US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Supremacy Clause and Nullification

This is a discussion on Supremacy Clause and Nullification within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz Quote: Originally Posted by ☭proletarian☭ Federal law rules absolute- in the very limited areas in which the Fed is ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 12:55 PM
Banned
Member #21146
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,384
Thanks: 169
Thanked 155 Times in 122 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show
Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ☭proletarian☭ View Post
Federal law rules absolute- in the very limited areas in which the Fed is given authority, listed elsewhere in the same document.
So if it's not constitutional, the states not only have a right, but a duty to reject those laws? I'm good with that.
Not only states but also any law giving authority such as counties, cities, townships, and etc. That means its possible for a small town of fifty residence the ability to reject federal law.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 01:01 PM
Banned
Member #21146
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,384
Thanks: 169
Thanked 155 Times in 122 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ihopehefails View Post
Quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This is the supremacy clause as stated within the federal constitution. It is the tool used by those who believe that the federal government has unlimited power across all states, cities, and jurisdiction. What those people don't realize is that a federal law's supremacy status conditional as long as it is "in pursuance thereof" (constitutional) or enforcing an existing treaty signed by the federal government.

When it does not fit into the supremacy clause's set of conditions then that federal law is no longer the supreme law of the land. At this point, any state, city, or country law becomes the "supreme law" over that governing authority's jurisdiction which effectively nullifies federal law within that jurisdiction (this assumes that there is no state law that overides city or county law).

While the supremacy clause may appear to give the federal government the right to override any state, city, or country law it actually gives way more power to nullify federal law than the tenth amendment itself. The tenth amendment only applies to state governments and their jurisdictions but the supremacy clause gives all internal governments that are capable of making and enforcing laws the power to nullify federal law when that law does not follow the conditions set out in the supremacy clause.
If a law was unconstitutional it should not apply anyway. And that is consistent with the Supremacy clause. Your argument makes no sense, reread it and be more clear.

IF a law or Treaty is passed and is Constitutional it is the LAW of the LAND. And no State or local Government can supersede it. That is all the Supremacy clause says.

I agree but there is also another qualifier such as "in pursuence of..." which means that any federal law that wants supremacy status must be constitutional just like any law that wants supremacy status must be in accordance with a treaty signed.

I'm saying that not all laws passed by the federal government are supreme by default. They have to have certain conditions attached to them in order to get there supremacy status.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 01:20 PM
Banned
Member #21146
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,384
Thanks: 169
Thanked 155 Times in 122 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show
Quote: Originally Posted by Liability View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Truthmatters View Post
Who desides if the laws violate the constitution?

Who makes that determination?
Lots of people and institutions can decide.

I suppose it makes sense (in the proper case or controversy) for the SCOTUS to resolve such an issue.

But, lower Federal Courts can do so, too (deferring to the eventual SCOTUS say on the matter if it is made).

State Courts can and do so all the damn time.

Presidents with any grasp of the nature of their obligations SHOULD do so in determining whether or not to sign or veto a bill.

In proper areas, state legislatures SHOULD look to see if the Federal Government is sticking within their limits -- and if not whether they wish to nullify Federal laws which have transgressed such limits.

And me. And you. And everyone else. It's OUR country. We have a very vested stake in the matter. And where congress passes "laws" which constitute violations of the Constitution, we should very much be clear in rebuffing their efforts.

I do not deny that there is a reasonable view of the Constitution giving the SCOTUS authority (via interpretation and employing inherent power). But I certainly do deny that such power is theirs alone.
I actually think that state courts should be able to decide what federal law means over state territories the problem is is that there is nothing in the federal constitution that says states can do that.

Last edited by ihopehefails; 12-27-2009 at 01:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 01:21 PM
Locked Account.
Member #19862
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Mansion in Ravi's Head
Posts: 35,453
Thanks: 3,671
Thanked 10,647 Times in 7,512 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3545
Liability has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by ihopehefails View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ihopehefails View Post

This is the supremacy clause as stated within the federal constitution. It is the tool used by those who believe that the federal government has unlimited power across all states, cities, and jurisdiction. What those people don't realize is that a federal law's supremacy status conditional as long as it is "in pursuance thereof" (constitutional) or enforcing an existing treaty signed by the federal government.

When it does not fit into the supremacy clause's set of conditions then that federal law is no longer the supreme law of the land. At this point, any state, city, or country law becomes the "supreme law" over that governing authority's jurisdiction which effectively nullifies federal law within that jurisdiction (this assumes that there is no state law that overides city or county law).

While the supremacy clause may appear to give the federal government the right to override any state, city, or country law it actually gives way more power to nullify federal law than the tenth amendment itself. The tenth amendment only applies to state governments and their jurisdictions but the supremacy clause gives all internal governments that are capable of making and enforcing laws the power to nullify federal law when that law does not follow the conditions set out in the supremacy clause.
If a law was unconstitutional it should not apply anyway. And that is consistent with the Supremacy clause. Your argument makes no sense, reread it and be more clear.

IF a law or Treaty is passed and is Constitutional it is the LAW of the LAND. And no State or local Government can supersede it. That is all the Supremacy clause says.

