Are you trying to say we are not an imperial nation especialy for the last ten years? That republicans didn't lead us this way? That there are not a million dead Iraqis? Are you just totaly full of shit, but sound good?
Republicans showing their true colors and true intent
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
Are you trying to say we are not an imperial nation especialy for the last ten years? That republicans didn't lead us this way? That there are not a million dead Iraqis? Are you just totaly full of shit, but sound good?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
We are NOT, nor have we EVER been, an "Imperial" nation.
There are a million dead little alqaeda thugs, is that who you call Iraqis?
I don't, and 26 million angry Iraqi people don't, so why don't you sit down and have a big tall glass of STFU!
Democrats, Led by Kerry, Biden, and Kennedy, voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq! Try to get that through your ignorant skull, Ddduuhhhne!
Bfgrn
New member
Hey Yurt, you can play your usual game of obfuscation and avoidance. I provided serious constitutional concerns. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.
NOW...PLEASE SHOW ME where in the Constitution gives the Governor of any state, or any single person the power to: declare “financial emergency” in towns or school districts and appoint someone to fire local elected officials, break contracts, seize and sell assets, and eliminate services Yurt? It should be easy Yurt. Maybe it's in the Federal Papers?
Man up for once in your life. If a Democrat Governor passed a law that gave himself the power to: declare “financial emergency” in towns or school districts and appoint someone to fire local elected officials, break contracts, seize and sell assets, and eliminate services, would you support it Yurt?
Is there ANYTHING Republicans can do to draw your ire Yurt? Only a partisan hack would remain silent over this egregious usurp of power.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You can not logically "declare" a financial emergency. That is just silly. Do you understand why people make fun of you? It's because you spout idiocy like this! There is either a financial emergency, as in... NO FUCKING MONEY... or there isn't! This can't be "declared" by the governor, or anyone else besides the guy who keeps the books on the money... he can declare that you have no money, thus... in a financial emergency.
Bfgrn
New member
The people of Iraq are little alqaeda thugs? Did the people of Iraq attack us on 9/11 Dixie?
Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.
The 9/11 Commission Report stated that there is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al-Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States. In September 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to al-Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi" and that there was no evidence of any Iraqi support of al-Qaeda or foreknowledge of the September 11th attacks.
Despite this, a number of 9/11 opinion polls have shown that a significant minority of the American public believe that Saddam was "personally involved". In 2002, NewsMax.com reported that people within and outside the US government believed that then Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein conspired in the 9/11 attacks and the Oklahoma City Bombing. wiki
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 would have never made it out of the House of Representatives if Democrat were the majority.
United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
* 126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0
21 (42%) of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
Bfgrn
New member
Well Dixie, I'll take everything back, all you have to do is provide the Article and Section of the Constitution that gives a Governor the power to to fire local elected officials, break contracts, seize and sell assets, and eliminate services.
This should be easy Dixie, Republicans are strict Constitutionalists. You should be able to cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that our founders gave Governors this power without research.
Bfgrn
New member
You know. I thought about it, there is a more apt comparison of the actions of Michigan Republicans, so I will make changes everyone should be comfortable with...
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Bfg, its funny that you are all up in arms about this piece of legislature, complaining about violating the contracts ect.
But I am betting that you were one of the libs who were throwing fits when the investment bankers and their ilk were getting large bonuses after their companies had been bailed out. Their contracts called for those bonuses based on performance.
Why is that different?
If the law currently being proposed is unconstitutional, there will be court cases and legal actions that will stop it. It may be a cumbersome system, but it works.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Can you show us, in the US Constitution, which Article & Section provides Obama the authority to create the ObamaCare?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, the people of Iraq didn't attack us, I never said they did. The other fuckwit claimed there were "a million dead Iraqis" and I questioned if he was referring to the million dead alqaeda thugs we've killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of them are not Iraqis, or not claimed by Iraqis.
And ALL were members of the alqaeda terror network.
REALLY??? We are going to debate the Iraq War once AGAIN?????????
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS voted to authorize military force. For better or worse, regardless of how things went from there, BOTH parties of Congress gave the president the authority to go to war. Now, you don't have to like that, you can misrepresent the facts all you like, but the truth is the truth, and you can't hide from it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well obviously, you just need to take a copy of the Constitution up there and haul the governor's ass into federal court. If it's as plain and simple as you've presented it here, even a fucking retard like you could try the case and win... and you'll be a national pinhead hero, they'll probably make a monument for you, or name a sandwich after you or something... I think you should go for it! Seize the Moment!
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Article X:
The power of the states in this case is pretty clear, and since the prohibitions you mentioned are in section 10, article 1, and not section 9, they are prohibitions on the federal government.
Done. 100% legit.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well done.
