| Author | Message | ||
     Jimidan |
FB: "I don't miss much." You don't miss much on here...shucks dude, of course you don't, you live here  ! As far as the applicability of your narrow interpretation of the Constitution, that is why we have courts, my friend. And so far, the courts haven't exactly seen it your way. And that is why we have elections...to appoint folks to the courts. Elections have far reaching consequences. Cowboy: "You know every thing was going along better thannow till the Demorats took the house then it started down hill---If this prez is dooing such a great job why are so many more house holds on food stamps than ever before?????" I dunno, but maybe it had something to do with Bush running the economy of the country into the ditch by started two unfunded wars, a Medicare D prescription drug plan that was little more than a $1 trillion (trillion = 1000 billion, billion = 1000 million) welfare program for Big Pharm and implementing the unfunded Bush tax cuts all at the SAME time, coupled with a deregulated Wall Street/banks playing Russian Roulette with OUR money, may have had something to do with it. FB: "Yeah, Clinton used a nice trick of "intergovernmental debt" to give the illusion of a "surplus" while the overall national debt remained unchanged." That may very well be true, but Bush used it too. There ought to be a law against "borrowing" from OUR SS pool, and also against ever "privatizing" it. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Bush running the economy of the country into the ditch" You sure are hitting all the talking points. You're even using the right words. I wonder whether you realize how transparent you are when you post this drivel. | ||
| Reindog |
So who are the racists here, JD-Bob? You owe an apology to whomever you accused, dude. Accusing others of racism is a very serious offense. VERY serious and will NOT be taken lightly. You OWE people here an apology or a retraction. Nothing less will suffice. Until you do what is right if you have any balls, you are nothing but a troll here. | ||
| Oldog |
maybe it had something to do with Bush running the economy of the country into the ditch by started two unfunded wars Ok its all Bush's fault ... sounds familiar ..... 9-11 Katrina failing sanctions against Iraq and RUMORS of WMD.. my o2 you hijack an airliner and crash into a civilian target on us soil an ass whoopin will ensue, Some times you have to help your neighbors out.. Sadam was given every opportunity to allow inspection and comply with the orders of the UN with reguards to WMD you seem to have problems with the facts.... | ||
| Reindog |
"The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those who vote for a living." - - Anonymous ****** ALERT: CODE WORD DETECTED ************* | ||
| Reindog |
This thread is about President Romney over Zero. Please move Bushisms to the appropriate thread. | ||
| Fahren |
Here's a presidential candidate you can really trust (emphasis added by me): EVANS: Governor Romney, Speaker Gingrich, Senator Santorum and now vocally tonight Senator Perry — Governor Perry — are calling for you to release your tax records. The Obama campaign is asking for the same thing. Governor, will you release your income tax records? ROMNEY: You know, I looked at what has been done in campaigns in the past with Senator McCain and President George W. Bush and others. They have tended to release tax records in April or tax season. I hadn’t planned on releasing tax records because the law requires us to release all of our assets, all the things we own. That I have already released. It’s a pretty full disclosure. But, you know, if that’s been the tradition and I’m not opposed to doing that, time will tell. But I anticipate that most likely I am going to get asked to do that around the April time period and I’ll keep that open. EVANS: Governor, you will plan then to release your income tax records around April? ROMNEY: I think I’ve heard enough from folks saying, look, let’s see your tax records. I have nothing in them that suggests there’s any problem and I’m happy to do so. I sort of feel like we are showing a lot of exposure at this point. And if I become our nominee, and what’s happened in history is people have released them in about April of the coming year and that’s probably what I would do. Greased watermelon. | ||
| Reindog |
Greased watermelon? Are you calling Romney a Martian on the outside but a Communist on the inside? | ||
| Fahren |
Naw, just harking back to some fun summer camp memories, two teams in the water, trying to get that watermelon over to your end zone. Pretty slippery LOL! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
As far as the applicability of your narrow interpretation of the Constitution, that is why we have courts, my friend. And so far, the courts haven't exactly seen it your way. And that is why we have elections...to appoint folks to the courts. Elections have far reaching consequences. Another excellent point. You are claiming interpretive powers of the Supreme Court. Where in Article 3 of the Constitution is the Supreme Court granted interpretive powers? How is MY interpretation "narrow"? You didn't answer my questions. | ||
| Reindog |
Well Jimmy-Dean-Dan-Bob? Still waiting. | ||
| Fahren |
"Jimmy Dean?" Dang, Reindog, now you got me hankering for sausages. Does that mean I'm gay, or is this just cross-posting? My threads are tangled. | ||
