repeating it over and over.

Why do you even bother with this farce?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Taking the money that people earn--whether it be by taxes or some other method--in violation of the law (e.g., in violation of the Constitution of the USA) and giving it to people who did not earn it, is theft!

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=theft&x=28&y=7
Main Entry: theft
...
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an instance of such an act
2 : the taking of property unlawfully (as by robbery, embezzlement, fraud) <has just ruled that theft from a spouse is possible -- Journal of the American Judicature Society>
3 obsolete : something that is stolen <if the theft be certainly found in his hand alive ... he shall restore double -- Exod 22: 4 (Authorized Version)>

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have no evidence of Obama or his admin taking any actions of this type.

Yes I do, and so do you! TARP, Stimulus, federal take over of GM and other private companies, financing poorly secured mortgages are just a few examples.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

None of those things are theft.

Besides, I don't have to remind you that TARP and the GM bailout, along with the bailout of Fannie and Freddie, were done by Bush; and you never referred to them as a 'gangster Government' one single time.

In short: I accuse you of simply making **** up to attack Obama, because you dislike him personally. And that's it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't have to remind you that TARP and the GM bailout, along with the bailout of Fannie and Freddie, were done by Bush; and you never referred to them as a 'gangster Government' one single time.

In short: I accuse you of simply making **** up to attack Obama, because you dislike him personally. And that's it.

False!

I did in fact accuse Bush of violating the Constitution when he signed the bill for TARP and for the GM bailout, plus many other of his damnable give aways.

But you are correct that I never previously "referred to [Bush et al] as a 'gangster Government' one single time."

Bush didn't merit that reference until 2008 when he signed TARP. However, I'll correct my error now. Yes indeed, Bush too ran a gangster government.

The Odem are persisting in Bush's ways. Worse, they have been greatly expanding their own gangsterism to far exceed Bush's.

Tell you what! Let's lawfully remove the Odem gangsters ASAP--impeach and remove-- without waiting for them to be voted out of office. The Odem's current and promised damage to our Liberty, our Constitutional Government, and our Capitalist Economy makes Bush's gangsterism look small by comparison.

2 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know