or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Budget Deal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Budget Deal - Page 7

post #241 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


Really?

You're no fun anymore BR. There used to be some lucidity to your postings. Now they just are hateful diatribes and ranting.

Actually, Nick, he's right. You lost the debate about "consent" because you didn't understand the concept. There was nothing he could have or should have added to the discussion.
post #242 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, just like tax cuts for the rich which when voted on by Congress, were set to 'expire'.

I think you're starting to get it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #243 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You just gave me the definition of the word unconstitutional. You did not cite any specific language as to why corporate subsidies fall under that category. That's very weak.

There is no specific language. It's not in the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #244 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

There is no specific language. It's not in the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

LOL
post #245 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

There is no specific language. It's not in the Constitution. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

Oral sex and Jello shots are unconstitutional! What a country!
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #246 of 736
Filibuster? How many tea party people are there? Could they filibuster long enough to run the country out of money?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #247 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Oral sex and Jello shots are unconstitutional! What a country!

Actually, he's talking about powers granted to Congress in the context of the tenth amendment, but he's ignorant about the meaning of 'regulate commerce' and what that covers.
post #248 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Filibuster? How many tea party people are there? Could they filibuster long enough to run the country out of money?

Some of them actually think that's a good idea.
post #249 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

LOL

Actual laughter was produced.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #250 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Actually, Nick, he's right. You lost the debate about "consent" because you didn't understand the concept. There was nothing he could have or should have added to the discussion.

Well as usual your support for your contention is "I said so." So I really gave it a lot of credence.

BTW, is there a discussion in these forums that you and BR haven't declared the other party lost because they were ignorant and didn't understand the material being discussed?

I think this deal will be as good as Republicans could have hoped to get considering they control one half of one branch that deals with these matters. Of course more needs to be done but that's what 2012 will be about.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #251 of 736
It's difficult these days to find a topic on here where you and your cohorts won't accept facts into evidence and hide behind their prejudices.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #252 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It's difficult these days to find a topic on here where you and your cohorts won't accept facts into evidence and hide behind their prejudices.

Yes especially when fact is defined by you as "whatever I say" and prejudice is defined by you as "whenever you disagree with me."

I mean seriously, how long can you continue to self-delude yourself on these matters? How do you go through the day loathing the world and most people in it whom you believe to be a bunch of idiots who somehow didn't manage to shoot their hands off or stab their own eyeballs out with a fork?

Yet at the same time you demand continual compassion for them not using your own life, energies or money, but those of everyone else who somehow are idiots but just happen to have all the things you, with your supposedly brilliant brain haven't managed to acquire.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #253 of 736
You are the ones who claim that a Jewish Zombie absolves you of all personal responsibility. It's hard not to give you a sideways look. I still hope you live a long, happy life--I also hope you stop indoctrinating your children and promote the well-being of all of humanity. I doubt many of you ever will do the latter, sadly.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #254 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are the ones who claim that a Jewish Zombie absolves you of all personal responsibility. It's hard not to give you a sideways look.

Really? When I have claimed this? Was Jon Stewart talking about me again?

Does pointing at Jewish Zombie somehow resolve the contradiction that I noted above? Of course it doesn't and what is hilarious is you deem yourself to some sort of higher intellectual rigor and moral superiority.

It's quite funny. It's doubly so when your worldview keep crapping up everything.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #255 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not as stupid as not having the vaguest clue what 'consent' means in the first place.

Quiz: Can an adult 'consent' to murder someone? Can an adult consent to being euthanized? A woman who is raped... Did she consent? Did the rapist?

Seems I'm not going to get any answers for this, so I'll go ahead and give them to you.

Yes; yes; no; yes.

Consent has absolutely nothing to do with legality, except where consent is specifically defined by the law. This is what Nick didn't understand about the concept. He thought someone can't consent to being euthanized because euthanasia is illegal.
post #256 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Then explain to me exactly why the idiots called their 'expiry' a tax increase?

Because taxes would have increased. Not that hard to see. Taxes would have been at one rate, the next day they would have been at a higher rate. The reasons for this increase are secondary...it would still have been a tax increase.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #257 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Actually, he's talking about powers granted to Congress in the context of the tenth amendment, but he's ignorant about the meaning of 'regulate commerce' and what that covers.

Or he simply takes a more constrained view of what it means to "regulate commerce."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #258 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Because taxes would have increased.

