Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thank you for posting your platitudes but they do not address or justify the unconstitutionality of taxing the working persons earned wages and transferring them to a privileged group of businesses to develop green energy technology. As a matter of fact our founders were very specific in our federal governments role in the advancement of science and promoting valuable inventions as pointed out by Representative John Page speaking before the House of Representatives:
"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers. Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792
Why do you support such tyranny which robs the working person earned wage?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Our Founders had no knowledge of green energy.
But they did have knowledge of the benefits of a free market system, a limited federal government, and this is why they limited our federal governments authority over the advancement of science as follows:
Congress shall have power 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
Our founders desire to create a free market system and limit the federal governments authority in it proved to be a wise decision, e.g., by the year 1835, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
The government created institutions that didn't have to follow the same rules as free market institutions and let them run wild with no oversight. Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise and then blame the market for the failures of the institutions they created. Bailing out the market after the problems the government created institutions created is proof in itself that the government realized its previous errors and then allowed corporations to use the bailout money for bonuses and concerts.
"Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise"
Is this what Fox Opinions "reported"?
What evidence did they pass along with it?
Our Founders had no knowledge of green energy.
But they did have knowledge of the benefits of a free market system, a limited federal government, and this is why they limited our federal governments authority over the advancement of science as follows:
Congress shall have power 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
Our founders desire to create a free market system and limit the federal governments authority in it proved to be a wise decision, e.g., by the year 1835, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Maybe someday you can be a Founding Father and create the country of your dreams. We're going to stick with ours that gives the Federal Courts the responsibility for the Constitution. You might want to design yours to allow anybody who wants to to do that.
The government created institutions that didn't have to follow the same rules as free market institutions and let them run wild with no oversight. Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise and then blame the market for the failures of the institutions they created. Bailing out the market after the problems the government created institutions created is proof in itself that the government realized its previous errors and then allowed corporations to use the bailout money for bonuses and concerts.
"Government hardly ever places qualified people in positions requiring market expertise"
Is this what Fox Opinions "reported"?
What evidence did they pass along with it?
I realize that you are not capable of taking anything that disparages the government under Obama as anything other than Fox propaganda but in reality everyone has been reporting it. It is seen in stark reality when the government pays millions of dollars to develop a website over 2 years and utterly fails to complete the project. One of those key features that was supposed to be in the system was the ability to shop and compare plans without having to go through an arduous and lengthy sign up process. The admin has been claiming for weeks that such functionality is one of the things that they are hard at work creating. Of course, it took a whole 3 days for 3 young programmers to do it for free
3 Guys, 3 Days to Build a Better Obamacare Website - ABC News
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/11/tech/web/alternate-healthcare-site/
Three Guys Built a Better Healthcare.gov - The Wire
While this is not the same thing as the entire rollout (they use government data that is part of the websites that actually work) it is a major piece that the contractors have completely failed to produce for millions. Of course, the payment process still has yet to even be coded yet. That is another integral part that is completely nonexistent. Perhaps they can ask these three to teach them how to do it?
(Note - NONE of these are Fox but keep clinging onto that fantasy that all bad news is some vaunted Fox conspiracy - the idiocy is so cute)
But they did have knowledge of the benefits of a free market system, a limited federal government, and this is why they limited our federal governments authority over the advancement of science as follows:
Congress shall have power 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
Our founders desire to create a free market system and limit the federal governments authority in it proved to be a wise decision, e.g., by the year 1835, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.
Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Maybe someday you can be a Founding Father and create the country of your dreams. We're going to stick with ours that gives the Federal Courts the responsibility for the Constitution. You might want to design yours to allow anybody who wants to to do that.
One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science? I see no provision in it allowing Obama to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and transferring their paychecks to his pals running a green energy money laundering operation. Our Constitution declares:
Congress shall have power 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
Why do you hate hard working people living in our nations inner cities and defend Obama who is robbing their hard earned paychecks to fund a money laundering operation?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
Maybe someday you can be a Founding Father and create the country of your dreams. We're going to stick with ours that gives the Federal Courts the responsibility for the Constitution. You might want to design yours to allow anybody who wants to to do that.
One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science? I see no provision in it allowing Obama to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and transferring their paychecks to his pals running a green energy money laundering operation. Our Constitution declares:
Congress shall have power 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
Why do you hate hard working people living in our nations inner cities and defend Obama who is robbing their hard earned paychecks to fund a money laundering operation?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
" One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS. You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
Why do you ignore the written words of our constitution as they apply to our federal government promoting the advancement of science? I see no provision in it allowing Obama to tax hard working people living in our nations inner cities and transferring their paychecks to his pals running a green energy money laundering operation. Our Constitution declares:
Congress shall have power 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
Why do you hate hard working people living in our nations inner cities and defend Obama who is robbing their hard earned paychecks to fund a money laundering operation?
JWK
"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obamas Solyndra, Chevy Volt, Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).
" One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS. You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist. You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
" One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS. You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist. You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
Happy Thanksgiving retard." One of my dreams is to see people like you support and defend our existing Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted."
I am an ardent Constitutionalist. So is SCOTUS. You're against our Constitution in favor of the collected floor sweepings of those who's ideas were left behind as negotiated documented decisions were made, set in the written word and finally ratified.
Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist. You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
Happy Thanksgiving retard.Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist. You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever the SC says it says is not a Constitutionalist. You're just another boot-licking thug who wipes his ass on the Constitution.
Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
That would be you, worm.
Happy Thanksgiving retard.Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
I didn't realize that people unhappy about everything celebrated Thanksgiving.
Why would you?
Happy Thanksgiving retard.
I didn't realize that people unhappy about everything celebrated Thanksgiving.
Why would you?
You not celebrating? Ok then, I take it back.
Why would I celebrate? Cause I have lots to be thankful for. I'm saving over a thousand a month by not paying for insurance I don't need, I'm honing my shooting skills with libtard target sheets, I'm thankful for my three conservative children who are trouncing libtard children everywhere. Good times.
I didn't realize that people unhappy about everything celebrated Thanksgiving.
Why would you?
You not celebrating? Ok then, I take it back.
Why would I celebrate? Cause I have lots to be thankful for. I'm saving over a thousand a month by not paying for insurance I don't need, I'm honing my shooting skills with libtard target sheets, I'm thankful for my three conservative children who are trouncing libtard children everywhere. Good times.
Then why are you constantly whining?
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.
Happy Thanksgiving retard.Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
I didn't realize that people unhappy about everything celebrated Thanksgiving.
Why would you?
Anyone who believes the Constitution says whatever they wish it said, is not a Constitutionalist.
That would be you, worm.
No. I'm fine with it as ratified and amended. So should you be.
You not celebrating? Ok then, I take it back.
Why would I celebrate? Cause I have lots to be thankful for. I'm saving over a thousand a month by not paying for insurance I don't need, I'm honing my shooting skills with libtard target sheets, I'm thankful for my three conservative children who are trouncing libtard children everywhere. Good times.
Then why are you constantly whining?
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.
Name one whine you POS libtard.
That would be you, worm.
No. I'm fine with it as ratified and amended. So should you be.
Wrong. You're fine when the SC amends it by fiat.
No. I'm fine with it as ratified and amended. So should you be.
Wrong. You're fine when the SC amends it by fiat.
That's what it says to do. That's a whole lot better then every yahoo conspiracy declaring their own interpretation.
Then why are you constantly whining?
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.
Name one whine you POS libtard.
Why, here's one now!
