Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How Dumbasses Enable The Jackasses.......
#41
I believe those were the exact things the early Progressives used to use in order to restrict Free Enterprise. And of course everything needs to be regulated, so as to ensure 100% equality After the fact.

I can see why you think so highly of McCain: he fulfills your idea of how the World should really work.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#42
Ron, you're just giving into the libs and stretching the commerce clause to the point that it no longer has meaning as a restriction on government.

Or in other words, you're proving the premise of this whole damn thread.
Reply
#43
Thank you Dear for making my point so well. I think I'm in love..........................S27
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#44
Was the Commerce Clause supposed to be a restriction on government? It reads to me like it is talking about regulating businesses and trade. What point is supposedly being made? You cannot throw away government without throwing away civilization. If you think differently, then be honest and call yourselves anarchists.
Reply
#45
I'm sorry Ron, but this is all beyond you. You just haven't the slightest idea of what "Lowest Common Functional Denominator" really means.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#46
John: =)

Ron: The Constitution as a whole is a limit on government. It spells out what the government CAN do, then, in the 9th and 10th amendments, says, in short, "NOTHING ELSE."

The larger you make the Commerce clause, the bigger hole you put in our Firewall from Tyranny.

Wickard v Filburn stretched it to unreasonable size in 1942 by declaring that wheat grown on one's own land for one's own consumption is interstate commerce.

The Healthcare law, if found constitutional, will essentially render the rest of the document pointless.
Reply
#47
If there was ever a clear case of just how Dumbasses enable Jackasses, and both work together to usurp Individual Liberty, todays court decision on ObamaCare is the classic example. Chief Justice Roberts, in true Earle Warren tradition, upheld ALL aspects of ObamaCare, clearly showing that one cannot ever think that the 'so called' conservative majority has the courts under control.

I've said this before, and I'll say it until I am blue in the face: the two most important things the Right MUST do is 1) retake control of the education system, and 2) pack the courts with Constitutionalists. Without both of these things being returned to the people, there is ZERO chance of maintaining our liberties in the long run.

The more I hear that stupid Hannity commercial where he is reminded of how he should be ashamed of Bush, and he comes back with all those "I appologize for........blah, blah, blah", yet leaves out the "Big Government", and "irresponsible spending" part, the more I want to pick up a gun and shoot that loud mouth, McCain loving, GOP fawning piece of manure.

And here is exactly why I LOVE Beck. He and Jason Williams, along with Boortz, are perhaps the only ones who 'Get It' on radio. I agree almost totally with Beck on practically everything, with the exception of our foreign policy, but our being broke will naturally solve that one.

Beck is Right On here. The GOP is Shit IMO. They simply cannot be counted upon for anything requiring moral courage, balls, guts, or whatever you may want to call it. And you can absolutely count on one thing here: ObamaCare is NEVER going to be overturned, because the GOP hasn't got the guts to follow through with their promise. Oh, they will 'wax poetic', wring their hands and swear before G-d that they are going to take care of all this. But perhaps Bill would like to place a little wager with me on whether this will ever come to fruition.

Well, mark my words: they aren't going to change anything, because that required integrity, honesty, and above all courage.

Does anyone doubt me here?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#48
Here's Beck when the decision came down: Beck Reacts to SCOTUS Decision on Obamacare. Anyone thinking the Republican Party is the answer to this, is a Dupe. You have to make change "In Spite Of" them, especially if forced to go through that sorry party. They will have to be dragged kicking and screaming, because both parties are loaded with Progressives(i.e. Fascists).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#49
Yes, nothing new. We make change in spite of those who confound us with bad decisions. There are some in the GOP who are worth supporting, and some who need to be replaced. Throwing out the baby with the bath water doesn't work.

Many people have said that "somebody got to Roberts." It always plays out that way, doesn't it? The two most sure nominees for Supreme Court in my lifetime was Robert Bork and Harriet Miers. Both were spectacular legal minds - and both got blind-sided by the Left. Either one would have been on the right side on Obamacare. Thomas barely got through, but thank goodness he did. At least one reasonable, common-sense legal mind in the mix. If you read the minority decision, it makes Robert's opinion look like the ramblings of a chimpanzee.
Reply
#50
Just in case our local "Go along just to get along" Republicans are not paying attention, I am not the only person throwing up his/her hands with the all wonderful, yet all impudent, GOP. Here are just a few more examples.

Oh, and I have been paying close attention to what Romney is really saying about ObamaCare. He couches all this with "should be repealed" and "ought to be overturned". Notice any "I Will repeal it"? Keep your eyes and ears tuned to what the GOP candidate, who "We would be Jackass traitors if we don't vote for him", really tells us about what he will do in the future. Just remember all this.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#51
Yes - plenty of I WILL REPEAL IT. He said he will issue the same waivers that Obama gave to a million people to every state - and get the legislature to write a bill to estop it legislatively - which is what Bachmann said is required.