Bfoon, I am sorry man...maybe they will still name a sandwich after you... a shit sandwich? maybe a crow burger?
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
I was wrong, at least partially. section 10 DOES deal with restrictions to the states. However you are using the contract clause incorrectly. It states that States may not create laws that hamper the completion of a contract or debt, as signed by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It says nothing about terminating a contract that the State itself has created.
apple0154
MEOW
There IS fucking money. All the government has to do is tax and get the money. The emergency is deliberately caused by the government deciding not to raise taxes resulting in a financial shortfall and, thus, declaring a financial emergency.
What kind of absurd situations will occur when governments arbitrarily cancel contracts? Who would enter into any contract with any government?
The people elected the former governments and the former governments entered into contracts with individuals. The people are responsible and, thus, should be obliged to honor those contracts, to pay by way of tax increases.
Refuse to renew contracts. Don't enter into new ones. But honor the ones made. That is the decent thing to do.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Raising taxes in a state that cannot afford to have more businesses close shop, or people move out of state. Brilliant. Then we can just tax those too poor to leave, trapping them forever.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It doesn't matter, what he is saying is so insane and unbelievable to begin with... the governor isn't making laws so he can go around firing elected officials and declaring martial law... that just ain't how it is. Period!
I haven't read up on this, I don't know the details of the language, but I'll be willing to bet, it has been gone over by people knowledgeable of the constitution, and it does not overstep those bounds. It doesn't 'authorize' any of the stuff Bfoon is claiming, that is more than likely some liberal interpretation of what maybe could possibly happen, if we stretch all bounds of reason and rationale.
Plain and simple, this is what we have... States who are now faced with tough choices, because they can not sustain budget deficits indefinitely. Many are deep in the red, for years on top of years now, and the economy is not growing at any sort of a rate which might encourage a change. In short, they are out of money, can't pay the bills and obligations, and now is the time they have to face the ugly music and start cutting things.
A few governors now, have decided to make cuts in public sector frills, and the unions don't like it.... The plane is going down, the captain says to jettison all non-essential weight or we will crash... and the Liberals are clinging to their crate of champagne and caviar! Now way! Can't get rid of this.... it's near and dear to my heart!
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Also, Bfgrn, it's incredibly funny that you cite Blaisdell. That case UPHELD the states ability to alter contracts based on financial difficulty for the state.
In short, everything you have mentioned in this thread is 100%
In short, everything you have mentioned in this thread is 100%
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You need to have people working to generate tax revenue. You have to put up with big greedy evil corporations making huge bloated profits... otherwise, you have no tax revenue. You've about put them all out of business, or had the government take control of them, but that hasn't helped create jobs or income to tax... so there goes that idea!
You can cancel a contract made with yourself anytime you like. A government representative made a contract with a government representative.... both represent the same entity... the government!
Why should current governments be responsible for what former governments did? If I buy a house, am I obligated to pay the kid down the block $20 to cut my grass because the previous owner 'made a contract' with him? Or an even better analogy..If I paid my son an allowance of $20 to cut the grass on our 10 acre farm, am I obligated to pay him $20 when we move into the condo? Times change, circumstances change. And you can keep yapping about tax increases all you like, you have to first have people employed and making a living, to have a sufficient tax base.
Uhm, do you even KNOW what "collective bargaining" means? It is when you already have certain benefits in your contract.... they are there.... no one can touch those.... and you go in and 'collectively bargain' for an increase... a NEW contract.... with NEW benefits! I'm glad you agree 100% with governor Walker, that is precisely what he did in Wisconsin! In your own words, "The Decent Thing To Do!"
Bfgrn
New member
You are right. What is really interesting about Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell is the state of Minnesota in response to a large number of home foreclosures, extended the time available for mortgagors to redeem their mortgages from foreclosure. That seems like a reasonable and humane thing to do for working people who were victims of a depression they didn't cause.
The irony is pretty thick here, because the ruling has been vehemently protested by conservatives and libertarians.
Richard Epstein, an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution criticisms have been some of the most vocal:
"Blaisdell trumpeted a false liberation from the constitutional text that has paved the way for massive government intervention that undermines the security of private transactions. Today the police power exception has come to eviscerate the contracts clause." wiki
But it's different now, because in Michigan conservatives are using massive government intervention to go after the middle class, the poor and retirees.
I see on this thread, as on all others that it is impossible to have a debate on ethics, morals, empathy and compassion with people who never learned any of those values. And it is equally impossible to debate anything on the grounds of democracy with people who despise it.
The massive government intervention we're seeing in states with newly elected Republicans in the state house and legislatures solidifies and proves my contentions:
Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy. Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.
You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone that can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.
Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.
I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.
Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems. Liberalism is a belief that everyone is basically good and all they need a fair opportunity to succeed.
Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone