Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

Quote:

Not all Supreme Court rulings are correct in my opinion, parados

You are not a lawyer, so your opinion does not count.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

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.

You can not read well enough to know what the Constitution says. Try a remedial reading class. The high school near you must offer those for adults in the evening.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

It is garbage reasoning to assume all decisions are correct

No one said they were.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

okie wrote:

Quote:

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.

okie is so confused, he thinks there's a liberal interpretation and a conservative interpretation of our Constitution. If the supreme court judges base their decision based on their political beliefs, all Americans become the losers.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

To be honest with you, parados, I do not agree with ican that impeachment is an attainable goal,

I didn't ask if it was attainable. I asked if he could be impeached for doing something that is legal?

Quote:

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 is where you show you don't respect the Constitution okie.
Impeachment is for treason, bribery, or high crimes or misdemeanors. The Constitution doesn't allow impeachment as a response for legal actions by the President even if you don't agree with his policies or his appointments. Impeachment of Obama wouldn't be legal under the US Constitution okie because he has done nothing that rises to the legal requirements of impeachment. You continue to do nothing but **** on the Constitution okie.

Quote:

Undermining Arizona and not enforcing immigration laws, that seems like it should be impeachable,

Not only do you ignore the Constitution okie. You are now ignoring the facts of the situation. There are more border agents now under Obama than at any time in the history of the US. They have deported more illegal aliens than at any other time in US history but you want to argue that he isn't enforcing the laws. That shows you are completely out of touch with reality okie.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/23/20100623arizona-more-border-agents.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/02/barack-obama/us-has-more-border-patrol-agents-border-mexico-eve/
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20100824/APC0602/8240342/Editorial-More-border-agents-only-scratch-surface

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/26/politics/washingtonpost/main6715205.shtml
Deportions under Obama exceed Bush record

0 Replies

@okie,

So let's face facts here okie.

Ican proposes impeaching Obama in spite of the requirements in the US Constitution.
You agree that it is OK for him to try to do that.

Both you and ican don't respect the Constitution okie because of your willingness to ignore it when it doesn't agree with your politics. THere is no other reading of your statements and actions okie. You are not a patriot. You do not love the Constitution. You are partisan hacks that actually despise the Constitution because it says things you disagree with. If you loved it okie, you would follow the Constitution and defend it at all times even if you disagreed politically with the results of it. But you do no such thing. Court rulings are Constitutional okie. They are binding under the Constitution. You don't get to ignore them if you disagree with them. Obama disagreed with the ruling about corporate spending but he is following that ruling. Obama loves the Constitution unlike ican an okie it seems.

Now, the courts ruled that "general welfare" is far reaching and means pretty much anything Congress wants it to mean until and unless the court specifically declares something is not general welfare. That means if you really loved the Constitution okie, you would not agree that Obama can be impeached. In fact if you really loved the Constitution you would speak out against ican's idiotic charges. But, your failure to do so clearly shows you don't love the Constitution okie.

2 Replies

here is a link to a rather long video (10:20) featuring a former Wal-Mart manager discussing the ways Wal-Mart employees are cheated.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/930.html

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So let's face facts here okie.

Ican proposes impeaching Obama in spite of the requirements in the US Constitution.
You agree that it is OK for him to try to do that.

That is obviously a mis-representation of what I said. I said I share his sentiments of getting Obama out of office, but I said I do not think impeachment is the right path to take now unless something is uncovered that is more compelling and specific. I think instead just sweeping him out of office in the next election is the best path. When are you libs going to quit misquoting us conservatives? pom is another one that is very bad about that.

By the way, your repeating of the garbage about me hating the constitution, that is another nonsensical statement. Provide one shred of evidence of anything I have said that indicates I hate the constitution, or kindly provide an apology if you have any decency.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, You need to study that part of the constitution that allows our government to spend money. "General welfare" is a catch-all phrase without any restrictions outlined in the constitution.