| Boltrider |
 | ||
| Reindog |
Well, at least it isn't cross dressing.  | ||
| Aesquire |
America's Test Kitchen rates Jimmy Dean highest in precooked breakfast sausage. Here I will agree with Jimidan. Bush's drug program is unpopular, even by the folk who use it, because the paperwork is so confusing and the results of not-perfect paperwork result in no payment. It was a "compassionate Conservative" piece of crap. Bread and Circuses. Consider it a preview of the horror of socialized medicine. ( pick on Mitt or Barack for that...or both ) Having a Congress that knows little to less than nothing about science and medicine results in bad law. I can't wait for the antimatter containment regulations to be written. ( it's a project I've been working on ) I'm pretty sure neither Pelosi or Reed even know what antimatter is, and will bet $100 that any law they vote for will both be unsafe, and ruin the business of using the most concentrated power storage stuff on Earth. ( true, seldom found ON Earth for any noticeable length of time... And, to be fair, raw, unlinked Quarkium is more powerful, but we don't even know how to make it yet. Much less contain it. Thank your G-d(s) ) I also love how Jimidan takes "...Demorats took the house then it started down hill." and blames Bush. He has a point. Bush LET the D's spend too much money. He didn't veto their spending far too much and didn't veto the real bad laws they passed that resulted in the real estate crisis. ( the ones during his term. Other laws predate him ) So Bush does indeed have a part in this mess. 3 years of no budget and 5+ trillion in added debt, though. That's Barack. Every penny. Every Job Lost. That's ALL on the D's in charge of Congress. Bush should have stopped them. Obama demands more spending. Bush doubled the debt in 8 years. Freed 50 million people. And spent far too much IMHO on nation building, when the right thing to do IMO was to leave Iraq through Iran on the way home. But that's water under the bridge. Let's hope we never do that again. ( except the freeing of 50 million people from tyranny. That WAS a good thing ) Obama doubled the debt and hasn't finished his 4 years yet. His actions have kept the freedom loving people of Iran in bondage. Deposed a dictator on Egypt who was preparing to step down to free elections with the radical jihadi barred from office. Now they will rule with the military junta. That's 81 million people sold into tyranny. ( not counting the 75 million people in Iran he sold out preferring to support a madman's govt. that supplies weapons to kill our troops, murder Israelis, and wants to bring about Armageddon. Nice call. FUBO. Bush = 50 million freed. Obama = 150 million people in bondage. | ||
| Mtjm2 |
Cross threading ? a term or condition ? | ||
| Jimidan |
Reindog: "So who are the racists here, JD-Bob? You owe an apology to whomever you accused, dude. Accusing others of racism is a very serious offense. VERY serious and will NOT be taken lightly. You OWE people here an apology or a retraction. Nothing less will suffice. Until you do what is right if you have any balls, you are nothing but a troll here." OK, if there is one thing I have it is balls, so let's revisit some current events here. I am over on 'Buell Racing and more' reading up on the exiting news about EBR's new racing team and I just happen to check in on the Quick Board since I haven't been here for a long time...and what do I see but this Romney thread. I should'a, could'a would'a avoided said thread 'cept curiosity got the best of me, even though I know that most folks on this thread are going to be about 3 degrees to the right of Glenn Beck. And, sure enough, after reading just the first page, I am seeing these posts that used language just like on the Tea Party folk' signs with doctored-up pictures of the President with a bone through his nose (you know the ones) and that ol' Newt Gingrich has been working his jowls with lately, that I just had to comment on. It was a mistake, I repeat, a mistake, because I know from vast experience on this very site and others that NO ONE is going to be moved off of their currently held political/social issue ideas, thoughts or positions based on anything that I might say, regardless of the validity. Are we in an agreement so far? Just the other night on the FAUX News sponsored debate ol' Newt was at it again. I watch ALL of the Republican debates as you just can't buy "reality TV" any more entertaining that this at any price. Moderator Juan Williams, whom most reasonable people consider an expert on what currently is offensive to black people (much more than anyone on here), asked ol' Newt the following question about his characterization of the nation's poor. Williams was targeting comments the former House speaker has repeatedly made, saying poor children lack role models for work, and calling President Barack Obama a "food stamp president" (just like some on here did). Williams asked: "Speaker Gingrich, the suggestion that you made was about a lack of work ethic and I've gotta tell you my email account and my Twitter account has been inundated by people of all races who are asking if your comment was not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities ... you saw some of this reaction during your visit to a black church in South Carolina by a woman who asked why you refer to Barack Obama as a "food stamp president." It sounds like you're trying to belittle