Where is the US economy headed?

I love the Constitution and I agree with what it actually says, which does not force me to believe every liberal interpretation of it. Live with it, parados, not everyone is a liberal in this country that buys your garbage reasoning.

Whats my point? Read my post in answer to Parados, that is my point.

LOL.. garbage reasoning?
Oh.. so it is garbage reasoning to believe that the Supreme Court is the final word on legal matters. Instead we should rely on okie to be that final word because he loves the Constitution and wants to ignore parts of it but his LOVE overcomes those failings.

I live with the fact that you are stupid and ignorant okie. That's fine. You are free to do that if you feel like it but don't pretend you LOVE the Constitution when you spend so much time shitting on it because you don't like the way the courts ruled. The courts have the final say.
The courts ruled "general welfare" is basically whatever Congress decides unless someone can show it isn't to those courts.

So.. go ahead and **** on the Constitution all you want okie.
You refuse to agree that taxation can NOT be theft so you **** on the constitution and what it says.
You refuse to admit that ican is talking out of his ass when he claims Obama has committed high crimes when the actions he lists are clearly legal under the Constitution and court rulings. So again, you **** on the Constitution.

You don't love the Constitution okie. You love your made up version of it where you get to decide what it means and damn everyone else and damn the founders and damn the courts.


If you loved what the Constitution actually says okie you would be attacking ican for his idiotic theft claim. Since you won't do that and you won't show anyone where the Constitution calls taxation theft then it is obvious you don't love the actual Constitution okie. It is you that is full of **** and you keep shoveling it while trying to pretend it isn't the **** it is.

It is garbage reasoning to assume all decisions are correct. I am not ignoring any of the Constitution. Typical of you, parados, you mis-represent what I have said and make ridiculous claims about what I think and believe, without one iota of any evidence to support your claims.

You, parados, are an insult to decent Americans and the constitution. You and your ilk are to be opposed and defeated in every election inasmuch as it is possible. Count on me voting against your side's liberal candidates.

Your point is not logical or based on common sense. It's based on your personal misinformation and bias. Our country is based on the Constitution, and all presidents and members of congress swear to uphold its laws. It seems you are the only one (with ican) who believes your interpretation are the correct ones. Those are the characters of a fool.

Where did I say that? Since I never said it I guess it is YOU that misrepresents what other say. Don't you agree?

Yes, you are ignoring the Constitution okie when you feel you can ignore court rulings even if they are wrong. The Constitution clearly states that the courts have jurisdiction in all cases concerning questions about the law. If the court rules incorrectly, the ruling is still legal and binding until it is overturned.

You accused me of limiting my circle of knowledge when I don't agree with a Supreme Court decision in regard to an issue. I told you it was silly to assume it is a limitation of knowledge based upon mere disagreement. I stick by that, and I also assert that a disagreement with a decision does not indicate any hatred for the constitution. Frankly some of your accusations are silly, parados. Example, if you disagree with Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, does that mean you hate the constitution?

From your accusation of our president for theft, that's not just a mere disagreement. It's the essence of not understanding our Constitution and how our government operates.

OK then, if you support the ruling on "general welfare" then will you admit that ican is wrong
1. when he claims taxation is theft
2. when he lists reasons for impeaching Obama claiming they are illegal but the Supreme Court rulings show that are clearly legal.

Until you admit to both of the above okie, it is obvious you are refusing to expand your circle of knowledge.

Plessy was overturned so your question is moot.

However, if someone had argued that a President should be impeached for enforcing Plessy before it was overturned would you think they had a legal basis for the impeachment?

Let me make this very simple for you okie.

Can a President be impeached for doing something that is legal under the law?

To be honest with you, parados, I do not agree with ican that impeachment is an attainable goal, and I think conservatives will be better served by simply defeating the Democrats soundly in the next couple of national elections, and that is not only attainable but even likely if we do it right. I do not know if a good case for impeachment could be made. I doubt it could based upon taxation. It seems to me that foreign campaign contributions, including from terrorist organization, are clearly an impreachable offense, but that was before he became president so it may not count now. Undermining Arizona and not enforcing immigration laws, that seems like it should be impeachable, but I doubt enough people would agree. Compiling an enemies list in the Whitehouse, that is pretty bad. Appointing Marxists, pretty bad, but probably not impreachable.

I do not sit around all day each day studying what all Obama has done, except to know he is not competent in my opinion and needs to be voted out as soon as possible, and defanged by Congress in the next congressional elections.

In conclusion, I agree with ican's basic sentiments, but I probably disagree with him in regard to the practicality of trying to impeach Obama. That would change if we uncover information that would blow the lid off of something really serious and specific.

Your word: [defanged] Are you useing emotions or are you useing reasoning?

Use a little reasoning, as your name implies, reasoning logic. Defang means to neutralize or take away Obama's power to pass bad legislation or inact bad policies. If Republicans controlled Congress, they would be better able to do that. The definition of defang obviously comes from the fact that if you remove the fangs from a poisonous snake, you remove the snake's ability to injure any potential victims.

okie, How do you plan to defang Obama? Please show us the ways, oh wise one!

I just told you. Can you read? Take away the Democratic majority in Congress, which would take away Obama's ability to pass bad legislation, such as Obamacare was. At least I hope the Republicans would have enough principle and fortitude to block Obama's bad policies.

You really believe republicans have "principle and fortitude?" ROFLMAO
What's the name of the la-la land that you live in?

okie's post about knowledge being like a circle sounds like a sappy pop song some Emo would sing.

1.) You are too old to play this game.

2.) Usually, women are coy and men are not. Your response is simultaneously coy and sly.

3.) I was away from this forum for three years, but, before I absented myself, people were telling you that your knowledge of history was out of whack. People are still telling you that your knowledge of history is out of whack. Then, like the conceited little Caesar you are, you demand a link. Well, you have never . . . let me repeat, NEVER . . . represented an historical event correctly. Several of us are age peers and we do not recognize your retelling of events that we all lived through.