No they wouldn't have. They would have been at exactly the level promised by Congress when the tax cuts were passed. That's a zero percent increase. Obama effectively passed another tax cut to keep them at the lowest level they've been since 1950.
post #259 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Or he simply takes a more constrained view of what it means to "regulate commerce."

Yes, a view that has never been recognized by the Supreme Court. Hence, NOT unconstitutional.
post #260 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No they wouldn't have. They would have been at exactly the level promised by Congress when the tax cuts were passed. That's a zero percent increase. Obama effectively passed another tax cut to keep them at the lowest level they've been since 1950.

I see the rhetorical game you're trying to play here. I'm not playing. Have fun though playing with yourself.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #261 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Seems I'm not going to get any answers for this, so I'll go ahead and give them to you.

Yes; yes; no; yes.

Consent has absolutely nothing to do with legality, except where consent is specifically defined by the law. This is what Nick didn't understand about the concept. He thought someone can't consent to being euthanized because euthanasia is illegal.

Tonton, you are seriously making no sense at this point. Go back to the thread if you want, but you did not raise a series of questions have me answer them like this and draw a conclusion. You are also as I said there, hiding behind the concept and conflating the two because you refuse to even discuss the matter simply saying that certain parties cannot consent to actions when as I've noted they can. The legal concept of genuine age of consent is still a legal concept. It can still be redefined and has been in the past and will be in the future. You refuse to discuss the competency to give consent.

Now take it back to that thread, but realize the whole "you're stupid and I'm high and mighty based off my worldview" bit is tiring and on top of that, is completely unconvincing so prepare to be hoisted with your own petard. You'll continue to get called out on it. With regard to this thread, declaring the Republicans incompetent idiots who understand nothing yet somehow magically seeming to get most of that nothing they appear to understand is a paradox and you'll be challenged to support it rather than just smirk, sneer and repeat it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #262 of 736
So they plan to "cut" $2T in spending.

Uh huh.

First the spin:

Quote:
Obama said important votes remained to be taken but that leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress were agreed to a plan that would initially cut about $1 trillion from U.S. spending, "the lowest level of domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was president" in the 1950s."

Ummm...that's as a percentage...of something. Domestic spending will not be the lowest level "since Dwight Eisenhower was president."

And more hysterical fear-mongering by our Blamer-in-Chief:

Quote:
But he said: "Most importantly it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. And it will allow us to lift the cloud of doubt and uncertainty" that has hung above the United States for weeks.

But let's put this into perspective. These so-called spending "cuts" (most likely cuts in the growth of spending, not actual reductions in spending) are over 10 years.

The first point to note here is that current congresses and presidents cannot speak for future congresses and presidents. So pretty much anything beyond then next 2-4 years is just a wish...or a hope.

But even if these were solid "cuts," we're talking about an average of about $200B per year. We'r currently running deficits of $1.5T per year. This isn't even cutting the deficit by 15%! It only cuts the overall budget by less than 6%! All this and we were told the world was coming to an end.

This is a fucking joke!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #263 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, a view that has never been recognized by the Supreme Court. Hence, NOT unconstitutional.

Laws were never meant to be enacted by decree, yet that is what we have allowed the Supreme Court to do.

If a certain power has not been specifically enumerated as a federal power in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies.

Want to change the Constitution? That's where the Amendment process comes in. You will note that the amendment process has been abandoned because when you can legislate by decree, why do you need amendments?

All we have to do nowadays is get people in positions of power that interpret the Constitution the way we want and force people to go along with that interpretation.

That is not freedom. That is tyranny.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #264 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So they plan to "cut" $2T in spending.

Uh huh.

First the spin:



Ummm...that's as a percentage...of something. Domestic spending will not be the lowest level "since Dwight Eisenhower was president."

And more hysterical fear-mongering by our Blamer-in-Chief:



But let's put this into perspective. These so-called spending "cuts" (most likely cuts in the growth of spending, not actual reductions in spending) are over 10 years.

The first point to note here is that current congresses and presidents cannot speak for future congresses and presidents. So pretty much anything beyond then next 2-4 years is just a wish...or a hope.

But even if these were solid "cuts," we're talking about an average of about $200B per year. We'r currently running deficits of $1.5T per year. This isn't even cutting the deficit by 15%! It only cuts the overall budget by less than 6%! All this and we were told the world was coming to an end.

This is a fucking joke!