people." Juan continued through the vociferous boos of the South Carolina's crowd, the vast majority of whom just happened to appear to be white, “Speaker Gingrich, you recently said Black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools,” Williams said. “Can't you see that this is viewed at a minimum as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to Black Americans?” These are very astute questions and I agree with Juan Williams, the expert, that it very much sounds like ol' Newt was trying to belittle people, and particularly black Americans. Now you guys may or may not agree with ol' Newt's sentiments (as I think he was targeting fringe white Tea Party types), and that is your prerogative, but I think that these kinds of statements are racist and mean spirited and should be quashed at every opportunity. And that is what I do whenever I see or hear comments like these as there is no place in America from anybody, regardless of their race. Furthermore, I think that most reasonable people agree with me that repeating these kinds of comments or condoning those that do, is indicative that they are either a racist at heart OR have a profound inability to know when they have insulted black people, and/or conscious Americans in general. In any event, either offense should be taken VERY seriously and not be condoned regardless of the political leanings of the venue, and I would hope that Blake and the moderators would not take them lightly. Now I want to make it clear that I lack the qualifications and am NOT an expert on racial sensitivity like Mr. Williams. I can say that I personally do not see race although some folks tell me that I am considered white. I assume that they are right because I do own two Prius cars (the top car on the webite, http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/ ) and two Buell motorcycles, and I am also an expert kayaker. But because I am not an expert on black people's racial sensitivities like Juan Williams, Clarence Page or Eugene Robinson, or casts of thousands of thoughtful and considerate Americans, some of whom have written pieces in newspapers or spoke out in public and on TV regarding the use of such epithets in a public forum, I may have misinterpreted what some on here had in their hearts when they made certain comments on this thread. As I have said before, nobody can discern what someone feels or doesn't feel in their hearts...only themselves and God can do that. All that we have are their words to go by. Therefore, if I was mistaken in characterizing any of those specifically cited comments as being racially insensitive or racist in nature, please accept my full and undivided apology. Also, please explain exactly what you actually intended to communicate with those comments so that ALL might be clear on you intended meaning. Or you could just stand and cheer like the South Carolina bunch did at the debate when Newt said them too. It is your call. | ||
| Jimidan |
FB: "You are claiming interpretive powers of the Supreme Court." No, just reading what they have interpreted...it is their job, that is what they do . | ||
| Jimidan |
old dog: "Ok its all Bush's fault ... sounds familiar ..... 9-11 Katrina failing sanctions against Iraq and RUMORS of WMD.. my o2 you hijack an airliner and crash into a civilian target on us soil an ass whoopin will ensue, Some times you have to help your neighbors out.. Sadam was given every opportunity to allow inspection and comply with the orders of the UN with reguards to WMD you seem to have problems with the facts...." would you care to source those "facts"...just cause you say them does not make the so. They are fractured fairy tales. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Jimidan have you read the Federalist papers your view of the Constitution will narrow considerably when you do. Our Gov is out of control. When realize what the left has told you is incorrect. | ||
| Aesquire |
...Tea Party folk' signs with doctored-up pictures of the President with a bone through his nose (you know the ones) Um, no. Never saw that. You got a link? I have seen the real good one that parodies Shepard Fairey's famous "Hope" portrait as The Joker from the Batman Movie. Many thought that racist. It has nothing to do with the Tea Party though. Fairey deserves the credit for the "Hope" artwork. I may not like Obama's theology, but the artist's work has been massive in it's appeal. Sure, It's a computer work modifying a picture the artist liked (but didn't take) but a graphic that catches the eye and moves the soul must be at least considered art. http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2008/08/28/th e-man-behind-the-obama-icon/ But what do I know? I think the Dodge SuperBee graphic is art too. Same reasons. You have to love the nonapology apology. I just can't equal that. I hope that puts the Racism issue to rest. ( except of course the racism used by Obama's campaign against the Clinton's, and the upcoming Sheetstorm just waiting to be unleashed upon whatever bozo we end up with after the Convention. ) ( or "why I Think Cain was targeted for destruction" ) Best post so far was Thursday, January 12, 2012 - 10:33 am: IMHO. I think it sums up what many of us think. ( about the choices left to us after a year of rotten "news" reporting and slander in this primary. ) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