FALSE!
The restrictions on "General Welfare" are these:
(1) Definition of general

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=11
Main Entry: 1gen·er·al Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: jen()rl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin generalis, from gener-, genus birth, race, class, kind + -alis -al -- more at KIN
1 : involving or belonging to the whole of a body, group, class, or type : applicable or relevant to the whole rather than to a limited part, group, or section <appearance of general decay> <a general change in temperature>
2 : involving or belonging to every member of a class, kind, or group : applicable to every one in the unit referred to : not exclusive or excluding <ladies, a general welcome from his grace salutes ye all -- Shakespeare> <those first assemblies were general, with all freemen bound to attend -- American Guide Series: Maryland>
3 a : applicable or pertinent to the majority of individuals involved : characteristic of the majority : PREVALENT, USUAL, WIDESPREAD <the general opinion> <a custom general in these areas> <the conflict became general> <we, the people of the United States, in order to ... promote the general welfare -- U.S. Constitution> b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects <general history>
4 : marked by broad overall character without being limited, modified, or checked by narrow precise considerations : concerned with main elements, major matters rather than limited details, or universals rather than particulars : approximate rather than strictly accurate <a general outline> <bearing a general resemblance to the original> <the rock formations of the state have a general northeast-southwest trend -- American Guide Series: New Hampshire>
5 : not confined by specialization or careful limitation : not limited to a particular class, type, or field : inclusive and manifesting or characterized by scope, diversity, or variety : BROAD, CATHOLIC, COMPREHENSIVE <a general drugstore> <a general surgeon>
6 : belonging to the common nature (as of a group of like individuals) : GENERIC <the general characteristics of a species> <long shaggy hair is general among bears>
...

(2)

Quote:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

(3)

Quote:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(4)

Quote:

Amendment X
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.

(5)

Quote:

Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution
...

(6)

Quote:

Article II.
...
Section 4. 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

(7)

Quote:

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; ...

0 Replies

Perhaps Leftist Liberals do not like answering questions, because they do not know why they believe what they say they believe. Perhaps, Leftist Liberals do not like answering questions, because they do not actually believe what they say they believe!
====================================================
You Leftist Liberals haven't yet answered my question! With which of the following claims do you agree and with which do you disagree? Why?

WE MUST:
1. Impeach and remove presidents who do not comply with their oath or affirmation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?

2. Limit Congress's powers to tax to those powers granted it by the Constitution, Article I, Section 8;

3. Continue the 2010 tax system until a simpler flatter and fairer tax can be adopted;

4. Rescind these federal expenditures
--Fanny & Freddie Mae
--Tarp and Stimulus
--Obama Healthcare
--Ear marks;

5. Close USA's borders to illegal immigration;

6. Permit drilling for oil off shore and in 19 hundred of the 19 million acres of ANWR.

7. Before submitting any bill for the president to sign, Congress shall specify wherein the Constitution Congress is granted the power to pass that bill;

8. Replace these federal expenditures with tax exemptions
--Medicare
--Medicare
--retirement insurance

9. Prohibit Congress from passing any law that
--requires a person to join a union in order to obtain any job
--denies employees in any shop secret ballots to vote in union elections;

10. Prohibit federal expenditures from exceeding federal expenditures without the approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures.

2 Replies

Okie,
I think conservative Republicans advocating the impeacment of Obama is a necessary condition for winning both houses of Congress in November. A great many people fear that just as there are RINOS (i.e., Republicans In Name Only) there are CINOS (i.e., Conservatives In Name Only). Unless their fears are specifically addressed and alleviated by Republican conservatives advocating specific changes to our current federal government, they will probably not bother to vote.

I recognize the impossibility of the November vote attaining the two-thirds conservative Republican majority in the Senate required to actually remove Obama before 2012. However, an impeachment hearing revealing all of Obama's violations of the Constitution will greatly increase the probability of getting rid of Obama in 2012. Furthermore, it will probably convince enough Senate Democrats that to win their own re-election in 2012, they better vote to remove Obama in 2011.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I share your desire to get Obama out of office as I too believe he is bad for the country. I think however that impeachment hearings would only raise the level of rancor and ill will that already exists between the parties, ican, and in the long run would be more of a sideshow and diversion from what really needs to get done.

What we really need to get done is overturning Obamacare, fixing the budget deficits and economic policies that would get our economy back on track, fixing our border security, and finally winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think an impeachment attempt would only sidetrack congressmen from what they really need to concentrate on, and it would raise the level of rancor and resentments that already exists in the political world. That is unfortunate, and I blame that situation upon primarily the Democratic Party that is more interested in their own party than they are in standing up for principles of right and wrong.

What made this country great in the past was both political parties had a first priority of standing for principles, but we no longer have that. I think we saw that die almost a complete death during the Clinton administration when we saw the Democrats circle the wagons around an obviously corrupt and sleezy Democrat president. In contrast, when Nixon was kicked out of office, it came to the point where some Republicans went into his office and said "pal, its time to go." Nothing like that happened with Clinton, in fact only one lousy Democrat of the whole bunch in Washington, Joseph Lieberman, dared to condemn the corruption and sleeziness of Clinton. And so now, we have a situation where Democrats will circle the wagons around Obama, no matter how illegal and corrupt some things could be shown in testimony and evidence.