It is a fucking joke but considering you have an entire liberal media complex who have spent the last couple weeks using their "new tone" to call the Republicans extremists, terrorists, the Taliban and to be holding America hostage and Republicans really do still only have one half of one branch of power, it's as good as it is going to get.

That's why you say to someone that if they want a better result, make sure to vote in 2012.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #265 of 736

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #266 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Not to mention being Obama's personal PR agency telling everyone that Obama was all about compromising and saving the country.

That's worth a laugh.

I know you. I'm sure you would have rathered we go into default. Well don't feel too bad until they vote today there's still hope!

I'd say the media called it like it is. And so have the american people on this issue. Also this will be reflected in the next election.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #267 of 736
Add jimmac to the long list of people who actually bought the lies that if the government didn't "act immediately" we would have gone into default, and that going into default means the end of the world.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #268 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I know you.

No you don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm sure you would have rathered we go into default.

The US wasn't going to go into default on August 2nd. You were lied to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'd say the media called it like it is.

I have no doubt they called it like they saw it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #269 of 736
Biden: Tea partiers like 'terrorists'

Quote:
Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists,” according to several sources in the room.

Biden’s office declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session.

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.

The vice president’s hot rhetoric about tea party Republicans underscored the tense moment on Capitol Hill as four party leaders in both chambers work to round up the needed votes in an abbreviated time frame. The bill would raise the debt limit by as much as $2.4 trillion through the end of next year and reduce the deficit by an equal amount over the next decade.

Democrats had no shortage of colorful phrases in wake of the deal.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called it a “Satan sandwich,” and Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) called seemed to enjoy the heat analogy, saying: “the Tea Partiers and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy clear, and while I do not love this compromise, my vote is a hose to stop the burning. The arsonists must be stopped.

The deal was consummated Sunday night, the text of the bill was posted in the wee hours of Monday morning, and the House was expected to vote first on it Monday afternoon or evening. But there are still plenty of concerns in both parties and in both chambers.

Liberal Democrats have had the most averse reaction to the plan, which ensures between $2.1 trillion and $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade without requiring any of it to come from tax increases.

Biden told Democratic lawmakers that the deal would take away the tea party’s “weapon of mass destruction” — the threat of a default on U.S. debt obligations.

“They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want,” Doyle told POLITICO after the meeting.

Glad to see Biden and the Democrats are taking their "new tone" to heart.

In this day and age, can you really call someone a "terrorist" without also implying that they should be treated how other "terrorists" are treated by the United States and its allies?

Apparently in the minds of Democrats, this was no compromise. The "compromise" they wanted was for the Republicans to get out of the way.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #270 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Laws were never meant to be enacted by decree, yet that is what we have allowed the Supreme Court to do.

Oh, stop it. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution, and that's exactly what they do. Even if the Supreme Court agrees that the Federal Government has a certain power under the Constitution, it's still up to Congress to pass a law which utilizes that power. No law can be enacted by decree, without the consent of Congress. The only one that has the power to (temporarily) supersede Congress, in matters of war, is the President. The USSC cannot do shit.
Quote:
If a certain power has not been specifically enumerated as a federal power in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies.

And Congress has the power to regulate commerce. There's no language in the Constitution whatsoever that says that such regulation does not include offering and paying incentives. We're not talking about something that can vaguely be linked to commerce. We're not talking about something that has ever been debated about commerce or the Commerce Clause. We're talking about commerce. Period. Even in the most conservative definition of the word. There's no ambiguity here.
Quote:
Want to change the Constitution? That's where the Amendment process comes in. You will note that the amendment process has been abandoned because when you can legislate by decree, why do you need amendments?

In the context of the above, about the regulation of commerce, there's no need to amend the Constitution. If you want to forbid the US Gov't from paying out incentives as part of their regulation of commerce (incentives are an extremely common part of trade management in every industry), then it it YOU who would have to make an amendment.
Quote:
All we have to do nowadays is get people in positions of power that interpret the Constitution the way we want and force people to go along with that interpretation.

But isn't that what you're proposing to do? To interpret the Constitution in the way that suits YOUR political ideas, to limit Federal power as much as possible? The fact is that the USSC has never interpreted the commerce clause in the limited way that you suggest, because your views are extremist. There has never been a change to the interpretation of the commerce clause, with regard to this matter. You're making that shit up. What you're suggesting would be a change.
Quote:
That is not freedom. That is tyranny.