No, just reading what they have interpreted...it is their job, that is what they do "Interpreting" the Constitution ISN'T their job and it isn't a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. The Constitution isn't a "living" document. It was intended to be read EXACTLY as it's written. Do you not understand the cabal created under the current structure? There is not only NO check or balance on Congress, but the court, as it's currently operating, continuously grants extra-Constitutional powers to Congress. The reason that SCOTUS judges were granted lifetime appointments was so that the court would be more immune from political tides and allegiances. The lifetime appointments were NEVER intended to create the ability for one party or another to project power decades into the future as is currently happening. A judge could be as liberal or as conservative politically and it shouldn't make any difference because that judge would have only the power to compare a law against the strict constructionist words contained in the Constitution. If the power didn't SPECIFICALLY reside in the Constitution, the law was Unconstitutional regardless of whether the judge believed the law was just or not. It's when the judiciary took the power to interpret new powers into the Constitution that the system ran aground. If you want Congress to have the power to create a personal mandate to purchase health insurance, get your buddies together and pass an amendment granting Congress that power. Don't collude between branches to create that power from whole cloth in back rooms. Right now, Congress delivers what the President wants in return for the President appointing judges that will accomplish what the in power party in Congress desires. The Judiciary was NEVER meant to either aid or be a political tool of either of the other branches. You can thank FDR and his court packing scheme for sending us down this dark road. | ||
| Jimidan |
Kenm123+: "Jimidan have you read the Federalist papers your view of the Constitution will narrow considerably when you do. Our Gov is out of control. When realize what the left has told you is incorrect." No, I have not, but I will look into them, er ah, it. I am not sure what they are in...a book, or loose leaf binder? I know there are 80 some odd essays. Hey, don't get me wrong, I am with you that our government is out of control and that our country is going in the wrong direction. Our politicians are bought and everyone knows it. Conservatives know it just as much as liberals do, and libertarians have probably known it all along. The Democrats are bought but hide it better and the Republicans are bought even more so and don't care who knows it. They don't represent us as they represent their donors. We have taxation without representation and our democracy is in serious trouble. Somehow, we must regain our ability to make a difference, as right now, corporate interests and special interests (it can even be foreign interests because Super Pacs are completely anonymous) dominate our politics because they can spend unlimited money (thanks to the US Supreme Court and the Citizens United case). In our current system money speaks louder than words. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but the checkbook is far mightier than the pen. In the congressional races in 2008, the candidate who had more money won more than 93% of the time. Our representatives don't serve us; they serve the people who pay them, their corporate funders. We must take corporate money out of politics, although it is naive to believe that you can stop rich people from spending their own money on their political ideology. But that has happened throughout our history and we have survived that. What has changed in the last 30 years is the power of corporate money, which is nearly unlimited. What really bewilders me is how a lot of conservatives are carrying their Corporate Daddies' water...against their own economic self-interests. (Message edited by Jimidan on January 18, 2012) | ||
| Jimidan |
Aesquire: "..Tea Party folk' signs with doctored-up pictures of the President with a bone through his nose (you know the ones) Um, no. Never saw that. You got a link?" http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/ conservative_activist_forwards_racist_pic_showing. php | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Hey, don't get me wrong, I am with you that our government is out of control and that our country is going in the wrong direction. Our politicians are bought and everyone knows it. Conservatives know it just as much as liberals do, and libertarians have probably known it all along. The Democrats are bought but hide it better and the Republicans are bought even more so and don't care who knows it. They don't represent us as they represent their donors. We have taxation without representation and our democracy is in serious trouble. Somehow, we must regain our ability to make a difference, as right now, corporate interests and special interests (it can even be foreign interests because Super Pacs are completely anonymous) dominate our politics because they can spend unlimited money (thanks to the US Supreme Court and the Citizens United case). In our current system money speaks louder than words. The pen might be mightier than the sword, but the checkbook is far mightier than the pen. In the congressional races in 2008, the candidate who had more money won more than 93% of the time. Our