# To the Conservatives.



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 17, 2008)

Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks 

He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.

Give it a rest. Remember how much we have hated the petty bitching and moaning from the left for the last 8 years. Lets be better then those guys. Stick to facts and reality.

Obama will be appointing people to positions, that gives us ammo. He will be advancing his plan for the Country, more ammo. Chose the effective High Road and avod the easy mudslinging low road.

He is already side stepping promises. Attack him on THAT. Wait for the new Congress and point out all the bad decisions by the Democrats. In 2 years we can reclaim the Congress and in 4 we can put Obama out of office if he does all the idiotic things he has promised to do.

Crying about a Birth Certificate that the State has already said is valid is a waste of time. Complaining because he did not do what you would do with the death of his Grandmother is PETTY.

There are real issues to discuss. Though most we have to wait for him to actually start pushing them.


----------



## Annie (Nov 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks
> 
> He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.
> 
> ...




Well said and needed to be said.


----------



## Silence (Nov 17, 2008)

exactly.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Nov 17, 2008)

Thank you.  I agree.  We need to work together the get US ouf of the mess we are in.

The answer is not conservative or liberal alone. It lies somewhere in between.  Moderates will someday rule.

I will wait and see what he does before I applaud or attack.  You may just be suprised and find he actually helps get us a little further back on the path we were founded on.


----------



## Annie (Nov 17, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Thank you.  I agree.  We need to work together the get US ouf of the mess we are in.
> 
> The answer is not conservative or liberal alone. It lies somewhere in between.  Moderates will someday rule.
> 
> I will wait and see what he does before I applaud or attack.  You may just be suprised and find he actually helps get us a little further back on the path we were founded on.



None of us have a choice but to wait and see. You may be surprised at what he does. I hope not.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Nov 17, 2008)

You also may be surprised.  I hope so.


----------



## Silence (Nov 17, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> None of us have a choice but to wait and see. You may be surprised at what he does. I hope not.



I understand why, after the last 8 years, the Cons wouldn't trust what the President Elect has to say.  I mean we've had someone in office who said one thing and did another.  The skeptisim is well founded I'd say.  It must be difficult to have been fooled all these years and some probably feel it's better to go in doubtful that way if things don't work out they can claim they knew it all along....like the Libs have been able to do with Bush.  

My question is, will the Conservatives admit it if Obama does a good job?


----------



## strollingbones (Nov 17, 2008)

well said...


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 17, 2008)

I have to give you props for this RGS. 

I really don't think I, or any sane lefty, has ever attacked Bush on a highly personal level, like him not loving his daughters, wife, or grandparents.  I think its mostly been confined to him being an appalling idiot on policy issues like Iraq, Katrina, the economy, and tax cuts for the rich.    I think he is pretty dumb, and that might sound like a personal attack.  But, I generally think that means he's not up to the job, and is not nearly in the same intellectual ball field as most of our presidents in history.  I don't literally think he's as stupid as a kentucky hillbilly with a third grade education. 

I still think he looks like a chimpanzee.  But, that's all in good fun.  I think Obama with those huge ass ears, could be compared to dumbo the elephant and I wouldn't mind those kind of jokes.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 17, 2008)

I plan on giving BHO the same presumption of innocence and level of respect that Liberals gave GWB.


----------



## jillian (Nov 17, 2008)

glockmail said:


> I plan on giving BHO the same presumption of innocence and level of respect that Liberals gave GWB.



So I guess you have to be quiet until it appears that his buddy on the Supreme Court fixed the election.... And then be quiet again after he fakes us into a pretend war of choice?

Cool... that means we won't hear from you for a long while.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 17, 2008)

Nice Try RSG,, ask for one thing and whatta ya get? More Bush attacks.. 












si fybbt si vert fybbt!


----------



## editec (Nov 17, 2008)

Given that some of Obama's policies are likely to deeply offend real conservtives (or neo-cons) I fail to understand why people go on and on about issues of little importance.

I presume that it's easier to take hate radios specious complaints about things like Obama's birth cirtificate, and his knowing Ayers, because the posters who write those posts cannot understand the REAL issues well enough to post anything specific about them.


----------



## jillian (Nov 17, 2008)

oh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... I forgot we're not supposed to respond to idiots like glockie.

RGS's point was correct and well-stated ... but I already had to give him pos rep on another point he made yesterday and couldn't send him any this time. However, HE stated that you guys shouldn't sink to the behavior of the left.. so that opened things up to a response, since it didn't start with the left... it started with the impeachment of a popular sitting president, followed closely by a supreme court justice rendering a decision in favor of his hunting buddy from which he should have recused himself.

Follwed closely by lies about WMD's and a pretend war of choice that has, to date, left an Official DoD Count of: 

Troops Killed in Iraq: 4182
Troops Killed in Afghanistan: 621
Wounded in Action: 33355

Yay baby bush! Wooo Hoooo! And Brownie did a hell of a job!

http://www.iava.org/#


----------



## strollingbones (Nov 17, 2008)

rgs:

i rarely agree with you..as is our way...but with this thread....you make me proud of a fellow north carolinian...i hope our next president does well...anyone who bets against themselves is a fool...imho...  well said rgs...


----------



## glockmail (Nov 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> So I guess you have to be quiet until it appears that his buddy on the Supreme Court fixed the election.... And then be quiet again after he fakes us into a pretend war of choice?
> 
> Cool... that means we won't hear from you for a long while.


 Spoken like a true rabid liberal: 'Bush stole the election/ Bush lied people died'. 

With Obama I'm going to be asking for where all those $199 campaign donations came from, and why his birth certificate is sealed. Then I'm going to ask why the troops ain't home from Iraq yet, and where he's going to hide the prisoners after he shuts down Gitmo....


----------



## random3434 (Nov 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks
> 
> He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.
> 
> ...




Excellent points RGS!


----------



## jillian (Nov 17, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Spoken like a true rabid liberal: 'Bush stole the election/ Bush lied people died'.
> 
> With Obama I'm going to be asking for where all those $199 campaign donations came from, and why his birth certificate is sealed. Then I'm going to ask why the troops ain't home from Iraq yet, and where he's going to hide the prisoners after he shuts down Gitmo....



I'm sorry, was Scalia not Cheney's hunting buddy. Where I come from, you have to be ethically challenged to preside over a case affecting a friend's right. People get disbarred for that stuff.... it's called "appearance of impropriety".

But then again, given what I know about Scalia's handling of other matters, his ethics are in the toilet anyway.

Were there WMD's? Or was the intel faked? 

Now go back and play with the other children.

I rest my case.

And you're not one to call anyone rabid.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> I'm sorry, was Scalia not Cheney's hunting buddy. Where I come from, you have to be ethically challenged to preside over a case affecting a friend's right. People get disbarred for that stuff.... it's called "appearance of impropriety".
> 
> But then again, given what I know about Scalia's handling of other matters, his ethics are in the toilet anyway.
> 
> ...



SCOTUS overturned the Florida Court due to their obvious breech of federal election law, remember? If you believe Bush lied about WMDs then you must also believe that Saddam told the truth. Thanks again for demonstrating why I say "Liberals are Liars".


----------



## bigdaddygtr (Nov 17, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Thank you.  I agree.  We need to work together the get US ouf of the mess we are in.
> 
> The answer is not conservative or liberal alone. It lies somewhere in between.  Moderates will someday rule.
> 
> I will wait and see what he does before I applaud or attack.  You may just be suprised and find he actually helps get us a little further back on the path we were founded on.




Thats not what he's saying.  There is nothing Sarg said that was by partisan.  He wants to win and is gonna be screaming the entire time trying to find negative things.  I don't applaud any of this, but I'd say that (for some reason) he believes in the Conservative ideology(or lack thereof) and knows how to get it back.

Oh, and Sarg, give it up, you're not taking over the Presidency in 4 years unless some Conservative nutjob assassinates Obama.  Though, you might have a shot at Congress in 4 years


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 17, 2008)

Since I'm not a conservative, I can still bitch and moan about his dead grandmother and his Kenyan birth.  Yippee!!!!!!


----------



## bigdaddygtr (Nov 17, 2008)

Echo Zulu said:


> Excellent points RGS!



I really don't think you REALLY read what he wrote.  Read it again


----------



## Turboswede (Nov 17, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> I have to give you props for this RGS.
> 
> I really don't think I, or any sane lefty, has ever attacked Bush on a highly personal level, like him not loving his daughters, wife, or grandparents.  I think its mostly been confined to him being an appalling idiot on policy issues like Iraq, Katrina, the economy, and tax cuts for the rich.    I think he is pretty dumb, and that might sound like a personal attack.  But, I generally think that means he's not up to the job, and is not nearly in the same intellectual ball field as most of our presidents in history.  I don't literally think he's as stupid as a kentucky hillbilly with a third grade education.
> 
> I still think he looks like a chimpanzee.  But, that's all in good fun.  I think Obama with those huge ass ears, could be compared to dumbo the elephant and I wouldn't mind those kind of jokes.



In all honesty we Lefties did point out that W. was a cocaine snorting, drunk driving, billionaire playboy idiot long before he was elected, thats kind of personal, right?


----------



## random3434 (Nov 17, 2008)

bigdaddygtr said:


> I really don't think you REALLY read what he wrote.  Read it again



I read (into) what he was saying was to the right wingers:

_quit your bitching about this, that and the other until you have something to bitch about. If he fails at things WHILE he is president, then you can bitch. But he's not even in office yet, so until then, STFU!_

Am I wrong in this assessement of what RGS is saying?


----------



## bigdaddygtr (Nov 17, 2008)

Echo Zulu said:


> I read (into) what he was saying was to the right wingers:
> 
> _quit your bitching about this, that and the other until you have something to bitch about. If he fails at things WHILE he is president, then you can bitch. But he's not even in office yet, so until then, STFU!_
> 
> Am I wrong in this assessement of what RGS is saying?



No, not on that, and I would applaud him if thats ALL he said, but his motives for that is that he's going to be another Rush Limbaugh and I don't respect that


----------



## rayboyusmc (Nov 17, 2008)

> If you believe Bush lied about WMDs then you must also believe that Saddam told the truth.



Bull crap as usual and faulty logic.  Saddam was a liar also, but you conveniently fail to mention that the weapons inspectors told US that the WMDs didn't exist to any extent when Bush wanted to attack Iraq.  Did we find any?

You must be one of those 20 some percent who still believe Iraq attacked US on 9-11.


----------



## DavidS (Nov 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.



Which policies do you believe "suck?"


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 17, 2008)

DavidS said:


> Which policies do you believe "suck?"





name one that dosen't


----------



## glockmail (Nov 17, 2008)

gayboymsnbc said:


> Bull crap as usual and faulty logic.  Saddam was a liar also, but you conveniently fail to mention that the weapons inspectors told US that the WMDs didn't exist to any extent when Bush wanted to attack Iraq. Did we find any?....



Saddam said he had no WMDs, so if he lied than that meant that he had them.