You have the freedom to elect officials that support your extremist interpretation of the Constitution, in the hopes that they can get enough power to get your intended vote on the Supreme Court. Go ahead and use that freedom. That's how the system was designed by the Founders. In fact, the founders designed the system to protect itself from extremist views such as yours. The twenty second amendment strengthened that protection. In order for a radical change to the interpretation of the Constitution to be made, the views in question have to be widespread, and enduring.
post #271 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Oh, stop it. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the Constitution, and that's exactly what they do.

Supreme Court Justices are appointed by presidents who want them to interpret the Constitution a certain way.

Quote:
And Congress has the power to regulate commerce. There's no language in the Constitution whatsoever that says that such regulation does not include offering incentives.

See the 10th Amendment. If it's not specifically enumerated as a Federal power in the Constitution, it falls to the states/people.

Quote:
In the context of the above, about the regulation of commerce, there's no need to amend the Constitution. If you want to forbid the US Gov't from paying out incentives as part of their regulation of commerce, then it it YOU who would have to make an amendment.

Again, see the 10th Amendment. The power to forcibly remove property from the people to give to businesses is not expressly granted to the Federal Government. Therefore, that power falls to the states or to the people.

I have absolutely no problem with amending the Constitution to clarify what "regulation of commerce" means instead of leaving that up to "interpretation" by a government interested in perpetuating and expanding its own power.

Quote:
But isn't that what you're proposing to do? To interpret the constitution in the way that suits YOUR political ideas?

No. I'm proposing following the Constitution as it is written and resuming the amendment process.

Quote:
You have the freedom to elect officials that support your extremist interpretation of the Constitution, in the hopes that they can get enough power to get your intended vote on the Supreme Court. Go ahead and use that freedom.

Stop throwing around the word "extremist" when you don't agree with someone and stick to the issues.

Since when is it "extremist" to advocate following the Constitution as it is written, rather then being subject to the whim of a few people in flowing robes who legislate by decree?

That is the form of government our forefathers declared independence from.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #272 of 736
Speaking of "compromise"...

Debt-Limit Vote Breaks GOP Pledge to Post Bills Online for 3 Days Before Vote

Quote:
Explaining the Republicans’ vision in a response to President Obama’s radio address on Oct. 30, 2010—just before the election—Rep. John Boehner explained that “Americans should have three days to read all bills before Congress votes on them.”

“The American people are in charge of this country, and they deserve a Congress that acts like it,” said Boehner. “Americans should have three days to read all bills before Congress votes on them--something they didn't get when the 'stimulus' was rushed into law. We should put an end to so-called 'comprehensive' bills that make it easy to hide wasteful spending projects and job-killing policies. Bills should be written by legislators in committee in plain public view--not written in the Speaker's office, behind closed doors.”

The promise to post bills online for three days before voting on them was included in a section of the Pledge to America that focused on reforming Congress.

“Americans have lost trust with their government, which has too often ignored the will of the people in favor of party loyalty and a desire to pass partisan bills at any cost,” said the introduction to that part of the Pledge to America. “Backroom deals, phantom amendments, and bills that go unread before being forced through Congress have become business as usual. Never before has the need for a new approach to governing been more apparent than under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership. Americans are demanding change in the way Congress works, and we are fighting to bring much-needed sunlight to the process and give the American people a greater voice in their Congress.”

Curiously, a summary of how the Republican Congress has fulfilled the Pledge that is included on the House Republican Conference’s Web site qualifies the language of the promise to post legislation online three days before voting on it. This summary headlines the Pledge’s section on the three-day rule: “A Three Day Waiting Period on all Non-Emergency Legislation.”

The words “non-emergency” or “emergency” do not appear anywhere in the text of the original Pledge for America as published by the House Republicans, and as still available in full-text form on the Republican Conference’s Web site.

Looks like the Ministry of Truth has been hard at work.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #273 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Biden: Tea partiers like 'terrorists'In this day and age, can you really call someone a "terrorist" without also implying that they should be treated how other "terrorists" are treated by the United States and its allies?

Perhaps not, but apparently it's just fine and dandy to throw out labels like "Socialist" and "Communist" (even when they don't even come close to applying), knowing full well what McCarthy did with that.
post #274 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Perhaps not, but apparently it's just fine and dandy to throw out labels like "Socialist" and "Communist" (even when they don't even come close to applying), knowing full well what McCarthy did with that.

"Terrorism" is the current Emmanuel Goldstein.

