quote:

Originally posted by Mike English:



But it does imply that you agree with him.



Now you and I voted for the same person but I dont understand why you seem to kinda stand up for Washington. Its run by a bunch if idiot who cant this country no matter what some people on this board think. They are interested in one thing, POWER AND MONEY!

When have I agreed with Washington?

A true conservative who is also a Constitutional conservative would not have sided with those that are for "torture" and supported "dumbya's war".

Ron Paul was and is the best that fits "true" conservative and "Constitutional" conservative but was torn to shreds by the far right posters on this board.
To me they are just a bunch of "wannabee's" chest pounders.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob H: Ron Paul was and is the best that fits "true" conservative and "Constitutional" conservative

True as far as Washington is concerned.

quote:

... but was torn to shreds by the far right posters on this board.

Another bullshiite statement!!

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy J.: Just because I don't criticize Obama like you guys do does not mean I support him or oppose him.

Jeremy,

It not that you don't criticize Obama it's that you attack those of us who vehemently oppose his economic policies. Even Ron Paul vehemently opposes those policies. Are you going to come out and attack Ron Paul for his statements against what Obama and the Congress are doing?

quote:

Kinda like how a certain few of you say that you are true conservatives yet you never have a bad thing to say about Bush even though you call him a liberal. ...

I think you're showing some long term memory loss with that statement. Some of us criticized Bush repeatedly through the years for his liberal spending habits. We just didn't make those statements with the same vitriol of the Bush-haters.

quote:

Originally posted by announcer:
I believe in the Constitution as an outstanding Document that was penned masterfully by our fore fathers...who also had no clue as to where this country would be in 2009. I believe the Constitution is a document that in the late 1700s was a state-of-the-art vessel to lead this country to it's founding and it's freedom. But I also believe that those same brilliant sculptors had enough common sense to know that this document would need to be interpreted and amended according to the times to come...that in it's original form would never be able to apply in the days to come.

So yes I believe in it...but I also believe those great men KNEW they were laying a foundation for a country that would have to be applied by the times and no stay stagnant in it's original form.

Mike,

That's as honest an answer as I could of ask for. Though I vehemently disagree with your ascertion that the Constitution "in it's original form would never be able to apply in the days to come." I've been reading it a lot more lately and I don't understand how anyone can think that the document as it is written is no less capable of directing the actions of the Federal Government today than it did in the beginnings of our nation.

As proof for my argument I submit that the growth entitlement spending in the last 45 years and the constant meddling in business/financial matters are the biggest reasons our country is in the mess it is in now. Both of which are expressly prohibited in the Constitution.

quote:

quote:
... but was torn to shreds by the far right posters on this board.

Another bullshiite statement!!

Mmm... maybe not you, but there was at least one who did.

Jeremy J. Jeremy J. Jeremy J. Jeremy J.

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:
Jeremy,

It not that you don't criticize Obama it's that you attack those of us who vehemently oppose his economic policies. Even Ron Paul vehemently opposes those policies. Are you going to come out and attack Ron Paul for his statements against what Obama and the Congress are doing?

Are you serious? Economic policies such as non-income tax increases? Bailouts? Stimulus? You may want to do a search because I have said several times that I didn't think ANYBODY should have gotten a single dime! In fact I think I worded it the same way. Do a search for 'dime'. I have said several times that spending more money while in debt is no different than a struggling family getting more credit cards to use as a short term solution. It's just going to make things worse in the long run. Bush and Obama did this and are doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:I think you're showing some long term memory loss with that statement. Some of us criticized Bush repeatedly through the years for his liberal spending habits. We just didn't make those statements with the same vitriol of the Bush-haters.

Yeah, you saved it for Clinton and Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy J.: Are you serious? Economic policies such as non-income tax increases? Bailouts? Stimulus? You may want to do a search because I have said several times that I didn't think ANYBODY should have gotten a single dime! In fact I think I worded it the same way. Do a search for 'dime'. I have said several times that spending more money while in debt is no different than a struggling family getting more credit cards to use as a short term solution. It's just going to make things worse in the long run. Bush and Obama did this and are doing it.