----------



## Jon (Nov 17, 2008)

Silence said:


> I mean we've had someone in office who said one thing and did another.



No, we've had someone in office for the last 219 years that said one thing and did another. What's laughable is that liberals think Obama will be different. Already, two weeks into his election, he's proving to be more of the same.


----------



## Turboswede (Nov 17, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Saddam said he had no WMDs, so if he lied than that meant that he had them.



Saddam was always kind of ambigious on the subject as he didn't want Iran to invade a weakend Iraq.


----------



## Annie (Nov 17, 2008)

bigdaddygtr said:


> Thats not what he's saying.  There is nothing Sarg said that was by partisan.  He wants to win and is gonna be screaming the entire time trying to find negative things.  I don't applaud any of this, but I'd say that (for some reason) he believes in the Conservative ideology(or lack thereof) and knows how to get it back.
> 
> Oh, and Sarg, give it up, you're not taking over the Presidency in 4 years unless some Conservative nutjob assassinates Obama.  Though, you might have a shot at Congress in 4 years



I don't think you were reading RGunny all that well. His take seems to be mine, let's nail him on what he does do, if he does something worthy. He already has with his malaise speech over the weekend, something we may look forward to each weekend, from the office of the PE. Then there was the private Poland talk and the public Russia talk, very confusing. There were taxes to be raised on the rich, but not so much so anymore. Getting people out of Gitmo, well maybe not ALL of them. 

As someone said, he hasn't even taken office yet. 

What the conservatives must not do, IMO and I think what RGS was saying, is hammer on the peripheral things like the nonsense over draft registration or birth certificate. The election IS over, he will be president for at least 4 years.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks
> 
> He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.
> 
> ...



This is exactly the reason why the Republican party is falling apart.  Tear down the people who share the same beliefs, to what benefit.

You are entitled to your opinion, just as the next person, hence this thread.

But, that's one of the reasons why McCain didn't win.  He thought he was too high-minded to really go after Obama.  What elected official people do in their personal life speaks to their character.  I think the American public learned this lesson with former president, Bill Clinton.

Barack Obama will be my president and I will support him even though I voted for McCain.  I have every right to judge him.  I will say when he does well and I will also speak when he doesn't.  He's a public official and this is something he expects.

We are all frustrated by the state of the country, but I wouldn't vent my own frustration by lashing out at my sisters and brothers.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 17, 2008)

jillian said:


> So I guess you have to be quiet until it appears that his buddy on the Supreme Court fixed the election.... And then be quiet again after he fakes us into a pretend war of choice?
> 
> Cool... that means we won't hear from you for a long while.



Not quite...we'll say nothing now that the USSC has put the Fla. SC in its place by not allowing them the change election rules just because the outcome didn't suit the Democrats in 2000....

As for your other point...do you need me to post the Dem. quotes about Iraq and Suddam and WMD between 1996 and 2001.....before Bush took office...?
We can compare what the Dims said then with what Bush in 2001/2002


----------



## Annie (Nov 17, 2008)

PoliticalChic said:


> This is exactly the reason why the Republican party is falling apart.  Tear down the people who share the same beliefs, to what benefit.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, just as the next person, hence this thread.
> 
> ...


I hear you, but I feel an obligation to my sisters and brothers to call them when they are projecting stupid and best and imitative at worst. How many years of insanity about Bush/Hitler, Bush/Chimp, Bush/Mission Accomplished, Bush/Cheney bots? In this case imitation is not flattery, just stupid.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 17, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I hear you, but I feel an obligation to my sisters and brothers to call them when they are projecting stupid and best and imitative at worst. How many years of insanity about Bush/Hitler, Bush/Chimp, Bush/Mission Accomplished, Bush/Cheney bots? In this case imitation is not flattery, just stupid.



Kathianne, please clarify.  If this applies to me, please explain how.  I haven't used any imprications.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 17, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I hear you, but I feel an obligation to my sisters and brothers to call them when they are projecting stupid and best and imitative at worst. How many years of insanity about Bush/Hitler, Bush/Chimp, Bush/Mission Accomplished, Bush/Cheney bots? In this case imitation is not flattery, just stupid.





And just think. We will be forevermore deprived of the opportunity to see what they could have done with McCain/Palin..


----------



## Annie (Nov 17, 2008)

PoliticalChic said:


> Kathianne, please clarify.  If this applies to me, please explain how.  I haven't used any imprications.



You were replying to RGS, I was replying to your reply to him. I'm getting dizzy. We're in agreement.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 18, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> And just think. We will be forevermore deprived of the opportunity to see what they could have done with McCain/Palin..


the point is, its time to move on, lets keep an eye on what is actually happening and not the silly stuff like the dems did for 8 years


----------



## bigdaddygtr (Nov 18, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> And just think. We will be forevermore deprived of the opportunity to see what they could have done with McCain/Palin..



Deprived?  I think you mean saved from Grampa McNasty and, well, the moron


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> the point is, its time to move on, lets keep an eye on what is actually happening and not the silly stuff like the dems did for 8 years



Dive Con with all due respect,, all the things and policy stances that I was against in Obama did not magically disappear when he was elected. I don't waste my time taking about his birth certificate or his granny or his daddy,,, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and Farrakam still matter though as do his policy leanings.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

bigdaddygtr said:


> Deprived?  I think you mean saved from Grampa McNasty and, well, the moron






You've made my case very nicely thank you.


----------



## jillian (Nov 18, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and Farrakam still matter though as do his policy leanings.



No. They don't. And that was one of the places where the repubs messed up their campaign. They are only relevant IF there is going to be an effect upon POLICY caused by the associations you're referencing.

Farrakhan is disgusting. He must be losing his mind that Obama picked Rahm as Chief of Staff. Personally, I derive great pleasure from that thought.

Ayers and Rezko are irrelevancies.... BECAUSE they have no affect on policy.

His political "leanings" are relevant in determining who you are going to vote for, however, should be somewhat based in reality.... yet another place where the repubs messed up their campaign. At this point, though, his "leanings" aren't particularly relevant. The REALITY of what he does is... and that's certainly fair subject for discussion.... for disagreement if necessary and agreement if appropriate. (And you never know, you might actually agree with at least *something* he does).


----------



## glockmail (Nov 18, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> Saddam was always kind of ambigious on the subject as he didn't want Iran to invade a weakend Iraq.


 Wow that's a stretch. Isn't this the same guy that flew his best fighter jets to Iran at the onset of GW1? If that was his concern then he could have said so. There is no ambiguity in leading weapons inspectors on a wild goose chase for ten years.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 18, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> And just think. We will be forevermore deprived of the opportunity to see what they could have done with McCain/Palin..


 nope, they are still doing it
case in point


bigdaddygtr said:


> Deprived? I think you mean saved from Grampa McNasty and, well, the moron


----------



## Turboswede (Nov 18, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Wow that's a stretch. Isn't this the same guy that flew his best fighter jets to Iran at the onset of GW1? If that was his concern then he could have said so. There is no ambiguity in leading weapons inspectors on a wild goose chase for ten years.



I knew you were going to say that....


----------



## glockmail (Nov 18, 2008)

Turboswede said:


> I knew you were going to say that....


 When you pull the trigger on a loaded Glock it always goes "bang".


----------



## chrismac (Dec 20, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks
> 
> He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.

So I guess you'd back us up if we told liberals in CA that they voted twice, and they don't want legalized gay marriage. So they should also stop with the court cases and the protests, right? I mean. If we're just going to accept reality and "deal with it."

Right?


----------



## Gunny (Dec 20, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks
> 
> He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.
> 
> ...



I don't necessarily disagree with you but do you honestly believe taking the high road will actually change the behavior of the left?  

I don't see it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 21, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Saddam said he had no WMDs, so if he lied than that meant that he had them.



LOL!  With logic like that, you might graduate the third grade. Again, you might not.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 21, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Spoken like a true rabid liberal: 'Bush stole the election/ Bush lied people died'.
> 
> With Obama I'm going to be asking for where all those $199 campaign donations came from, and why his birth certificate is sealed. Then I'm going to ask why the troops ain't home from Iraq yet, and where he's going to hide the prisoners after he shuts down Gitmo....



#1.   True

#2    True

#3     American citizens.

#4.    His Birth Certificate has been examined by every authority that     matters and has been shown to be valid.

#5.   The troops will be home as soon as is safely possible.

#6.   Given the lack of evidence against most of them, they will probably be released back to their homelands. the failure of this administration to use any kind of judgement in who they brought to Gitmo, and on what kind of charges, has essentially poisoned any attempt of just prosecution. And then there is the matter of torture.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2008)

chrismac said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> So I guess you'd back us up if we told liberals in CA that they voted twice, and they don't want legalized gay marriage. So they should also stop with the court cases and the protests, right? I mean. If we're just going to accept reality and "deal with it."
> 
> Right?



Actually yes the people have voted on the issue. As is their right under California law and their Constitution. The Court has no recourse unless they wish to violate the Constitution of the State.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 21, 2008)

Gunny said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with you but do you honestly believe taking the high road will actually change the behavior of the left?
> 
> I don't see it.



Of course not. Every time you neo-cons shred the Constitution, we will tell you about it. Every time you try to lie us into an unneccessary war, we will expose the lies. Every time that you fools tell us the economy is fundementally strong, a day before the market goes into a total meltdown, we remind you as to what fools you truly are.

You 'Conservatives' have had eight years in which you totally FUBARed every single thing attempted. The repudiation you just recieved at the ballot box is evidence of just how most Americans feel about the last eight years. Now it will probably cost us another eight years, just to dig out of the crud you people created in the last eight years. That is what happened in the last Great Republican Depression. That is probably what it will take in the Second Great Republican Depression.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> #1.   True
> 
> #2    True
> 
> ...



Wrong as usual. the remaining Prisoners are the ones we know are who we want, all the rest have been released. But you keep believing that crap, we might as well surrender now and all convert to Islam with people like you trying to tell us what to believe.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong as usual. the remaining Prisoners are the ones we know are who we want, all the rest have been released. But you keep believing that crap, we might as well surrender now and all convert to Islam with people like you trying to tell us what to believe.



And people like you that told us, and continue to tell us, what a great President Bush has been, have advanced the interests of this nation? You have brought us two failed wars. Failure to capture or kill a man that masterminded the deaths of 3000 American Citizens on American soil. An economic debacle that will be a Depression even before Bush is out of office. Our Oregon National Guard has less than half it's equipment left. Many of our Guardsmen have been to Iraq or Afghanistan three or even more times. They will be returning to an economy in which they will hard put to find work, after sacrificing so much for their nation. 