I agree but there is also another qualifier such as "in pursuence of..." which means that any federal law that wants supremacy status must be constitutional just like any law that wants supremacy status must be in accordance with a treaty signed.

I'm saying that not all laws passed by the federal government are supreme by default. They have to have certain conditions attached to them in order to get there supremacy status.
A law which is UNConstitutional is no law at all -- so it can't be "supreme" over anything.
__________________
The very existence of Ravi is an argument in favor of burkas. Oh, and Zona is a liar. What a shock.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 01:30 PM
Navy1960's Avatar
Registered User
Member #11841
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,749
Thanks: 320
Thanked 1,114 Times in 751 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 376
Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness
Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

Interesting article
__________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
Chester W. Nimitz
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Navy1960 For This Useful Post:
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 01:32 PM
slackjawed's Avatar
Self deported
Member #12060
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 15th congressional district of Arizona
Posts: 5,307
Thanks: 1,482
Thanked 1,273 Times in 951 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 306
slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness
Missouri has a bill that will be introduced at the beginning of their next session as well.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]"Hell anybody who espresses their support against the GOVERNMENT of the united states I support.anybody who declares themselves to be an emeny of the USA is smart "[I]-911insidejob, USMB 3/6/2010:eusa_boohoo

I wont believe a word of this unless its on the news. 911insidejob, usmb 10/21/2012

"In terms of stationary wind mill farms all that is needed is jet engines to provide wind when natural winds are not available." Octoldit; 11-23-2009

"There is nothing more dangerous than....(this is where he would point with his fork for effect)..a yankee with a bushaxe."
My grandfather, circa 1969 while discussing gun control
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 01:39 PM
Navy1960's Avatar
Registered User
Member #11841
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,749
Thanks: 320
Thanked 1,114 Times in 751 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 376
Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by slackjawed View Post
Missouri has a bill that will be introduced at the beginning of their next session as well.
It may turn out that this will turn out to be something like Real ID in the end, it will test the will of the Administration and see how far they are willing to go to enforce this. To my knowledge very little time has been spent on the enforcement issue of this bill and other than using the IRS as the instrument to enforce mandates it would appear that it is going to be a massive nightmare to enforce this legislation.
__________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
Chester W. Nimitz
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 01:45 PM
slackjawed's Avatar
Self deported
Member #12060
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 15th congressional district of Arizona
Posts: 5,307
Thanks: 1,482
Thanked 1,273 Times in 951 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 306
slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness slackjawed may be on a path to greatness
I expect states will resist in court, and some may just refuse the federal funding to push that point.
It looks like we will have some degree of entertainment from it.
The Real-Id, the state soveriegnty bills in Montana and Tennessee, and this ballot reforendum all are issues pitting the states against the federal government.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]"Hell anybody who espresses their support against the GOVERNMENT of the united states I support.anybody who declares themselves to be an emeny of the USA is smart "[I]-911insidejob, USMB 3/6/2010:eusa_boohoo

I wont believe a word of this unless its on the news. 911insidejob, usmb 10/21/2012

"In terms of stationary wind mill farms all that is needed is jet engines to provide wind when natural winds are not available." Octoldit; 11-23-2009

"There is nothing more dangerous than....(this is where he would point with his fork for effect)..a yankee with a bushaxe."
My grandfather, circa 1969 while discussing gun control
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 04:54 PM
Banned
Member #21146
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,384
Thanks: 169
Thanked 155 Times in 122 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show
Quote: Originally Posted by Navy1960 View Post
Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

Interesting article
I plan on voting for it as well.

On a side not, for states that want this they can simply choose not to use the supremacy clause to nullify it and just embrace instant death...I mean health care reform.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 04:55 PM
Banned
Member #21146
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,384
Thanks: 169
Thanked 155 Times in 122 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show
Quote: Originally Posted by Liability View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ihopehefails View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RetiredGySgt View Post

If a law was unconstitutional it should not apply anyway. And that is consistent with the Supremacy clause. Your argument makes no sense, reread it and be more clear.

IF a law or Treaty is passed and is Constitutional it is the LAW of the LAND. And no State or local Government can supersede it. That is all the Supremacy clause says.

I agree but there is also another qualifier such as "in pursuence of..." which means that any federal law that wants supremacy status must be constitutional just like any law that wants supremacy status must be in accordance with a treaty signed.