And yet you still attack those of us who vocalize the most our displeasure with what is happening!?!?

quote:

Yeah, you saved it for Clinton and Obama.

You have never seen me name call or berate Obama or Clinton the way you guys did Bush. I may speak "candidly" about their policies and actions but I have never acted toward them the way you guys have towards Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Beard:

quote:

quote:
... but was torn to shreds by the far right posters on this board.

Another bullshiite statement!!

Mmm... maybe not you, but there was at least one who did.

Michael,

You as well as I that he was casting that net over all of us who consider ourselves conservative.

quote:

Originally posted by stanman:
And yet you still attack those of us who vocalize the most our displeasure with what is happening!?!?

Greg, I don't go out of my way to attack anybody on this board or any other board unless it is provoked. I don't attack you for the most part because USUALLY you put up a decent discussion with some name-calling thrown in. I don't attack MB, BD, English, Bob, Translady, etc..... If it looks like I attack Muggs it's only because I am picking on him the same way he picks on me. With him it's all good because he's my buddy outside of this forum and in no way do I say anything to him that would be offensive. If you met Muggs, he is one of the most laid back, nicest guys you'd ever meet.

The ones I do attack you need to look no further than their own posts. Joe, Koski, Cutlass...... I don't need to explain them because it should be pretty obvious to you. I tried to have civilized discussions with them, but like I've said, it's just not worth the time anymore.

SMACKDOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As his own congress makes the illegal alien a liar one more time, after this many lies what's one more!
No money for closing Gitmo AND NO prisoners coming to the US under any circumstances, a direct slap to the illegal alien and his ethics bereft Attorney General!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Looks as though even some of the out-in-leftfield socialist donkies are beginning to realize all of this anti-American crap is going to be their ticket to civilian life if they surrender to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way, RUSH resigned as titular head of the Republican party and handed the reins to weasel powell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Bill Koski,

When you use those illegal alien comments it doesn't bother those of us you wish it would...it only reflects your lack of common intelligence that you would make up a lie to bolster your own talking points....kind of like what you accuse us dupes of all the time....welcome to our world!

Can anybody explain to me why this clause in the Constitution states that the Federal Government has the power to regulate interstate commerce...people keep telling me that the government does NOT have that right....hmmmmm

The Constitution of the United States sets forth the nations fundamental laws for business regulation. The Commerce Clause in particular grants the federal government the authority to regulate commerce between states, Indian tribes, and other nations. “Because this clause authorizes the federal government to regulate commerce, it has a greater impact on business than any other provision in the Constitution (Cheeseman, 2007, p. 52).” The original purpose of this clause was primarily due to the need for a more responsive and effective business regulation. Today, this clause protects businesses and consumers alike. The state and federal government have concurrent power to regulate domestic commerce. Today, this clause protects businesses and consumers alike. The state and federal government have concurrent power to regulate domestic commerce. The federal and state governments dually regulate the parameters of interstate and intrastate commerce. Interstate commerce consists of business involving two or more states while intrastate commerce occurs solely within the boundaries of a single state.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: announcer,

To me this Commerce Clause says if business is so out of whack that it can't function anymore...the Federal Government has the power to intervene....

I'm sure there will be a hard right translation telling me not to believe my lying eyes!

illegal alien isn't a lie until he produces documentation to prove otherwise, preferably a legitimate birth certificate, a green card wouldn't suffice to be President!
You duped boobs should have considered this while you were blaspheming President Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike,

I'm not sure where you get the idea that has the power to intervene in the affairs of private industry except where laws are being broken or the public's safety is at risk.

Here's the conclusion I've come to from what I've studied based on the original intent.

The Fed's authority is based on the idea that there be a common set of regulations and standards for INTERSTATE (between two or more states) commerce due to the differing laws and regulations between states... what's legal and permitted in one state may not be in another. Kind of like an arbitrator for companies that do business in more than one state.

It was never intended to give the Fed the authority to intercede in the operation of or direction of private companies/business.

Considered what? He's the president...I'm sure if you have a slam dunk case against his origin of birth then you need to present that evidence...otherwise...you're full of crap as usual!

Here ya go Billy

And just for the record:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.