Hell, for those wounded, it was only when the Democrats took the majority in Congress that the mistreatment of our wounded Vets at Walter Reed was exposed and remedied. Your Bushie baby has shorted our Vets at every oppetunity.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 21, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> And people like you that told us, and continue to tell us, what a great President Bush has been, have advanced the interests of this nation? You have brought us two failed wars. Failure to capture or kill a man that masterminded the deaths of 3000 American Citizens on American soil. An economic debacle that will be a Depression even before Bush is out of office. Our Oregon National Guard has less than half it's equipment left. Many of our Guardsmen have been to Iraq or Afghanistan three or even more times. They will be returning to an economy in which they will hard put to find work, after sacrificing so much for their nation.
> 
> Hell, for those wounded, it was only when the Democrats took the majority in Congress that the mistreatment of our wounded Vets at Walter Reed was exposed and remedied. Your Bushie baby has shorted our Vets at every oppetunity.



More lies from the left, I suggest that rather then spout liberal talking points you fucking check facts you dumb shit. You have made a statement, now prove it. First prove I have ever heaped praise on Bush, then find actual evidence that Walter Reed was not taken care of before January 2006. Fucking lying piece of stupid shit.


----------



## garyd (Dec 21, 2008)

Based on his appointments so far it would seem his first hundred days are going to be a real pisser for both those on the far left and the far right. Too bad the truth doesn't lie in the middle.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> More lies from the left, I suggest that rather then spout liberal talking points you fucking check facts you dumb shit. You have made a statement, now prove it. First prove I have ever heaped praise on Bush, then find actual evidence that Walter Reed was not taken care of before January 2006. Fucking lying piece of stupid shit.



You filthy lying bastard. Were you ever actually a member of the military? Why then are you supporting those that care nothing for our military personel?

Initial exposure
Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Washington Post published a series of articles beginning February 18, 2007, outlining cases of neglect at Walter Reed reported by wounded soldiers and their family members.[1] Although the article focused primarily on Building 18, a former hotel building just outside the post's main gates, authors Dana Priest and Anne Hull also included complaints about "disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked managers" that make navigating the already complicated bureaucracy to obtain medical care at WRAMC even more daunting. Although Army officials claimed to be surprised at these conditions, a Salon.com series beginning in January 2005 had previously exposed them. [2] Two members of Congress, C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla, and Tom Davis, R-Va, admitted they had been briefed on the matter in 2004 but did not investigate the matter to avoid embarrassing the Army.[3] In 2004 and 2005, articles appeared in the Post and in Salon interviewing First Lt. Julian Goodrum about his court martial for seeking medical care elsewhere due to poor conditions at WRAMC. [4][5]


----------



## Modbert (Dec 21, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually yes the people have voted on the issue. As is their right under California law and their Constitution. The Court has no recourse unless they wish to violate the Constitution of the State.



Ahh Democracy.

As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

Or Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

In other words, the majority always rule over the miniority.

Some other interesting quotes:

"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." - George Bernard Shaw

"Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven." - H.L Mencken

"Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is ignorant." - John Simon

"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame." - Laurence J Peter.

"Democracy, as has been said of Christianity, has never really been tried."- Stuart Chase


----------



## Gunny (Dec 21, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Of course not. Every time you neo-cons shred the Constitution, we will tell you about it. Every time you try to lie us into an unneccessary war, we will expose the lies. Every time that you fools tell us the economy is fundementally strong, a day before the market goes into a total meltdown, we remind you as to what fools you truly are.
> 
> You 'Conservatives' have had eight years in which you totally FUBARed every single thing attempted. The repudiation you just recieved at the ballot box is evidence of just how most Americans feel about the last eight years. Now it will probably cost us another eight years, just to dig out of the crud you people created in the last eight years. That is what happened in the last Great Republican Depression. That is probably what it will take in the Second Great Republican Depression.



In other words, every time someone on the right does something you leftwingnuts don't like you are going to make up a bunch of bullshit accusations.

The only fool I see here is the one assuming someone else is a "neo-con" then insulting him for it.

Got news for you, jackass ... YOU have more in common with a neocon than I do.


----------



## Gaar (Dec 21, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> #4.    His Birth Certificate has been examined by every authority that     matters and has been shown to be valid.





From another Board...


On Oct. 31, after being inundated by requests for more details about Obamas birth records, Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said she and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, had personally verified that the Health Department possesses Obama's original birth certificate.

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obamas original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures," Fukino said.

 The cryptic and carefully-worded statement offered no true details of the birth certificate, and leads to more questions than answers among critics. In July, when Barack Obamas Certification of Live Birth was first distributed publically on the internet, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo simply asserted to the St. Petersburg Times, its a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.

 Although officials are on record that there is an original birth certificate held by the state, and that it is correctly filed according to Hawaii state directives. However, the specifics of the type of birth certificate records on file, with modifications, as well as the details and accounts of witnesses, is still unknown at this time.

Credibility of the "Certification of Live Birth"

The computer-generated Certification of Live Birth was first used in November 2001 to allow the State of Hawaii to pull up birth records quicker for people requesting a birth certificate in person. At the very bottom of the form are the words, This copy serves as prima facia evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding. [HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]."

However, despite this written notice on the form, some Hawaii state agencies do not accept the Certification of Live Birth as irrefutable verification of Hawaiian birth. There have been numerous cases when the Hawaii Family Court System required more detailed data for paternity suits. Additionally, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands provides the following guidelines to Hawaiian natives applying for Hawaiian Home Lands homestead:

The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:
- A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
- A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
- A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.

In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL. (emphasis added)

Additionally, the Certification of Live Birth is not recognized by many Federal agencies. DoD 5220.22-M, the "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information released or disclosed to industry. Unified Facilities Guide Specifications, section 1.5.22.2 allows for a total of 18 different means to verify US citizenship, ranging from a military ID card to even a Hawaii certificate of foreign birth. The Certification of Live Birth is not on the list of approved documents acceptable for proof of Citizenship.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 18, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Ahh Democracy.
> 
> As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
> 
> ...


Good thing we aren't a Democracy then, isn't it!!!!

I guess our Founding Fathers made us a Constitutional Republic for a reason.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Good thing we aren't a Democracy then, isn't it!!!!
> 
> I guess our Founding Fathers made us a Constitutional Republic for a reason.



Absolutely, now if only our government would actually follow the Constitution.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Absolutely, now if only our government would actually follow the Constitution.



Wait two days.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Wait two days.


ROFLMAO

you REALLY believe that?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Wait two days.



All evidence to the contrary, I hope you're correct.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ROFLMAO
> 
> you REALLY believe that?



So you think Obama is going to violate the Constitution the way Bush did. And you base this on...

What?

Gaar's delusions about Obama's birth certificate?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> So you think Obama is going to violate the Constitution the way Bush did. And you base this on...
> 
> What?
> 
> Gaar's delusions about Obama's birth certificate?


yes, i fully expect him to violate the constitution just as much as Bush did

and dont tie me in with gaars delusions


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> yes, i fully expect him to violate the constitution just as much as Bush did
> 
> and dont tie me in with gaars delusions



Same question -- you base this on what?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Same question -- you base this on what?



Well he voted for the FISA Amendments which would seem to suggest that as President he intends to continue Bush's policy of spying on Americans, for one.  Another example would be his voting for bailing out failed businesses, which the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to do in the first place.  To add to that, the bailouts were voted on by the Senate before they were approved by the House despite the Constitution saying that all money appropriations must first pass the House.  Whether he agreed with the bailouts or not, he should have voted them down based on that fact alone.

My guess would be that, as President, he intends to circumvent the Constitution as he sees fit, just as he has done as a Senator.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

First, you need to differentiate between legal and illegal wiretaps. Conducted properly, the taps are Constitutional and legal. 

Second, the general welfare clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to do almost anything it damn well pleases, to include bailing out banks. 

Third, the bailout plan and the bailout appropriation are two different things. 

Obama studied law at Harvard. He knows the Constitution pretty good. 



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well he voted for the FISA Amendments which would seem to suggest that as President he intends to continue Bush's policy of spying on Americans, for one.  Another example would be his voting for bailing out failed businesses, which the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to do in the first place.  To add to that, the bailouts were voted on by the Senate before they were approved by the House despite the Constitution saying that all money appropriations must first pass the House.  Whether he agreed with the bailouts or not, he should have voted them down based on that fact alone.
> 
> My guess would be that, as President, he intends to circumvent the Constitution as he sees fit, just as he has done as a Senator.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Same question -- you base this on what?


past precident
nearly every POTUS in the last 40 years has violated the constitution in several ways
i dont expect Obama to do any different


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> First, you need to differentiate between legal and illegal wiretaps. Conducted properly, the taps are Constitutional and legal.
> 
> *Second, the general welfare clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to do almost anything it damn well pleases, to include bailing out banks*.
> 
> ...


actually, it doesnt


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> First, you need to differentiate between legal and illegal wiretaps. Conducted properly, the taps are Constitutional and legal.



"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, *and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated*, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

Doesn't sound Constitutional to me.  You'll have to find where the Constitution gives the authority to spy on the American people because I certainly can't.



> Second, the general welfare clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to do almost anything it damn well pleases, to include bailing out banks.



Well if that is what the general welfare clause was actually intended to do then I submit that there was absolutely no point in creating a Constitution for our country in the first place, because government could then do whatever it wanted.  So I doubt that was the intention of the founders who were, for the most part, distrustful of an all-powerful government.



> Third, the bailout plan and the bailout appropriation are two different things.



I am speaking about the original vote as to whether is was necessary to make $700 billion available for banks.  It was unconstitutional for the Senate to vote on it before the House had approved it, and everyone knew that.  It is evident that they knew this because they had to attach the bailout plan to another piece of legislation to hide what they were doing.



> Obama studied law at Harvard. He knows the Constitution pretty good.



I'm sure he does, and I haven't said that he doesn't know it very well.  I have said that he has ignored it in the past, and given proof, and that he will probably ignore it in the future.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> actually, it doesnt



I'd like to rep you for this, but I can't.  So I'll simply say that you are absolutely correct.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> past precident
> nearly every POTUS in the last 40 years has violated the constitution in several ways
> i dont expect Obama to do any different



Nonsense.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Nonsense.



No, it's actually not.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Nonsense.


if you could take off those partisan glasses for a whiloe you might be able to understand
either that or seek out professional help for your ABDS


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> actually, it doesnt



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.


You wanna argue, argue with James Madison.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> if you could take off those partisan glasses for a whiloe you might be able to understand
> either that or seek out professional help for your ABDS



Sources? Links?


Or is that all you have left, insults?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
> 
> 
> You wanna argue, argue with James Madison.


if you are going to quote, you should make sure you are quoting it correctly
you did not


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Sources? Links?
> 
> 
> Or is that all you have left, insults?


you are proving you are not worth the effort, you get what you deserve

if you think that only Bush has violated the constitution, you are either a partisan moron, or you are seriously delusional


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> you are proving you are not worth the effort, you get what you deserve
> 
> if you think that only Bush has violated the constitution, you are either a partisan moron, or you are seriously delusional



Nice try. When did I ever say that *only *Bush violated the Constitution. The Fallacy of the Straw Man argument. Busted!