I'm saying that not all laws passed by the federal government are supreme by default. They have to have certain conditions attached to them in order to get there supremacy status.
A law which is UNConstitutional is no law at all -- so it can't be "supreme" over anything.
Yep. If it is not in purusuence of the constitution or in a treaty then it is not the supreme law of the land.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 04:59 PM
Banned
Member #21146
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,384
Thanks: 169
Thanked 155 Times in 122 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show ihopehefails could have their own talk show
Quote: Originally Posted by Navy1960 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by slackjawed View Post
Missouri has a bill that will be introduced at the beginning of their next session as well.
It may turn out that this will turn out to be something like Real ID in the end, it will test the will of the Administration and see how far they are willing to go to enforce this. To my knowledge very little time has been spent on the enforcement issue of this bill and other than using the IRS as the instrument to enforce mandates it would appear that it is going to be a massive nightmare to enforce this legislation.
Thank goodness someone stopped the real ID act but it always amazes me how people on the left fail to see all the positives about federalism when it preserves freedom much better than the constitution itself.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 04:59 PM
Navy1960's Avatar
Registered User
Member #11841
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,749
Thanks: 320
Thanked 1,114 Times in 751 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 376
Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness Navy1960 may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by ihopehefails View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Navy1960 View Post
Right on the heels of a successful state-by-state nullification of the 2005 Real ID act, the State of Arizona is out in the forefront of a growing resistance to proposed federal health care legislation.

This past Monday, the Arizona State Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve the Health Care Freedom Act (HCR2014). This will put a proposal on the 2010 ballot which would constitutionally override any law, rule or regulation that requires individuals or employers to participate in any particular health care system.

HCR2014, if approved by voters next year, also would prohibit any fine or penalty on anyone or any company for deciding to purchase health care directly. Doctors and health care providers would remain free to accept those funds and provide those services.

Finally, it would overrule anything that prohibits the sale of private health insurance in Arizona.

Five other states Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming are considering similar initiatives for their 2010 ballots
Arizona HCR2014: National Health Care Nullification*|*Tenth Amendment Center

Interesting article
I plan on voting for it as well.

On a side not, for states that want this they can simply choose not to use the supremacy clause to nullify it and just embrace instant death...I mean health care reform.
As will I, like I did in 2008, however like in 2008 there will be many forces at play here and the vote will likely be close once again if the same groups convince people that by voting for it they will be denied quality healthcare, which is actually interesting considering that the bill doesn't actually stop someone from getting healthcare if "they" so choose. This and other laws like it, I believe will be a big test of this current healthcare bill.
__________________
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.
Chester W. Nimitz
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 06:40 PM
007's Avatar
007 007 is offline
Banned
Member #1322
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Podunk, Wisconsin
Posts: 31,922
Thanks: 7,982
Thanked 9,528 Times in 5,647 Posts
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 5 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow 007 has a flying unicorn and lives on a rainbow
Quote: Originally Posted by ☭proletarian☭ View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ☭proletarian☭ View Post
Correct.

There was a war fought over the concept once... It was decided after the Fed won that war to ignore Constitutional limits on power, citing the supremacy clause general welfare clauses (without ever actually reading them, apparently) to give the fed carte blanche to do as it pleased. That has gotten us to where we are today.
Then we may be ready to do the same thing again. The worse this gets, the more states will want to pull out. Wow. One part civil war, one part revolution.
I'm doubtful. I don't think very many citizens would be willing to wage a war in the streets over it. I think the majority of the populace is defeated.
Oh ye of little faith. I think if there was an armed march on Washington planned, you'd see people coming out of the wood work. Give it some time... wait until unemployment is at 15%, 20%, and our dollar isn't worth spit. The day is coming my friend... it's coming. People won't have anything to lose, and everything to gain.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 08:03 PM
Big Fitz's Avatar
User Quit *****
Member #21726
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 16,917
Thanks: 4,337
Thanked 4,320 Times in 3,280 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1285
Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court
Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court Big Fitz could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ☭proletarian☭ View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz View Post
Then we may be ready to do the same thing again. The worse this gets, the more states will want to pull out. Wow. One part civil war, one part revolution.
I'm doubtful. I don't think very many citizens would be willing to wage a war in the streets over it. I think the majority of the populace is defeated.
Oh ye of little faith. I think if there was an armed march on Washington planned, you'd see people coming out of the wood work. Give it some time... wait until unemployment is at 15%, 20%, and our dollar isn't worth spit. The day is coming my friend... it's coming. People won't have anything to lose, and everything to gain.
Most of my family are liberals. I do not relish being on the opposite side of the fight from them. Mayhap they wake up from their error.
__________________
Account Closed
03-18-13

Admin, please delete account.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 12-27-2009, 08:18 PM
ba1614's Avatar
Registered User
Member #19347
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Deep in the Northern Woods
Posts: 3,812
Thanks: 3,509
Thanked 1,573 Times in 969 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 984
ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve
ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve ba1614 could run the Federal Reserve
Quote: Originally Posted by Big Fitz View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Pale Rider View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by ☭proletarian☭ View Post

I'm doubtful. I don't think very many citizens would be willing to wage a war in the streets over it. I think the majority of the populace is defeated.
Oh ye of little faith. I think if there was an armed march on Washington planned, you'd see people coming out of the wood work. Give it some time... wait until unemployment is at 15%, 20%, and our dollar isn't worth spit. The day is coming my friend... it's coming. People won't have anything to lose, and everything to gain.
Most of my family are liberals. I do not relish being on the opposite side of the fight from them. Mayhap they wake up from their error.
Fear not, they'll wake up up once the impact of the bullshit being put on their shoulders starts to affect their lives personally. It's typical for flaming liberals to preach utopia as long as it's not their lifestyle being fucked with to pay for it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:00 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.