"Socialism" and "Communism" no longer elicit the violent "Two Minutes' Hate" feelings in Americans they once did, so the State can no longer exploit these terms for its own benefit.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #275 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Supreme Court Justices are appointed by presidents who want them to interpret the Constitution a certain way.



See the 10th Amendment. If it's not specifically enumerated as a Federal power in the Constitution, it falls to the states/people.



Again, see the 10th Amendment. The power to forcibly remove property from the people to give to businesses is not expressly granted to the Federal Government. Therefore, that power falls to the states or to the people.

I have absolutely no problem with amending the Constitution to clarify what "regulation of commerce" means instead of leaving that up to "interpretation" by a government interested in perpetuating and expanding its own power.



No. I'm proposing following the Constitution as it is written and resuming the amendment process.



Stop throwing around the word "extremist" when you don't agree with someone and stick to the issues.

Since when is it "extremist" to advocate following the Constitution as it is written, rather then being subject to the whim of a few people in flowing robes who legislate by decree?

That is the form of government our forefathers declared independence from.

Jesus, man. We're not taking about following the Constitution or not. We're talking about the definition of "regulating commerce", and that's all. Stop hyperbolizing.

Congress has the power to collect taxes (specifically enumerated). Congress also has the power to regulate commerce (specifically enumerated). Paying incentives is part of the regulation of commerce (common interpretation). Therefore, Congress using public funds to offer incentives is specifically enumerated by the Constitution.

Now stop with the nonsense, stick to the topic, and realize that while your views on faithfully following the Constitution are wonderful, your views on what the Constitution says and what it doesn't are extremist.
post #276 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No you don't.




The US wasn't going to go into default on August 2nd. You were lied to.




I have no doubt they called it like they saw it.

Quote:
No you don't.

Well enough by your comments on this board.

Quote:
The US wasn't going to go into default on August 2nd. You were lied to.

Naw! Nothing bad happens when you don't pay your bills. Especially one's involving credit and ratings.

Quote:
I have no doubt they called it like they saw it

Well I guess we don't all have your special glasses and decoder ring.

No doubt they'll vote on what they saw in the next election however.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #277 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Congress has the power to collect taxes (specifically enumerated). Congress also has the power to regulate commerce (specifically enumerated). Paying incentives is part of the regulation of commerce (common interpretation). Therefore, Congress using public funds to offer incentives is specifically enumerated by the Constitution.

No, it is not. There is no language in the Constitution specifically stating that Congress has the power to pay incentives to businesses. None.

A group of men decided that it wanted to use government to give incentives to business and tried to justify it by broadly interpreting "regulate commerce" to include that specific power rather than amending the Constitution to spell out exactly what "regulate commerce" means.

"Regulate commerce" was used as justification for trying to force citizens to purchase health insurance, which is also unconstitutional.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #278 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No, it is not. There is no language in the Constitution specifically stating that Congress has the power to pay incentives to businesses. None.

A group of men decided that it wanted to use government to give incentives to business and tried to justify it by broadly interpreting "regulate commerce" to include that specific power rather than amending the Constitution to spell out exactly what "regulate commerce" means.

"Regulate commerce" was used as justification for trying to force citizens to purchase health insurance, which is also unconstitutional.

You're ignoring the point. Offering incentives is part of regulation of commerce. Just because you don't like what that implies with regard to powers granted to Congress doesn't change that. Does Congress have the power to spend tax money on office stationery? Do we need an amendment to allow them to do that? For fuck's sake, with people like you around, no wonder our tax code is such a mess.
post #279 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You're ignoring the point. Offering incentives is part of regulation of commerce. Just because you don't like what that implies with regard to powers granted to Congress doesn't change that. Does Congress have the power to spend tax money on office stationery? Do we need an amendment to allow them to do that? For fuck's sake, with people like you around, no wonder our tax code is such a mess.

Congress does not have the power to "regulate commerce." Here is the clause:

Quote:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

The clause existed to ensure fair trade between the states. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no such power. This clause has been perverted into an excuse to give Congress the power to regulate every aspect of our lives. Ironically, health insurance cannot even be sold across state lines!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #280 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You're ignoring the point. Offering incentives is part of regulation of commerce. Just because you don't like what that implies with regard to powers granted to Congress doesn't change that. Does Congress have the power to spend tax money on office stationery? Do we need an amendment to allow them to do that? For fuck's sake, with people like you around, no wonder our tax code is such a mess.

You're blaming the tax code mess on "people like me"...who believe the 16th Amendment should be abolished altogether?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Budget Deal