Second, my quote was cut and pasted directly from the Constitution. Ignoratio elenchi, otherwise known as the Fallacy of Evasion. And a dishonest one at that. 

Third -- delusional, not worth the effort, moron....The Fallacy of the Ad Hominem Attack. Otherwise known as infantile insults. 


Wow. It's not every day that a guy finds three different ways to lose an argument all in a couple of posts.

Better luck next time!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

Feel free to respond to my earlier post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/64386-to-the-conservatives-5.html#post998644


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Nice try. When did I ever say that *only *Bush violated the Constitution. The Fallacy of the Straw Man argument. Busted!
> 
> Second, my quote was cut and pasted directly from the Constitution. Ignoratio elenchi, otherwise known as the Fallacy of Evasion. And a dishonest one at that.
> 
> ...



You had an argument?  Oops ... the fallacy of delusional thinking ... busted.

Just what we need here.  Yet another one that can't address an argument so has to attack the poster's style of argument.  B-o-r-i-n-g.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Wait two days.



Dream on.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Nice try. When did I ever say that *only *Bush violated the Constitution. The Fallacy of the Straw Man argument. Busted!
> 
> Second, my quote was cut and pasted directly from the Constitution. Ignoratio elenchi, otherwise known as the Fallacy of Evasion. And a dishonest one at that.
> 
> ...


sorry, it wasnt directly from the US Constitution



> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


 THAT is


what ever source you copied from, is in error

here is MY source
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html



oops, i see you quoted from article 1 section 8 clause 1


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> So you think Obama is going to violate the Constitution the way Bush did. And you base this on...
> 
> What?
> 
> Gaar's delusions about Obama's birth certificate?



How about absolute power corrupts absolutely?

If the President merely follows Congress and all the signing statements and caveats created to circumvent the Constitution, he will be in violation of the Constitution.  

It's really not any tougher than that.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well he voted for the FISA Amendments which would seem to suggest that as President he intends to continue Bush's policy of spying on Americans, for one.  Another example would be his voting for bailing out failed businesses, which the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to do in the first place.  To add to that, the bailouts were voted on by the Senate before they were approved by the House despite the Constitution saying that all money appropriations must first pass the House.  Whether he agreed with the bailouts or not, he should have voted them down based on that fact alone.
> 
> My guess would be that, as President, he intends to circumvent the Constitution as he sees fit, just as he has done as a Senator.



I agree with your first two, not the last.  The Senate can in fact originate it's own legislation.  If it contains funding, it has to be then submitted through the House.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> First, you need to differentiate between legal and illegal wiretaps. Conducted properly, the taps are Constitutional and legal.
> 
> Second, the general welfare clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to do almost anything it damn well pleases, to include bailing out banks.
> 
> ...



You base that last sentence on WHAT?  Don't state your opinion as fact.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Nonsense.



Wrong.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Nice try. When did I ever say that *only *Bush violated the Constitution. The Fallacy of the Straw Man argument. Busted!
> 
> *Second, my quote was cut and pasted directly from the Constitution. Ignoratio elenchi, otherwise known as the Fallacy of Evasion. And a dishonest one at that. *
> 
> ...






Oh really? It was? Then they get an *F* for spelling too.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
> 
> 
> You wanna argue, argue with James Madison.



James Madison isn't arguing, YOU are.  In context, paying the debts of the United States of America is NOT paying the debts of private business within the US, or the debts of individuals within the US.  

"General welfare" is about as vague as it gets, and if you think robbing taxpayers so corporate failures can continue to collect exhorbitant salaries and bonuses, I suggest you rethink your fallacious ideology.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> You had an argument?  Oops ... the fallacy of delusional thinking ... busted.
> 
> Just what we need here.  Yet another one that can't address an argument so has to attack the poster's style of argument.  B-o-r-i-n-g.



Bullcrap. 

He claimed that nearly every president has violated the Constitution, and then didn't back it up.
He claimed my reading of the Constitution was wrong, and I shot him down using the text from the Constitution itself. 
He tried to put words in my mouth, and I shot him down. 
He tried an evasion, and I shot him down. 
He tried insults, and I shot him down. 

I can get you a souvenir scorecard of the game if you want. I win, he loses.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Bullcrap.
> 
> He claimed that nearly every president has violated the Constitution, and then didn't back it up.
> He claimed my reading of the Constitution was wrong, and I shot him down using the text from the Constitution itself.
> ...


you shot nothing down, moron


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> James Madison isn't arguing, YOU are.  In context, paying the debts of the United States of America is NOT paying the debts of private business within the US, or the debts of individuals within the US.
> 
> "General welfare" is about as vague as it gets, and if you think robbing taxpayers so corporate failures can continue to collect exhorbitant salaries and bonuses, I suggest you rethink your fallacious ideology.



One more time:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts *and *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.


The paying of debts and the providing for the general welfare are in different parts of the sentence. It's called parallel construction. You'll need to read a little more closely. 

If you want to argue that it's bad policy, be my guest. But if you want to argue that it's unconstitutional, then sorry, the Constitution doesn't back you up on that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I agree with your first two, not the last.  The Senate can in fact originate it's own legislation.  If it contains funding, it has to be then submitted through the House.



"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." - Article 1, Section 7 United States Constitution

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I

I take this to mean that the Senate may not vote on the legislation until it passes the House, and the bailouts had not passed the House until after it passed the Senate.  Also, since they hid the bailouts within a completely separate piece of legislation I assume that they take the same meaning that I do.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> you shot nothing down, moron



I'm new here. Do you get extra bonus points for juvenile insults? Only reason I can think of, why he keeps doing it, after he's already lost the fight.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> One more time:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts *and *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
> 
> ...



The bailouts were not a debt of the United States, they were propping up failed businesses at the expense of the taxpayers.  And the general welfare clause was not meant to be a free pass for the government to do anything it pleases.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> I'm new here. Do you get extra bonus points for juvenile insults? Only reason I can think of, why he keeps doing it, after he's already lost the fight.


when someone proves that facts dont mean anything to them, i call them a moron, you fit the bill


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The bailouts were not a debt of the United States, they were propping up failed businesses at the expense of the taxpayers.  And the general welfare clause was not meant to be a free pass for the government to do anything it pleases.


exactly
promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING FOR IT


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> One more time:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts *and *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
> 
> ...





I cannot believe you repeated this. What in God's name are imposts?


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The bailouts were not a debt of the United States, they were propping up failed businesses at the expense of the taxpayers.  And the general welfare clause was not meant to be a free pass for the government to do anything it pleases.



Yet again, the debt part of the clause, and the general welfare part of the clause are two different powers of Congress. And no one is arguing that Congress should do whatever they please -- but the clause does provide a great deal of leeway. And that's even before we get to the interstate commerce clause -- 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

-- which has also been very broadly interpreted by Congress, to empower them to do a whole lot of things which the Founding Fathers never envisioned. 

Yet again: I am not saying they *should *do some of the things they're considering. I am saying that if they decide to, they *can*.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> when someone proves that facts dont mean anything to them, i call them a moron, you fit the bill



I beat you with the text of the Constitution. You lost fair and square. Whine all you want.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> I cannot believe you repeated this. What in God's name are imposts?



It's a kind of tax. 

Clearly I am going to have to give Civics lessons to the whole class. 

Are you *complaining *that I am using the Constitution to back my argument??


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Yet again, the debt part of the clause, and the general welfare part of the clause are two different powers of Congress. And no one is arguing that Congress should do whatever they please -- but the clause does provide a great deal of leeway. And that's even before we get to the interstate commerce clause --



That's great that they're two different powers of Congress, but they still don't apply to the bailouts in any way shape or form.



> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
> 
> -- which has also been very broadly interpreted by Congress, to empower them to do a whole lot of things which the Founding Fathers never envisioned.
> 
> Yet again: I am not saying they *should *do some of the things they're considering. I am saying that if they decide to, they *can*.



Just because Congress _can_ do something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> I beat you with the text of the Constitution. You lost fair and square. Whine all you want.


only you failed
you tried
but you never did so
i guess you are the female version of chris/kirk


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> exactly
> promoting the general welfare is not PROVIDING FOR IT



In terms of interpreting the Constitution, they mean the same thing. 

In terms of policy -- that's different. You can argue policy all you want. But you can't argue that it's unconstitutional.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Yes, they do, if Congress decides they do. 

And your second statement makes no sense -- the Constitution is where Congress gets its power from, so if they can do it, constitutionally, they can do it. You're making a distinction which is entirely meaningless. 



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> That's great that they're two different powers of Congress, but they still don't apply to the bailouts in any way shape or form.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Congress _can_ do something doesn't mean it's Constitutional.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> only you failed
> you tried
> but you never did so
> i guess you are the female version of chris/kirk



Um, yeah. 
Clearly you've been out of ammo for quite some time.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> In terms of interpreting the Constitution, they mean the same thing.
> 
> In terms of policy -- that's different. You can argue policy all you want. But you can't argue that it's unconstitutional.



It can be argued that something is unconstitutional because the general welfare clause doesn't really mean anything.  Unless a power is specifically stated in the Constitution then the federal government does not have authority to use that power.

To argue that the general welfare clause allows for implied powers, as Alexander Hamilton argued, is to say that the Constitution allows the federal government to do anything that it wants.  Which is absolutely incorrect.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Yes, they do, if Congress decides they do.



So Congress gets to decide what is Constitutional?  That would mean Congress could do anything it wants, and that is not the case.



> And your second statement makes no sense -- the Constitution is where Congress gets its power from, so if they can do it, constitutionally, they can do it. You're making a distinction which is entirely meaningless.



No, if Congress can do something then that means that nobody is stopping them or questioning the Constitutionality of what they're doing.  That doesn't mean that what they're doing is allowed by the Constitution.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Providing for the general welfare is *not *an implied power. It is expressly granted to Congress in Article I. If you feel that that language is maddeningly vague -- which isn't unreasonable -- then you have two remedies: 

1.  Start campaigning for a Constitutional amendment to tighten up that language.

2.  Find a test case which is specific to your complaint, and take it to the Supreme Court -- try to persuade them that you're closer to the intent of the Founding Fathers than the current Congress is. 

Unless you do one of those two things, Congress is acting within their rights. 




Kevin_Kennedy said:


> It can be argued that something is unconstitutional because the general welfare clause doesn't really mean anything.  Unless a power is specifically stated in the Constitution then the federal government does not have authority to use that power.
> 
> To argue that the general welfare clause allows for implied powers, as Alexander Hamilton argued, is to say that the Constitution allows the federal government to do anything that it wants.  Which is absolutely incorrect.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 18, 2009)

The "general welfare"  Statement does not grant a power to Congress, if it did they would not need to go on to list any other powers since that alone would give unlimited absolute power to Congress and the Government. It is simply a comment on WHY the following powers are vested to the Federal Government.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

I never, at any point, said that Congress can decide unilaterally what's Constitutional. 

