electronicmail
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 08:48 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

No you are not however you are an uninformed tool for the what to be economic slavers.

I thought I can't write good English but you and POM are like wow.
Laughing Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  4  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 11:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I support this Republic going forward the way that it was
intended at its beginning: laissez faire FREE ENTERPRIZE.


Support your position that the country was met to be laissez fai by it founders!!!

Once more the very first law pass by congress require the shipping of American manufacture and farm goods in the bottom of American flag ships.

Once more you had proven by your postings that you have zero knowledge of this country history.

Now my friend prove me wrong by quoting a few founding fathers just to start with.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 11:42 am
wait, if they were all so laissez faire, why the opposition to gay marriage




well, at least where only wimmins is involved anyway Razz
BillRM
 
  4  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 11:48 am
The government where involved in business from the very beginning of the first congress in 1789.



http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/tariff-act

The Tariff Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 24), signed into law by President George Washington on July 4, 1789, was the first substantive legislation passed by the first Congress. This act, together with the Collection Act of 1789, operated as a device both to protect trade and to raise revenues for the federal government. The constitutional authority for the act is found in the powers given to Congress "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises" and "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Among other things, the act established the first schedule of import duties and created an additional duty of 10 percent on imports carried on vessels "not of the United States."U.S. TRADE POLICY
The specific provisions of the act are of little interest (by 1799 it had been superseded by subsequent, more detailed legislation). However, the act remains significant for setting the basics of U.S. trade policy. In supporting its enactment, Alexander Hamilton argued that tariffs would encourage domestic industry. Other nations offered their industries significant subsidies, or money given by a government to support a private business. Hamilton contended that a tariff would protect U.S. industry from the effects of these subsidies. (Concerns over "dumping"—imported goods sold at less than their fair value to gain unfair advantage over domestic goods—would also be addressed in the Tariff Act of 1816.)
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  4  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 12:31 pm
Anthony Weiner not only didn't protest, he held the OP to task on their own rules (for which they didn't seem very eager to follow).



Got 52 minutes? Wanna watch some uncomfortable Republicans?

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 02:35 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
wait, if they were all so laissez faire, why the opposition to gay marriage




well, at least where only wimmins is involved anyway Razz
I have no opinion on that issue.
Thay can be as cheerful as thay want,
but free enterprize concerns commercial transactions.

The definition of "marriage" is a legal matter,
the same way as the definition of "tax liability".
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 02:41 pm
@BillRM,
David wrote:
I support this Republic going forward the way that it was
intended at its beginning: laissez faire FREE ENTERPRIZE.
BillRM wrote:
Support your position that the country was met to be laissez fai by it founders!!!

Once more the very first law pass by congress require the shipping of American manufacture and farm goods in the bottom of American flag ships.

Once more you had proven by your postings that you have zero knowledge of this country history.

Now my friend prove me wrong by quoting a few founding fathers just to start with.
That sounds like too much work, Bill, n I 'm too lazy (or anyway, lazy enuf not to DO it).

I m not a big fan of research projects.

I don 't dispute that Congress was granted
power to regulate interstate n international commerce.





David
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 02:47 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Congress was granted a hell of a lot of others powers David with the commerce clause and the necessary clause coming to mind.

In any case, the government has been using most of these powers to control businesses and the economic from day one IE from the first congress in 1789.

So your statement that there was ever a time that the government allow businesses to run free and do whatever they feel like doing never existed not even in the Robber barons era.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 02:54 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
That 's nonsense,
but what does irritate me mildly is that u accuse us being THE OPPOSITE of what we represent.
U mischaracterize us, the same as if I alleged that u love the nazis.
If u wanna BLAME us, do so qua what we REALLY DO represent,
not that totalitarian foolishness.
WE are on the FREEDOM side; u are against it and favor communist slavery.


You are totally clueless, aren't you?
plainoldme
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 02:57 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I m not a big fan of research projects.


No, you wouldn't be. Your unfounded assumptions might crumble.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:09 pm
@plainoldme,
David wrote:
That 's nonsense,
but what does irritate me mildly is that u accuse us being THE OPPOSITE of what we represent.
U mischaracterize us, the same as if I alleged that u love the nazis.
If u wanna BLAME us, do so qua what we REALLY DO represent,
not that totalitarian foolishness.
WE are on the FREEDOM side; u are against it and favor communist slavery.
plainoldme wrote:
You are totally clueless, aren't you?
U r totally worthless, aren't u ?

(mentally worthless)





David
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 06:17 pm
Looks to me like our AG Eric Holder doesn't much care for the US Constitution. He says he knows better.

http://www.foxnews.com/
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 06:31 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
Oh, for the good old days when you could captured a group of German sabotages off a submarine and have a military trial with executions in a matter of months.
Renaldo Dubois
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 06:33 pm
@BillRM,
People like Eric Holder are the enemy within. There really is a fatal flaw in their thinking. Kinda like a blindspot when you're driving.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 08:33 pm
@Renaldo Dubois,
No, Eric Holder is not the enemy within. People like the Koch Brothers are the enemy. Another sort of enemy is the type of person who posts on internet fora under multiple pseudonyms.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 08:35 pm
The right is venting its hatred against Robert JAckson, a personal hero of Eric Holder. It is a shame Holder did not stand firm against the onslaught of the right. To earn its enmity is a compliment. Jackson, despite being dead, is another in the long string of right-wing targets. Holder should have gone for the complete hatred rather than maintaining a minor profile.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 12:38 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Oh, for the good old days when you could captured a group of German sabotages off a submarine and have a military trial with executions in a matter of months.
As I remember, thay all turned against Hitler, in fear for their lives, except for 1, who was indeed killed.

Traditionally, enemies out of uniform r shot as spies.
It goes with the territory. (Admittedly, Major Andre was hanged.)





David
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 08:08 am
@plainoldme,
Poor little thing. Can't address the topic. You're being schooled and you're the only one who doesn't know it.
0 Replies
 
Renaldo Dubois
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 08:09 am
@plainoldme,
Holder is an incompetent fool. He has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars over this.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Tue 5 Apr, 2011 08:31 am
@Renaldo Dubois,
Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Why did the left ridicule the reading of the US Constitution to begin this congress?

Because it had no meaning to those reading it.

Where in the Constitution does it say the House can write a bill that becomes law if the Senate fails to act on it? Yet those same people that read the Constitution passed something that said exactly that. It seems they didn't really understand what they read about about how a law is passed.
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 04:46:20