There is no GOP-bashing needed her. We need the numbers to get it done - and since it is a tax bill - it will only take 51 votes to do so. We need a majority to get rid of Reid, and the job will be done.
Reply
#52
(07-02-2012, 05:16 PM)WmLambert Wrote: Yes - plenty of I WILL REPEAL IT. He said he will issue the same waivers that Obama gave to a million people to every state - and get the legislature to write a bill to estop it legislatively - which is what Bachmann said is required.

There is no GOP-bashing needed her. We need the numbers to get it done - and since it is a tax bill - it will only take 51 votes to do so. We need a majority to get rid of Reid, and the job will be done.

And you have examples of this to back it up? Examples, such as video, or audio clips?

"doveryai, no proveryai" if you know what I mean?

Since there are "plenty" of them, you should have no trouble pulling down at least a half dozen here. Oh, and keep in mind that the more recent the clips, the more pertinent they are, because he has been using a whole lot of "should" and "ought to" in the last month. Why do I suspect that may be significant?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#53
Go to Mitt's official web site. It is the first logical place to go to understand the issues. In it, he said:
Romney Wrote:On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.

What about this makes you so determined to cry, "Dumbasses?"

Look, he cannot disintegrate passed legislation with an Executive Order - although Obama thinks He can do so with impunity.

The argument out of many Constitutionalists is that the Roberts' decision opened the Tax door, but closed the Commerce Clause door. Nothing of the sort happened. The minority decision was correct. The Commerce Clause does not enable the Affordable Healthcare Act - so it should be branded unConstitutional in its entirety. Instead of using the Constitution to stop a bad bill, the Court skirted the whole issue.
Reply
#54
No it's not the first logical place. That site is constructed by others. I'm interested in What he said, not what other put down.

I think what you are saying Bill, is that you can't find any audio/video, where he states that he will definitely do away with ObamaCare. Should'a, woulda', oughta', are different from "I Will". I know how all this political pediphilia works now, so I want to see the commitment, not the involvement.

And no, I definitely don't trust your lover boys any more. I'm like the jilted lover, who has been screwed around one time too many to ever trust some soothe talking gigolo again.

And please, try to resist the "You're just falling right into the Democrat strategy' thing. If that's all you have, you got zilch.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#55
No - I've heard him say this almost everytime I've seen him lately on TV. I think it is said so often and so consistently, that citing individual instances is too easy.

Reply
#56
Yeah, I've heard him parse words like that before too. Note at the beginning he states, "I will Act to repeal ObamaCare." Just what doesn't he mean by the word "Act" anyway? Its loaded with all sorts of possibilities. Is he going to act by giving it lip service, as long as the polls tell him that he has a politically winning position? Or if the going gets tough, will his idea of "Act" mean a few words and a position paper?

I want to hear him say "I will fight ObamaCare today, tomorrow, next year, and not stop until it is repealed, so help me G-d". I want him to personally commit, not say he is involved. If you are not capable of understanding the difference, you are not as smart as I once thought Bill.

And later he states, "If we want to get rid of ObamaCare, we're going to have to get rid of Obama." Well, isn't that nice for a first step. How about all the other steps that will be necessary to overturn the law? How about those steps?

If this is the best he can do, its not good enough. And you ought to know this too. Your example here is loaded with political speak that really doesn't mean a G-d Damned thing.

Again, I want him to Commit himself, not offer to get involved. Now, please show us the Real Deal.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#57
D'oh! That's just what he said. Why can't you hear it in his words?

Yes, get rid of Obama.

Yes, short run: extend same waivers that Obama handed out ...to everybody.

Long run: repeal ObamaCare by act of Congress.

What is so difficult to understand?
Reply
#58
(07-05-2012, 11:42 AM)WmLambert Wrote: What is so difficult to understand?

D'oh, perhaps because you are willing to believe practically anything.

And perhaps he is better than the neighbor because while he drinks too much, and screws around on you, at least he doesn't beat up on you. I believe there is a word for people who allow others to fail in their promises/responsibilities. And that word is "Enabler.*






*Enabler - one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by helping that individual avoid the consequences of such behavior
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
--- SCHiST Happens! ---
Reply
#59
No - I don't understand your belligerence against what Romney said about ObamaCare. He said he would get rid of it. Are there some magic words that need to be spoken? He sounded personally committed. It was one of his advisers who went waffling on Penalties vs. Taxes: the etch-a-sketch guy, BTW. Mordock said Romney should broom this guy - and I think I agree.

Yes, his RomneyCare in Massachusetts was stupid and delusional. Santorum was right that it would make his stance against ObamaCare difficult to manage. However; he has put it on the chopping block, ObamaCare will be waivered out of immediate importance - and the Bachmann strategy of ending through new legislation is totally correct as the only way to remedy it.
Reply
#60
Does the executive have the power to temporarily or permanently disable a tax? If so, all he has to do is say its done on day 1. SCOTUS says its a tax, if it can't be done through individual state actions, then the legislative has to deal with it. If certain states love the idea of Obamacare, then they should be allowed to keep it.
[Image: 760.png]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  "Jackasses Being Jackasses" Thread John L 346 137,085 03-09-2019, 01:10 PM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)