As I said in the other post -- ultimately the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional. If you can persuade them that Congress is acting illegally, more power to you. 



Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So Congress gets to decide what is Constitutional?  That would mean Congress could do anything it wants, and that is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, if Congress can do something then that means that nobody is stopping them or questioning the Constitutionality of what they're doing.  That doesn't mean that what they're doing is allowed by the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Providing for the general welfare is *not *an implied power. It is expressly granted to Congress in Article I. If you feel that that language is maddeningly vague -- which isn't unreasonable -- then you have two remedies:
> 
> 1.  Start campaigning for a Constitutional amendment to tighten up that language.
> 
> ...



I didn't say that the general welfare clause was an implied power, I said in some people's minds it allows for implied powers.  It does not allow for anything.  The only powers the federal government has are those that are specifically stated in the Constitution, not those that could be implied from the general welfare clause.  Anything the government does that is not stated in the Constitution is unconstitutional, period.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The "general welfare"  Statement does not grant a power to Congress, if it did they would not need to go on to list any other powers since that alone would give unlimited absolute power to Congress and the Government. It is simply a comment on WHY the following powers are vested to the Federal Government.




That is incorrect. 

The general welfare clause is first on a long list of other powers also appertaining to Congress. Those other powers are *in addition to *the general welfare clause, not *a subset of *the general welfare clause. Therefore, the general welfare clause stands separate from the clauses which follow, granting a specific power to Congress which has nothing to do with those other clauses. 

And the general welfare clause is not an unlimited power, particularly since other clauses in the Constitution give other powers to the executive, the judiciary, the states, and the people, which Congress cannot infringe upon. 





The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> I never, at any point, said that Congress can decide unilaterally what's Constitutional.
> 
> As I said in the other post -- ultimately the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional. If you can persuade them that Congress is acting illegally, more power to you.



You said that the bailouts apply to the general welfare clause, and to the paying of debts because Congress decided that they do.  That implies that Congress decides what is Constitutional.



HelloDollyLlama said:


> Yes, they do, if Congress decides they do.


----------



## HelloDollyLlama (Jan 18, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I didn't say that the general welfare clause was an implied power, I said in some people's minds it allows for implied powers.  It does not allow for anything.  The only powers the federal government has are those that are specifically stated in the Constitution, not those that could be implied from the general welfare clause.  Anything the government does that is not stated in the Constitution is unconstitutional, period.




Yet again, the Constitution does not *imply *that Congress can act to promote the general welfare. It *says so *explicitly. The words are right there in the Constitution, and cannot be simply ignored. 


It's 2AM and my battery is dying. The five of you can go research Constitutional law on your own time. I have printed the clause repeatedly, I have explained it repeatedly, and any law school faculty in the country would back me up on this. This is not like the Second Amendment where we can argue the meaning, and even the punctuation, of the text: the language of Article I is clear as a bell. As I said, if you want to holler at James Madison, or wage a legal fight to amend the Constituton, or go to the Supreme Court to alter its current meaning, be my guest. But until you do, Congress is acting legally.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Yet again, the Constitution does not *imply *that Congress can act to promote the general welfare. It *says so *explicitly. The words are right there in the Constitution, and cannot be simply ignored.
> 
> 
> It's 2AM and my battery is dying. The five of you can go research Constitutional law on your own time. I have printed the clause repeatedly, I have explained it repeatedly, and any law school faculty in the country would back me up on this. This is not like the Second Amendment where we can argue the meaning, and even the punctuation, of the text: the language of Article I is clear as a bell. As I said, if you want to holler at James Madison, or wage a legal fight to amend the Constituton, or go to the Supreme Court to alter its current meaning, be my guest. But until you do, Congress is acting legally.



Yes, Congress can promote the general welfare by doing what it is authorized to do by the Constitution, and that is all it can legally do.  Congress cannot simply do something and say that it's for the general welfare so it is Constitutional.  That would allow them to do anything and say that it's for the general welfare.

And once again, I did not say that the general welfare clause is implied, I said it allows for the government to come up with implied powers in some people's opinions.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Yet again, the Constitution does not *imply *that Congress can act to promote the general welfare. It *says so *explicitly. The words are right there in the Constitution, and cannot be simply ignored.
> 
> 
> It's 2AM and my battery is dying. The five of you can go research Constitutional law on your own time. I have printed the clause repeatedly, I have explained it repeatedly, and any law school faculty in the country would back me up on this. This is not like the Second Amendment where we can argue the meaning, and even the punctuation, of the text: the language of Article I is clear as a bell. As I said, if you want to holler at James Madison, or wage a legal fight to amend the Constituton, or go to the Supreme Court to alter its current meaning, be my guest. But until you do, Congress is acting legally.


2 am?????

its only 9pm on the east coast
where are you?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Same question -- you base this on what?



I dont know, maybe its the mere fact that he openly plans to seize control of the health care industry, eliminate the coal industry and spend trillions of dollars contrary to thet concept of limited power in the federal government.

To name a few.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> Bullcrap.
> 
> He claimed that nearly every president has violated the Constitution, and then didn't back it up.



I see.  And saying nonsense refutes his claim.  I think not.



> He claimed my reading of the Constitution was wrong, and I shot him down using the text from the Constitution itself.



Hardly.  You tried to take the Constitution out of context to support your argument.



> He tried to put words in my mouth, and I shot him down.
> He tried an evasion, and I shot him down.
> He tried insults, and I shot him down.



You shot nothing down.  All you did was deflect by attacking how he presented his arguments with handy, dismissive labels.



> I can get you a souvenir scorecard of the game if you want. I win, he loses.



OMG.  Another "I win" pissant.  Grow up.  You win nothing.  You haven't changed anyone's mind, nor have you impressed anyone but yourself.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> One more time:
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts *and *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
> 
> ...



One more time for you, junior.  I read what the sentence says.  You are wrong.  Simple as that.  Just another leftwingnut misinterpretting the Constitution to suit your agenda.  Not even very novel of you.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." - Article 1, Section 7 United States Constitution
> 
> FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article I
> 
> I take this to mean that the Senate may not vote on the legislation until it passes the House, and the bailouts had not passed the House until after it passed the Senate.  Also, since they hid the bailouts within a completely separate piece of legislation I assume that they take the same meaning that I do.



The Senate HAS TO vote on the legislation to see if they are going to submit to the House.

What they were hidden in is irrelevant.  That's the way Congress does business and is a seperate argument.  I think ALL bills should stand alone and be given the light of day, and this hiding shit and/or attaching riders is bullshit, IMO.  But it has nothing to do with the administrative procedure of the Senate submitting a bill to the House for funding.

If they don't vote on it, how do they know they want to submit it?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> The Senate HAS TO vote on the legislation to see if they are going to submit to the House.
> 
> What they were hidden in is irrelevant. That's the way Congress does business and is a seperate argument. *I think ALL bills should stand alone and be given the light of day, and this hiding shit and/or attaching riders is bullshit,* IMO. But it has nothing to do with the administrative procedure of the Senate submitting a bill to the House for funding.
> 
> If they don't vote on it, how do they know they want to submit it?


exactly, end the earmark bullshit
if its a worthy project, deserving of federal funding, it should be able to pass on its own
it would also allow the administration to actually set a better budget as well, as they dont have to attempt to budget for things they dont even know will be in the funding


----------



## Care4all (Jan 18, 2009)

I don't know.....?

the word "originate" stands out to me and Kevin's point of view on this seems like it would be correct....and how our founding father's intended imho.

I remember at the time, some discussion on this board took place on the Senate originating this bail out bill and that this was wrong....unconstitutional because it meant that the Senate initiating it or was being the source of origin....but then it was pointed out, that the Senate, in order to "get around" this constitutional restriction on the bailout, ADDED IT to a nongermane bill that had originated in the house, and passed the House, and gotten to them.

See, this was definately a slippery slope that was slidden down....sure the Senate can amend an appropriation bill from the house of reps, they can tweak it and add or subtract from what the House has suggested on their appropriations....

But this was *$700 BILLION DOLLARS* added to an original, debated and voted on Appropriations Bill that might have TOTALED in value as $200 billion.

If adding an amendment that nearly 4 FOLDED the appropriations that the House recommended is NOT an ABUSE of power and an abuse of the constitution, I don't know what is.....!!!


----------



## jeffrockit (Jan 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks
> 
> He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.
> 
> ...



That's not gonna stop any time soon. Even now, with Bush out, you see his name all over the boards with idiotic, grade school put downs and name calling. As RGS stated, we need to hold to a higher standard especially when it comes to name calling. How many times have you seen the word "Chimp" in reference to Bush...truly grade school comments.

I do find it curious how the left is asking for what they would not do with Bush and that is ask for everyone to work together. I am pretty confident that most mistakes or bad policies from Obama will be attributed to Bush.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> The Senate HAS TO vote on the legislation to see if they are going to submit to the House.
> 
> What they were hidden in is irrelevant.  That's the way Congress does business and is a seperate argument.  I think ALL bills should stand alone and be given the light of day, and this hiding shit and/or attaching riders is bullshit, IMO.  But it has nothing to do with the administrative procedure of the Senate submitting a bill to the House for funding.
> 
> If they don't vote on it, how do they know they want to submit it?



Well the Constitution says that it must "originate in the House of Representatives," which means that it must be passed by the House before it is passed by the Senate.  It also says the Senate may "propose or concur..."  I don't think it's very clear on what is meant by propose.  Does that mean that the entire Senate must vote whether or not to propose a piece of legislation to the House, or that a Senator may propose legislation to the House which may then be picked up and supported by a Representative?  It's hard to say, though the Federalist Papers may say something of the matter and that would certainly be worth looking into.

Regardless, in the case of the bailouts it is clear that this piece of legislation that dealt with raising revenues originated in the Senate and not the House.  It wasn't simply a proposal by the Senate or them concurring with the House.  As I said, hiding the bailout bill inside another piece of legislation clearly shows that it was wrong and that the Senate knew that it was wrong.  Otherwise why hide it?  It certainly could have passed on it's own.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I don't know.....?
> 
> the word "originate" stands out to me and Kevin's point of view on this seems like it would be correct....and how our founding father's intended imho.
> 
> ...



It would only be unconstitutional if the Senate sent it straight to the President.  As long as it passes both Houses of Congress, it is legal for the President to sign.

By your understanding, only the House could initiate proposed legislation.  If the Senate wishes to pass a bill, the senate HAS TO vote on it to see if they want to submit to the House or not.  There's no way around that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> It would only be unconstitutional if the Senate sent it straight to the President.  As long as it passes both Houses of Congress, it is legal for the President to sign.
> 
> By your understanding, only the House could initiate proposed legislation.  If the Senate wishes to pass a bill, the senate HAS TO vote on it to see if they want to submit to the House or not.  There's no way around that.