Consider also that the media has much invested in Obama as a virtual messiah, and they will also circle the wagons and cooperate with each other to demonize and condemn any effort to uphold the law and impeach Obama. Remember, Obama is their darling still, and this will not change much or any, unless something really drastic happens to prove before all the world something very very damning against Obama. To us that are informed, there is plenty now, but not to the media that treats the man with kid gloves and still somehow believes he walks on water.

So we have the numbers if we run efficient campaigns this fall, which can defang Obama another 2 years, then we can sweep him out of office in the presidential election 2 years from now. It actually could turn out that leaving him in office might be the best thing that has ever happened to the Republican Party, because it exposes him and his party for their ineptness and incompetence for all the world to see.

3 Replies

@okie,

Overturning Obam care, for example, cannot happen absent two, two-thirds majorities to overcome Obama's vetos, but can happen absent Obama. Overturming Obama's illegal order to institute Cap and Trade cannot happen absent two, two-thirds majorities to overcome Obama's vetos, but can happen absent Obama.

With Obama in office, all non-two-thirds Republican majorities can do is annually refuse to grant funds for these illegal bills and orders. However, Obama will illegally fund whatever he wants whether that funding be legal or illegal.

The current level--and/or growing level--of rancor and ill will that will or already exists between the parties is irrelevant. What is relevant is finding ways for the Republicans to stop Obama from his thefts despite Democrat opposition. Impeaching Obama is a necessary beginning that must not be avoided for fear of more Democrat rancor. To hell with Democrat rancor. We've got a country to save and not Democrat rational talk to recover.

Enough Democrats who want to be re-elected in 2012 will support Obama's removal in 2011 if the Republicans make their case without apology and without concern for Democrat feelings.

CINOs are no more capable of stopping Obama than are RINOs! If we fail to convert RINOs and CINOs to real conservatism before November, it's bye bye USA. Getting rid of Obama is real conservatism because it is in strict accord with the Constituion of the USA, and will save the USA.

This is a war absent shooting! Fight it as a war absent shooting before it becomes a shooting war!

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Yes, but what are the odds of actually impeaching Obama, ican? I would estimate slim to none. Not only impeaching him, but removing him from office. He is not going to resign as Nixon did, no way on earth. It is not much more than something to dream about right now, in my opinion. One qualification to that opinion, unless something very significant and politically explosive that he does, or is uncovered or discovered.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Overturning Obam care, for example, cannot happen absent two, two-thirds majorities to overcome Obama's vetos, but can happen absent Obama. Overturming Obama's illegal order to institute Cap and Trade cannot happen absent two, two-thirds majorities to overcome Obama's vetos, but can happen absent Obama.

With Obama in office, all non-two-thirds Republican majorities can do is annually refuse to grant funds for these illegal bills and orders. However, Obama will illegally fund whatever he wants whether that funding be legal or illegal.

The GOP has a lot of motivation to put someone agaist Obama who is able to do well with moderates and independents, but will they do it? Seems like overturning what has been done would be more valuable than the thrills of watching a thug bloody up Obama , but who knows.

1 Reply

@okie,

You are waffling okie. You are not saying that it would be unconstitutional to impeach Obama under ican's argument. I think we can all see how much you hate the US Constitution okie since you are willing to let ican do to it what he is and you won't stand up to him.

I don't have to apologize okie because your actions clearly show you hate the Constitution. YOu won't stand up for it when it comes to ican's misrepresenting it.
You won't tell ican that "taxation" can't be theft under the Constitution.
YOu won't tell ican that impeachment for his reasons is not supported under the Constitution. Your actions speak quite loudly when it comes to the Constitution okie. It is clear you don't love it like you claim.

1 Reply

@parados,

All of okie's denials are amusing to say the least; he can't keep his story straight from one post to the next. He agrees with ican, but he doesn't. That's what most people call "confused."

1 Reply

@parados,

Wow! okie accused me of misquoting him when I cut and paste blocks of his type. I wonder if he is embarrassed by what he writes? As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon!"

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

This may be what ican has in mind when he mentions (but never discusses) people to take money away from those who rightfully earn it.

Just think of those Wal-Mart workers whose punch cards are marked down so the company can avoid paying overtime or the workers who sit without lunch day in and day out.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

That would be Sarah Palin, the head of the teaparty's teapots.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know