representatives don't serve us; they serve the people who pay them, their corporate funders. We must take corporate money out of politics, although it is naive to believe that you can stop rich people from spending their own money on their political ideology. But that has happened throughout our history and we have survived that. What has changed in the last 30 years is the power of corporate money, which is nearly unlimited. Agree on nearly all points. The ONLY way to get the government back under control is to pull the government's head out of the trough. The reason people want to enter politics is that there is fantastic wealth to be had. Corporations are involved in politics because there is fantastic wealth to be had. The problem is that the population is unwilling to give up their goodies to fix the problem. "We must eat our children or we'll starve. Let's eat your baby first." I'd like to see a "plain language" amendment added to the Constitution that states simply that only the SPECIFIC powers granted to government in the plain language of the Constitution are Constitutional. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/ conservative_activist_forwards_racist_pic_showing. php One guy does not a racist movement make. Or is EVERY Occupy protester anti-semitic? | ||
| Gregtonn |
"There ought to be a law against "borrowing" from OUR SS pool, and also against ever "privatizing" it." I agree with the first part. As to the second part; Privatization has always been proposed as an option. That means those who are smart enough to manage their own SS account get to keep it and pass it on to their heirs it the event of their death. That is why so many politicians hate it; They dont't get to keep all your SS money when you die. Yes I know the "lock box" is empty. That's another reason they hate the idea of privatization, they would have to admit they already spent it. G | ||
| Ducxl |
Privatize....RIGHT..okay.so instead of our gov we'll let greedy Wall st. Direct it.tell me they'll be moral and not. Look for ways to separate ME from my hard earned savings.no shortage of crooks. Like I'll EVER vote in A man who made his money on Wall st. HA!!!! If Romney goes against Obama I'll vote Democrat for the first time IN MY LIFE!!! | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNzPVqgFRSg&feature =fvst http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56 Gee, I guess because I'm not on his Google server, I missed that. A doctor against the takeover of his life, eh? How unusual. The pic is funny in context. It is racially insensitive. Gotta agree. Want me to post a centuries worth of racist propaganda from the party the Prez is in? It's out there. And not a joke like the prez as a witch doctor as the result of a really bad socialized medicine bill. ( a good one may not actually be possible, but it certainly wouldn't even look like Pelosicare. ) But I won't show that century of racist propaganda. I won't link to it. ( and it's there, oh yes, it's there ) It's disgusting. and to be fair, most of it dates back to Kennedy's day and before. I even followed the link "pretty much dog bites man", to find more racist Tea Party signs. I'd agree that's one. Definitely insensitive. Must mean all people who want limited government are racist. Damn. Who knew? I can agree that government is full of corruption. I even agree that the D's hide it better, but only because they know the press won't report it. "A dead woman or a live boy" is what it takes to get rid of a bad Congressman, and, often, IF he's a D, that's not enough. I'll mention a certain dead Senator who walked away from a sinking car he'd drunk driven into the water, leaving a women to die as he walked home and slept it off, before calling for help. He was an alky. Everyone knew it, but he was from a rich and powerful family, so he got away with it. He's also gone now, so maybe they can finally build the windmills he forbid while alive because they'd spoil his view. Your view, spoiling was fine. I recall another D who had affairs with interns. Male, btw. Didn't destroy him. The pathetic R so heavily closeted that he gor busted at an airport restroom.... he's long gone. There IS a double standard. The D have more help hiding their crimes. I don't think the Citizen's United case created the Superpacs now hammering the R candidates for nomination. Is that McCain-Fiengold? or another idiot's work? | ||
| Aesquire |
Oh, Thanks for the link Jimidan. http://www.amazon.com/Federalist-Papers-Alexander- Hamilton/dp/1612930751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1326 943610&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/The-Federalist-Papers-ebook/ dp/B004TPP976/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1326943610&sr =8-2 Free on Kindle. I think you'll find them useful in shaping your understanding of what the Founders were trying to accomplish. First, they saw that power without limits led to tyranny. They had a great example in the King of England, and his appointed minions who had power without restraint. Second, they saw that the power must flow up from the people not be assumed as a divine right of Kings. ( the real reason for forbidding the establishment of religion. ) But, my oratorical powers are insignificant against the wisdom the Founders laid down. ( mostly, it's not all stirring philosophy, there's some hard common sense there that I also can only approximate a pale shadow ) |