Well the Constitution states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House.  So if they originate in the Senate, as the bailout bill did, then they are in fact unconstitutional.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 18, 2009)

Gunny said:


> It would only be unconstitutional if the Senate sent it straight to the President.  As long as it passes both Houses of Congress, it is legal for the President to sign.
> 
> By your understanding, only the House could initiate proposed legislation.  If the Senate wishes to pass a bill, the senate HAS TO vote on it to see if they want to submit to the House or not.  There's no way around that.



only the House can initiate or originate an *appropriations bill.*  Not ALL bills gunny, just appropriations must originate in the House.

I had read the reasoning beind this is that the House of Representatives, represent us....the people....no taxation without representation kind of thing...since it is our taxes paying for what they appropriate.

While the Senate or Senators represent the State they come from or the  state's government....we did not even elect US senators back then, the State gvt picked them to represent them.

ALL bills must pass the senate and house before they go to the president...this can not be bypassed.

With all bills and legislation or statute, the house or senate can initiate them....according to the constitution, BUT with one exception of appropriation bills, where it says they MUST ORIGINATE in the house of representatives and pass with vote the house of representatives before they send it on to the senate for their tweaking and approval.

I don't think the Senate would have added the bailout to an existing house appropriations bill that had passed if they could have constitutionally, initiated the bailout bill on their own, to send to the house.

what they did, adding this bailout to a recently passed house appropriations bill that the senate was up to tweak, was a slippery slope, and an extreme bending of the constitution if not a flat out slap in the face to it....again, imo! 

care


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Jan 18, 2009)

jillian said:


> oh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... I forgot we're not supposed to respond to idiots like glockie.
> 
> RGS's point was correct and well-stated ... but I already had to give him pos rep on another point he made yesterday and couldn't send him any this time. However, HE stated that you guys shouldn't sink to the behavior of the left.. so that opened things up to a response, since it didn't start with the left... it started with the impeachment of a popular sitting president, followed closely by a supreme court justice rendering a decision in favor of his hunting buddy from which he should have recused himself.
> 
> ...



I have to continually remind all here that those numbers were a bad DAY in WWII (Iwo and Normandy significantly EXCEEDED those casualty counts in one day), a bad week in Korea, and a bad Month in Vietnam....

To call Iraq and Afghanistan a "war" is kind of silly....Both are Police Actions, at best....


----------



## bk1983 (Jan 19, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> I cannot believe you repeated this. What in God's name are imposts?



Are you really this stupid in real life?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 19, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> I cannot believe you repeated this. What in God's name are imposts?


impost - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I don't know.....?
> 
> the word "originate" stands out to me and Kevin's point of view on this seems like it would be correct....and how our founding father's intended imho.
> 
> ...



In the end it does not matter at all. Why? Because the House HAD to make their own bill or nothing would have happened. The Senate is free to make suggestions to the House just as the President is. They did not create a new bill they added, as is their right, to an existing bill. Why is that ok?

Because it then has to go BACK to the House and be passed again before anything can happen. If any part of Congress changes a bill in ANY way, the other part has to hear the new bill and either agree to it or make further changes. That is why the two chambers have meetings to work out how they will resolve differences on bills they both have changed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well the Constitution states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House.  So if they originate in the Senate, as the bailout bill did, then they are in fact unconstitutional.



Except it did not orignate there, it was added to an already existing appropriations bill. THAT is a legal power of the Senate. The bill then has to go back to the house and the House and Senate meet to work out the differences, I believe in this case the House removed the Bail out from the previous bill and created a new bill. They were free to disagree completely, remove the lenguage and money and do nothing on the bail out and send it back to the Senate.

The Senate created nothing. They did not originate an appropriation.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Jan 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except it did not orignate there, it was added to an already existing appropriations bill. THAT is a legal power of the Senate. The bill then has to go back to the house and the House and Senate meet to work out the differences, I believe in this case the House removed the Bail out from the previous bill and created a new bill. They were free to disagree completely, remove the lenguage and money and do nothing on the bail out and send it back to the Senate.
> 
> The Senate created nothing. They did not originate an appropriation.



They did originate an appropriation, they just purposefully bypassed the Constitution by adding it to another bill that the House had already passed.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, because everything you said is true.  However, putting two bills together to bypass the Constitution is unconstitutional in my opinion.  If you have to find a loophole to bypass the Constitution then what you're doing is still unconstitutional.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 19, 2009)

Here's my advice for the conservatives:
             1) If you want to be the alternative, you actually have to offer an     alternative.
             2)  Stop reading other people's e-mails. If they wanted you to know something, they would share it with you. The fact that you are not on their friends list should tell you something.
             3) Stop worrying about who is taking what up which orifice. It's a creepy fascination and quite frankly, it makes you seem just a wee bit gay.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> They did originate an appropriation, they just purposefully bypassed the Constitution by adding it to another bill that the House had already passed.
> 
> I'm not saying that you're wrong, because everything you said is true.  However, putting two bills together to bypass the Constitution is unconstitutional in my opinion.  If you have to find a loophole to bypass the Constitution then what you're doing is still unconstitutional.



The Senate has the right and power to change already existing or delivered appropriation bills. The Constitution is clear on that. Once they do the House has to agree or they have to come to an understanding or the bill does not pass. Nothing unconstitutional at all.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 19, 2009)

michiganFats said:


> Here's my advice for the conservatives:
> 1) If you want to be the alternative, you actually have to offer an     alternative.
> 2)  Stop reading other people's e-mails. If they wanted you to know something, they would share it with you. The fact that you are not on their friends list should tell you something.
> 3) Stop worrying about who is taking what up which orifice. It's a creepy fascination and quite frankly, it makes you seem just a wee bit gay.



Really hate to break it to you but the democrats oppose gay marriage as well.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Senate has the right and power to change already existing or delivered appropriation bills. The Constitution is clear on that. Once they do the House has to agree or they have to come to an understanding or the bill does not pass. Nothing unconstitutional at all.


you know, if the house had not already deliberated the bail out bill and VOTED DOWN the bailout bill, the Senate adding the bailout bill to another appropriations bill was definately used to get around the constitution's requirements imo.

If it were not a violation of the constitution then the Constitution should not have the words, ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE....  

A slippery slope indeed.


----------



## michiganFats (Jan 19, 2009)

Retired Gunny, what does the democrats opposing gay marriage have to do with anything I posted? All I was doing is what the thread requested, advice for conservatives. In addition, I find it amusing that you focused on the gay marriage topic, is this your cry for help? Are you just a wee bit too gay to be able to stand yourself?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> In terms of interpreting the Constitution, they mean the same thing.
> 
> In terms of policy -- that's different. You can argue policy all you want. But you can't argue that it's unconstitutional.


The General Welfare clause, in the Constitution, is a Myth.

It is cited in ONE spot, where they are explicitly discussing Taxing and Spending, that is all!!!

And some Idiots would have you believe that means they can Legislate just about ANYTHING under such a clause, when any Intelligent person KNOWS the Constitution was written to specifically enumerate the things the Government would have Authority over, and all else go back to the States and the People.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks
> 
> He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.
> 
> ...



He hasn't even taken office and he has started breaking promises. Wow, what will the next 4 years be like.
Obama backs off jobs tax credit - Waltham, MA - The Daily News Tribune
President-elect Barack Obama has quietly dropped a key part of his $300 billion tax relief plan, itself part of a broader $775 billion stimulus plan.

During the campaign he pledged to "save or create" 3 million jobs and one way he planned to do that was a $3,000 employer tax credit for every new job created. The idea met with immediate resistance on Capitol Hill. Republicans and many Democrats objected that the tax credit would be an administrative nightmare and prone to abuse. And the potential cost could be huge.


----------



## GHook93 (Jan 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks


100% agree! As a fiscal conservative, not social though, I say as Americans we need to support our President in this horrendous economic times! Be an American first and conservative/Republican second! 



> He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.


Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and let his actions speak for him and then judge.



> Give it a rest. Remember how much we have hated the petty bitching and moaning from the left for the last 8 years. Lets be better then those guys. Stick to facts and reality.


100% agree! The conservative, especially the talk show host cried a major foul at the liberals and democrats wanting Bush to fail. They called them anti-americans. Now in a reversal many conservatives/republicans are doing the same.



> Obama will be appointing people to positions, that gives us ammo.


A lot of his appointment have been to bad!


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 19, 2009)

To my panty waist Conservative brethren. So what I'm reading is you want to be nice and cooperate, to unite, to play by the rules. That's all fine and good. But, you must remember the Liberals don't play by those rules. When you are in power they do everything possible to block, obstruct, villify, and spread doctrines of hate against you. So you play nice now, and let them mow over you with hatred and just know you will lose every single time. Watch them now spend the next four years and many valuable resources to continue their doctrine of hatred toward the Bush Administration. And, you play nicely with them and cooperate. ANd, expect them to hand you your stupid ass on a plate in 2012. That's the gratitude you will get for being the appeasers.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 19, 2009)

HelloDollyLlama said:


> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
> 
> 
> You wanna argue, argue with James Madison.



Here, you argue with Madison. From The Federalist 41:



> Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. *No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.* Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
> 
> ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? *Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.*



Geez...another "general welfare" guy!


----------



## Gunny (Jan 19, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well the Constitution states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House.  So if they originate in the Senate, as the bailout bill did, then they are in fact unconstitutional.





Care4all said:


> only the House can initiate or originate an *appropriations bill.*  Not ALL bills gunny, just appropriations must originate in the House.
> 
> I had read the reasoning beind this is that the House of Representatives, represent us....the people....no taxation without representation kind of thing...since it is our taxes paying for what they appropriate.
> 
> ...



IMO, y'all are playing semantics.  So does the Senate/Congress.  It's a game used to technically, legally circumvent procedure/rules/law.  

The Constitution became a joke during the Lincoln Presidency and has been little more since.  Just a piece of paper for lawmakers and extremists to play word games with.  

The Senate initiates appropriation bills all the time and apparently has a found a way of wording them satisfactory to the House and legal scholars.  This one's no different, and throwing up the bullshit flag at this point is like trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't agree with the bailouts.  It is just my opinion that there are better arguments than this one.  The US government has no legal right to interfere in private industry at all.  

But don't tell HelloDummyLlama ... he obviously thinks he is the shit.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 20, 2009)

I have to say, I can't believe the focus of the argument against the bail out bill has been appropriations when there is so much more wrong with the bill. The bill in and of itself is unconstitutional because they never had authority to bail out banks. 

It may be unconstitutional for the Senate appropriate the funds, so to speak, but what the heck is the point of focusing on a slight tear in the page when theirs a huge freaking hole in the middle of the paper?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 20, 2009)

Banks are Interstate trade, The US Government has the power to make and enfoce any law they want in regards interstate trade. The US Government certified they would protect banks that alone gives them the authority.

It is quote Constitutional. 



> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes





> To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Article 1 section 8.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 20, 2009)

glockmail said:


> I plan on giving BHO the same presumption of innocence and level of respect that Liberals gave GWB.



GWB had 95+ of the American People and most of the people worldwide behind him after 9-11. Had he gone and gotten Bin Laden then rebuilt that sad nation of Afghanistan, he would have been a hero at home and abroad. Instead, he choose to make war on a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11. And failed to get the mastermind of 9-11. And spent this nation into a recession verging on a Depression. 

When all the living Presidents were in that church after 9-11, and they sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic, my thoughts were that the terrorists and Bin Laden just as well give their souls to God, because their asses were ours. Now, over seven years later the terrorist threat is even greater, and Bin Laden is still alive. That is just one aspect of Bush's legacy of incompetantance and failure.

No, Bush earned every bit of the contempt in which he is held by liberals and most thinking conservatives.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Give it a rest. Remember how much we have hated the petty bitching and moaning from the left for the last 8 years. Lets be better then those guys. Stick to facts and reality.



Funny you say we were being petty for 8 years and yet here we are with the results of your party running the government.  Next great depression, bankrupt treasury and an endless war.  Nice.  And look at how many seats you lost in 06 and 08.  Are you sure we were just being petty?  Or did your party suck balls?  

What a joke.  Bush had it easy compared to what Clinton went though.  And Bush should have been tried and put in prison, if not executed for the treason he perpetrated on this country, much less impeached.  

Remember, it was Bush's war and economic policies that put this country in the dumper.  If you don't think so, ask the rest of the world.  They know what caused the global meltdown.  And none of them are saying Freddy/Fanny.  That's just right wing bullshit spin.

But I applaud what you are asking of your fellow jackasses.  They bitched about Clinton for 8 years while he ran a prosperous nation to great wealth.  We all did well.  So please, who cares if Obama gets a blowjob.  What is important is that he undoes what the GOP did.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Funny you say we were being petty for 8 years and yet here we are with the results of your party running the government.




Someone needs to explain to these IDIOTS who has been in charge of BOTH Houses of Congress for 2+ YEARS NOW...

And then try explaining to them who holds the purse strings here in the U.S.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Someone needs to explain to these IDIOTS who has been in charge of BOTH Houses of Congress for 2+ YEARS NOW...
> 
> And then try explaining to them who holds the purse strings here in the U.S.



Someone needs to explain to these idiots how the Dems had the smallest of majorities the last 2 years and that the GOP vowed to obstruct any and all progress so they could run against a do nothing congress in 2008.  It backfired on your ass!  

Remember you fucking idiots kept saying, "look, Congress' approval rating is lower than the Presidents", suggesting that America was just as upset with Pelosi & Reed.

Yet not one Democratic encumbant lost a seat.  What does that tell you, fuckking retard?  

And then look how Bush didn't veto one fucking thing in his first 6 years in office.  That's a record.  And then he veto'ed Democratic bills unless they were packed with GOP pork.  

Yes, we had to fund the war, otherwise give idiots like you ammo for the 2008 election.  We played you like a fiddle loser.  

Anyways, we knew your strategy long before 2008.  Here is an op ed piece from 2007 predicting that you guys would try to blame all the countries problems on the Democrats who just took office in January 07.  http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=38

And with Bush blocking anything they tried to do, it doesn't seem very sincere you blaming the Dems for anything that went wrong.

Just like I won't blame the GOP for ANYTHING that happens between Feb 1 09 and December 2010.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Someone needs to explain to these IDIOTS who has been in charge of BOTH Houses of Congress for 2+ YEARS NOW...
> 
> And then try explaining to them who holds the purse strings here in the U.S.



One great example is SCHIP.  It passed both houses with bipartisan support.  Do you know what that means Gaar?  

Ok, so Bush veto'ed it 2 times.

Last week it was passed a 3rd time Gaar.  Guess what?  Obama's going to sign it.  

Now that we don't have Republicans blocking progress, we will get a lot more done.  We only need a few of you fuckers to sign on to get anything passed.  That should be easy.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Someone needs to explain to these idiots how the Dems had the smallest of majorities the last 2 years and that the GOP vowed to obstruct any and all progress so they could run against a do nothing congress in 2008.  It backfired on your ass!
> 
> Remember you fucking idiots kept saying, "look, Congress' approval rating is lower than the Presidents", suggesting that America was just as upset with Pelosi & Reed.
> 
> ...


You need to take a look at just who has been in "charge" of Freddie and Fannie while they were giving away Bad Loans, and which Party SUED to make that shit happen...

I guess for some, ignorance is indeed Bliss.

Take a look at some of the Lawsuits ACORN did against the Banking Industry, back in the '90's, and see just who  was SUING to make Banks start giving these bad Loans...

Does the name Barack Hussein Obama ring any Bells, you Idiot?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> One great example is SCHIP.  It passed both houses with bipartisan support.  Do you know what that means Gaar?
> 
> Ok, so Bush veto'ed it 2 times.
> 
> ...


You need to look at why it was Vetoed...

The Rule changes make it easier than it already is for people not eligible to get assistance, and that shit needs to stop.

Illegal Aliens are driving this Country into Bankruptcy, and it needs to end.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> You need to take a look at just who has been in "charge" of Freddie and Fannie while they were giving away Bad Loans, and which Party SUED to make that shit happen...
> 
> I guess for some, ignorance is indeed Bliss.
> 
> ...



Gaar, listen/read what you are saying.  You sound sooo stupid.  

The dems wanted "poor" people who worked to own homes, in the 90's.

Wow!!! What a horrible thing for them to want!!!!!  

Gaar, my man, listen carefully.  Had the Robber Barons not trashed the market this decade, those people would still be home owners.

That's why we told you 2004-2006 were not good years.  But you kept pointing to record profits and the great stock market.

But we kept telling you that the middle class was not sharing the wealth.  And you denied, lied, argued, defended.

You called us whiners.

You said we were the dumb ones to take loans from predatory lenders.

Yet we see predatory lenders screwed rich and poor people alike.

PS, GAAAR.  If the Dems wanted poor people in the 90's to get home loans, the GOP this decade wanted EVERYONE to buy a home.  That's why they deregulated the industry.

Not only are your arguments bad, they are also false.  Lame old excuses.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> You need to look at why it was Vetoed...
> 
> The Rule changes make it easier than it already is for people not eligible to get assistance, and that shit needs to stop.
> 
> Illegal Aliens are driving this Country into Bankruptcy, and it needs to end.



blablabla.  I know why Bush veto'ed it.  Because it didn't benefit the top 1%.  

And illegals are already costing us a fortune GAAR!!!!  Do you know that?  This is another scam by the GOP.

This is how illegal employers can afford to pay such shitty wages to illegal workers.  They don't pay health insurance.  So when they or their kids get sick, they go to emergency rooms.  

SCHIP will end up saving us money, even with illegals on the bill.

The GOP created the illegal employer problem.  If you dare blame the bleeding heart liberals, let me remind you that bleeding heart liberals do not pay illegal's wages.  If illegal employers didn't pay, then illegals would go home tomorrow.  And all the bleeding heart liberals could cry for the illegals to stay all they want, there would be nothing to keep them here.

So we have an illegal employer problem.  Remember that.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Gaar, listen/read what you are saying.  You sound sooo stupid.
> 
> The dems wanted "poor" people who worked to own homes, in the 90's.




Yeah, people who couldn't afford them...

But that was ok, because Freddie and Fannie were going to cover them. 

Idiots.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Yeah, people who couldn't afford them...
> 
> But that was ok, because Freddie and Fannie were going to cover them.
> 
> Idiots.



How could they not afford them?  If they got those homes in the 90's and made payments all the way until they lost their jobs in 2006 or 2007, how is it that they could not afford them?  

And if the mortgage companies didn't "bundle" all those loans up and sell them to the big banks, then this wouldn't really be a major problem, now would it?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

Before pulling out your box of tissues and weeping for the "millions of low income kids" this "heartless veto" has denied insurance, I think it is important to look into what Democrats, and the media, are not telling you about this bill.

For starters it is important to note that President Bush did not veto the SCHIP program, what he vetoed was the enormous expansion of it. President Bush had asked for a small expansion of this program from Congress, requesting an additional $5 billion over the next five years. The House's first draft of this bill authorized an additional $50 billion and covered "children" as old as 25 from families which made as much as $82,000 per year. Those numbers have since been toned down; however the final bill which was presented to President Bush requested an increase of $35 billion and would cover "children" as old as 21.

SCHIP: What They Aren't Telling You


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> How could they not afford them?  If they got those homes in the 90's and made payments all the way until they lost their jobs in 2006 or 2007, how is it that they could not afford them?
> 
> And if the mortgage companies didn't "bundle" all those loans up and sell them to the big banks, then this wouldn't really be a major problem, now would it?


It wasn't the first ones getting these Loans who, in bulk, could not afford them...

And some of these people were using their Homes as some sort of "Piggy Bank" that they believed was generating money that they were not generating.  Believing that prices would just continue up, to no end.

It also took these new "Customers" to drive the Market up to make the prices unaffordable, only after a few years.

And as they lessened and lessened the requirements, over the years, there became more and more who could not pay.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Yeah, people who couldn't afford them...
> 
> But that was ok, because Freddie and Fannie were going to cover them.
> 
> Idiots.



And didn't a lot of people just walk away from their mortgages because they bought them at really high prices, PLUS they took out home equity loans?  Fuck it.  Why pay off $160k when your home is only worth $100k?  I'd walk too.  

The unregulated mortgage industry knew the market was going to collapse but kept giving out loans they knew would ultimately go bad.  

And the initial mortgage company made a fortune doing this, and the next company they sold your mortgage to made a fortune, and so on and so on.  All the way to the top.  And believe it or not, the big banks made a fortune too, because they own all the good loans plus got $750 billion.  I say that was bullshit!

But they can take the economy down if we don't give them what they want.

That is why the only real solution is to end the Federal Reserve and socialize the banking system in this country.  Right now, private bankers have too much power/control over our government.  They love it that Bush doubled the debt.  And if you didn't notice, the GOP were notorious for socializing the losses and privatizing the profits.  We lost, they made a fortune.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> It wasn't the first ones getting these Loans who, in bulk, could not afford them...
> 
> And some of these people were using their Homes as some sort of "Piggy Bank" that they believed was generating money that they were not generating.  Believing that prices would just continue up, to no end.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that not only did this also occur on Bush's watch too, but the process was excellerated under his watch.  

But besides that, Freddy & Fanny loans are only a small fraction of the foreclosures and they are not responsible for the mess we are in now.   

That's just who the GOP chose to blame.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> One great example is SCHIP.  It passed both houses with bipartisan support.  Do you know what that means Gaar?
> 
> Ok, so Bush veto'ed it 2 times.
> 
> ...



Are you refering to the State Health Insurance Program? Because it is in effect and Bush signed it and expanded funding till March of 09 where I am sure your savior Obama will put it into effect permenantly.

These programs have been available, in florida it's called Kid Care.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 20, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Are you refering to the State Health Insurance Program? Because it is in effect and Bush signed it and expanded funding till March of 09 where I am sure your savior Obama will put it into effect permenantly.
> 
> These programs have been available, in florida it's called Kid Care.


they are available here in Maine also
bobo is a moron that has no clue


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Keep in mind that not only did this also occur on Bush's watch too, but the process was excellerated under his watch.
> 
> But besides that, Freddy & Fanny loans are only a small fraction of the foreclosures and they are not responsible for the mess we are in now.
> 
> That's just who the GOP chose to blame.



Bullshit.

Bush, as well as McCain, has been calling for additional Regulation on Freddie and Fannie for better than 4 YEARS now...

And Freddie and Fannie are the one's that OK'd such Loans to begin with, and everyone knew they could sell them to them, because they were backed by the Government.

That needs to end.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Are you refering to the State Health Insurance Program? Because it is in effect and Bush signed it and expanded funding till March of 09 where I am sure your savior Obama will put it into effect permenantly.
> 
> These programs have been available, in florida it's called Kid Care.



The House will vote Wednesday on legislation to reauthorize and expand the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). 


The Democratic leaders of the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees who introduced legislation Tuesday that they said would expand SCHIP benefits to 4 million children who have no health benefits and maintain coverage for the 7 million kids already enrolled in SCHIP.



The announcement came just minutes before the House Rules Committee was scheduled to begin its consideration of the legislation, which is the final procedural step to clear the way for a floor vote.


Congressional action on the popular SCHIP measure, which passed Congress with bipartisan votes twice in 2007 but died under President Bushs veto pen, would give the incoming Obama administration a quick victory on healthcare, one of its major priorities.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> they are available here in Maine also
> bobo is a moron that has no clue



The House will vote Wednesday on legislation to reauthorize and expand the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). 


The Democratic leaders of the Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees who introduced legislation Tuesday that they said would expand SCHIP benefits to 4 million children who have no health benefits and maintain coverage for the 7 million kids already enrolled in SCHIP.



The announcement came just minutes before the House Rules Committee was scheduled to begin its consideration of the legislation, which is the final procedural step to clear the way for a floor vote.


Congressional action on the popular SCHIP measure, which passed Congress with bipartisan votes twice in 2007 but died under President Bushs veto pen, would give the incoming Obama administration a quick victory on healthcare, one of its major priorities.


Well now it isn't just being offered to people in Maine who feel entitled.  

TheHill.com - House Democrats introduce SCHIP bill


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Bush, as well as McCain, has been calling for additional Regulation on Freddie and Fannie for better than 4 YEARS now...



Bush and McCain, the great Regulators!!!  

Was McCain the Maverick Reformer or the Reformed Maverick?


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> they are available here in Maine also
> bobo is a moron that has no clue



The Dems just expanded SCHIP benefits to 4 million children.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Bush and McCain, the great Regulators!!!
> 
> Was McCain the Maverick Reformer or the Reformed Maverick?


McCain called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in May, 2006, video of Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and Dems family

On May 25, 2006 John McCain called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He co-sponsored the S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 that was introduced in January 2005.

Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae&#8217;s regulator reported that the company&#8217;s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were &#8220;illusions deliberately and systematically created&#8221; by the company&#8217;s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight&#8217;s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae&#8217;s former chief executive officer, OFHEO&#8217;s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines&#8217; compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator&#8217;s examination of the company&#8217;s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac&#8211;known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs&#8211;and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO&#8217;s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO&#8217;s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> The Dems just expanded SCHIP benefits to 4 million children.


yeah, and how will he pay for it


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> McCain called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in May, 2006, video of Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and Dems family
> 
> On May 25, 2006 John McCain called for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He co-sponsored the S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 that was introduced in January 2005.
> 
> ...



Yes, I can show you too where Obama did the same thing.

I have also been explaining to you all day that Freddy & fanny are not the reason the economy crashed.  

So you are showing me that the GOP tried to do something about this.

How about they deregulated the industry so that people didn't even need to show documentation to get a home?  So Illegals could buy homes.  How easy was it for them to walk away after they took home equity loans out of those houses that lost thousands in value?  

And how about bundling all the loans up and selling them to the next bank, who then sold them to the next bank, until the biggest banks had all the bad loans.

Why do you focus on Freddy Fanny?  I know people who make $100K who lost their homes.  They didn't go through fanny.

I know Big 3 employees who lost their homes.  They didn't go thru fanny or freddy.

Why are you picking on Freddy & fanny?  It was a great idea until Bush & tom Delay fucked up the economy.  

I have tape of Bush saying not only should poor people have homes, they should go for really nice homes!!!!!  Do you understand what a joke it is to blame Clinton/Carter?  

You have zero credibility going this route.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, and how will he pay for it



You will pay for it Dive.  Since you insist that the rich get all the tax breaks, you will pick up the tab, you dumb mother fucker.  

And the Dems will fix what is wrong with Healthcare.  They have been gouging us the last 8 years just like the oil companies did.

I'm sure you will argue for them that they weren't, but trust me, you've been wrong on every other issue, and this is no different.

What was it?  191% since Bush took office?  

Dive, listen carefully.  Our healthcare costs rose 191% since 2000.  Can you explain how/why?

Just like gas went from $4 for no fucking reason.  Oh you have reasons.  I just think your reasons are bullshit.  Not buying it.  So don't bother.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> You will pay for it Dive. Since you insist that the rich get all the tax breaks, you will pick up the tab, you dumb mother fucker.
> 
> And the Dems will fix what is wrong with Healthcare. They have been gouging us the last 8 years just like the oil companies did.
> 
> ...


yeah, programs like schip

btw asshole, you are the dumb motherfucker
YOU will be paying for it
bend over and lube up, you about to get "helped" by the government


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Yes, I can show you too where Obama did the same thing.



Don't tell me you can, do it...

He did no such thing, and therefore you cannot.

I cite Sources and information to support the things I assert here.

You, not so much.

Imagine that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 20, 2009)

Gaar said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> Bush, as well as McCain, has been calling for additional Regulation on Freddie and Fannie for better than 4 YEARS now...
> 
> ...



I posted this months ago. Along with transcripts of speeches and copies of letters the president had written begging for more regulation.

The left ignores the facts and continues with the mindless rant, which has no basis in fact.
Bill Clinton even admitted on national radio that he played a role and made a huge mistake in backing F&F....


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> How about they deregulated the industry so that people didn't even need to show documentation to get a home?  So Illegals could buy homes.  How easy was it for them to walk away after they took home equity loans out of those houses that lost thousands in value?



Uh no, that would be Obama and his cohorts...

LiveLeak.com - Acorn/Obama Sued Citigroup To Give The Loans That Caused This Mess.

Acorn/Obama Sued Citigroup To Give The Loans That Caused This Mess. 

(continued at link provided)

Wow, this doesn't paste well...

Guess you will have to go to the Website to read it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 20, 2009)

what the hell was that?


----------



## Gaar (Jan 20, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> I posted this months ago. Along with transcripts of speeches and copies of letters the president had written begging for more regulation.
> 
> The left ignores the facts and continues with the mindless rant, which has no basis in fact.
> Bill Clinton even admitted on national radio that he played a role and made a huge mistake in backing F&F....


Understood...

But I will attempt to beat the Truth into their Head, regardless of their continued denials.

But thanks for trying, at least some people bother to be informed BEFORE they make such decisions.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jan 20, 2009)

Seriously, Gaarbage? 

I saw that embarrassing defeat that you earned at Reiver's hands...you're not in much of a position to tell anybody about "fact."


----------



## Gunny (Jan 20, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Seriously, Gaarbage?
> 
> I saw that embarrassing defeat that you earned at Reiver's hands...you're not in much of a position to tell anybody about "fact."



Nor are you.


----------



## Gaar (Jan 21, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Seriously, Gaarbage?
> 
> I saw that embarrassing defeat that you earned at Reiver's hands...you're not in much of a position to tell anybody about "fact."


So you say...

If you understood the discussion being had with Reiver, you would understand he doesn't have a CLUE, as many posters have shown over the course of that Thread.

He doesn't even understand the difference between Empirical Evidence and Theory.

And all he has is Theory.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jan 21, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Nor are you.





Gaar said:


> So you say...
> 
> If you understood the discussion being had with Reiver, you would understand he doesn't have a CLUE, as many posters have shown over the course of that Thread.
> 
> ...





All right, big men, what say you head over to my socialism thread and rack up some more objections for me to respond to when I have reliable Internet access again?


----------



## Agnapostate (Jan 24, 2009)

And at any rate, Reiver repeatedly referred back to Logue and Yates, who have conducted extensive study into the efficiency of worker-owned enterprises...and they have relied extensively on empirical evidence.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 25, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Nor are you.
> ...



How about I save you the embarrassment and don't?  I prefer honest debate to your dishonest word games, thanks.


----------



## Lycurgus (Jan 25, 2009)

Agnapostate said:


> And at any rate, Reiver repeatedly referred back to Logue and Yates, who have conducted extensive study into the efficiency of worker-owned enterprises...and they have relied extensively on empirical evidence.





*If the workers want to own a company, let them pool together and purchase the company. Free enterprise. No one is stopping them or they can pool together and begin their own company and make it employee owned. 

Free enterprise and capitalism already provides for this. 

ah, but the idea is, to have it handed to them, without the risk, now isn't it?*


----------



## trobinett (Jan 25, 2009)

> ah, but the idea is, to have it handed to them, without the risk, now isn't it?



Seems to be the way of things these days Lycurgus.


----------



## Agnapostate (Jan 25, 2009)

Gunny said:


> How about I save you the embarrassment and don't?  I prefer honest debate to your dishonest word games, thanks.



Embarrassed? Me? 

If you say so. 



Lycurgus said:


> *If the workers want to own a company, let them pool together and purchase the company. Free enterprise. No one is stopping them or they can pool together and begin their own company and make it employee owned.
> 
> Free enterprise and capitalism already provides for this.
> 
> ah, but the idea is, to have it handed to them, without the risk, now isn't it?*



No, the idea is to expropriate productive assets in the same manner that the Argentine autogestion movement has. I do not refer to ownership of stock options or any other such trivialities, because that could not function on a large scale due to the lack of social mobility in capitalist economies. The fact remains that capitalist models of organization remain inefficient due to their hierarchical nature, which necessitates the creation of unnecessary management models, an inefficiency that socialism corrects through autogestion and participatory management.


----------



## Annie (Jan 25, 2009)

Just an observation. Trolls do not 'quote' any posters in any regular order. Instead they act as if they are responding to the previous post, when in fact it may be a page or two back. While you are trying to find their references, you'll face a tsunami of posts. that's trolling.


----------



## eots (Jan 25, 2009)

Annie said:


> Just an observation. Trolls do not 'quote' any posters in any regular order. Instead they act as if they are responding to the previous post, when in fact it may be a page or two back. While you are trying to find their references, you'll face a tsunami of posts. that's trolling.



just a observation.. but ..your observation is dumb..


----------

