Anyone remember the election in 2006?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hold on a second. Someone on this board actually said Palin would win the presidency this year? What a loon!

You should go back and look at what Geniuses like Karl Rove and Dick Morris say .. it's how these dolts here learn to argue. Magical thinking rules.

 

[WillowTree]

Get some help, Dante....it sounds like you've managed to become a true pot head.

He snorts methane!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Get some help, Dante....it sounds like you've managed to become a true pot head.

He snorts methane!

 

[blackhawk]

I remember 2006 and 2008 I also remember 2010 it was very similar to 2006 except the Republicans won bigger in 2010 than the Democrats did in 2006 right now 2012 is a hell of a lot closer than the 2008 election was at this time in 2008 Obama was up by seven points and really had the race won Today Obama is down in the polls anywhere from one to five points and in the fight of his life.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I remember 2006 and 2008 I also remember 2010 it was very similar to 2006 except the Republicans won bigger in 2010 than the Democrats did in 2006 right now 2012 is a hell of a lot closer than the 2008 election was at this time in 2008 Obama was up by seven points and really had the race won Today Obama is down in the polls anywhere from one to five points and in the fight of his life.

The Democrats swept Congress after Nixon. In the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. whenever the GOP gained in one House, the public threw them out shortly afterwards. In 2006 the Democrats took both Houses back.

A party like the GOP of the last few decades since Reagan, that detests government, is fundamentally ill-suited and ill-equipped to govern effectively.

In 2010, the Tea Party backed candidates lost about half their races and the GOP took back only the House.

can spin anything

 

[blackhawk]

I remember 2006 and 2008 I also remember 2010 it was very similar to 2006 except the Republicans won bigger in 2010 than the Democrats did in 2006 right now 2012 is a hell of a lot closer than the 2008 election was at this time in 2008 Obama was up by seven points and really had the race won Today Obama is down in the polls anywhere from one to five points and in the fight of his life.

The Democrats swept Congress after Nixon. In the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. whenever the GOP gained in one House, the public threw them out shortly afterwards. In 2006 the Democrats took both Houses back.

A party like the GOP of the last few decades since Reagan, that detests government, is fundamentally ill-suited and ill-equipped to govern effectively.

In 2010, the Tea Party backed candidates lost about half their races and the GOP took back only the House.

can spin anything

The topic was not about was not about the 1980s, 1990s, or the early 2000s was it ? it was about 2006 in which the Democrats took control of Congress and expanded their lead to a massive degree in 2008 in 2010 the Democrats lost the house and had there advantage in the Senate reduced to four no spin just the truth that you cant deal with.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I remember 2006 and 2008 I also remember 2010 it was very similar to 2006 except the Republicans won bigger in 2010 than the Democrats did in 2006 right now 2012 is a hell of a lot closer than the 2008 election was at this time in 2008 Obama was up by seven points and really had the race won Today Obama is down in the polls anywhere from one to five points and in the fight of his life.

The Democrats swept Congress after Nixon. In the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. whenever the GOP gained in one House, the public threw them out shortly afterwards. In 2006 the Democrats took both Houses back.

A party like the GOP of the last few decades since Reagan, that detests government, is fundamentally ill-suited and ill-equipped to govern effectively.

In 2010, the Tea Party backed candidates lost about half their races and the GOP took back only the House.

can spin anything

The topic was not about was not about the 1980s, 1990s, or the early 2000s was it ? it was about 2006 in which the Democrats took control of Congress and expanded their lead to a massive degree in 2008 in 2010 the Democrats lost the house and had there advantage in the Senate reduced to four no spin just the truth that you cant deal with.

recent history helps flush out a fuller context.

I know it's comforting for some people to conveniently leave out things, but omission of certain facts leads only to a propagandist's wet dream -- a blissfully ignorant base

 

[Listening]

Ho Hum....

Federalist 45 (penned by Madison):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

On the General Welfare Clause....you'll find dozens of these kinds of references

Lettes to the Editor: General Welfare Is to Be Via the Enumerated Powers - WSJ.com

They all quote Madison and restate his argument, ad naseum, that if the General Welfare Clause meant unlimited power then the U.S. Constitution would be crap and that states powers (as guaranteed by the 10th amendment) would be meaningless. He further goes on to say that they have the General Welfare Clause to allow them to do the job they are chartered with in the Constitution (not to do anything they like). Their powers (as suggested in Federalist 45) are few and defined.

The Federalist were an argument presented to the people of the state of New York. They formed an argument, not a creed to be followed by fundamentalist leaders.

After the US Constitution was ratified 'by the people' and NOT the States, Madison wrote lots of things about interpretation and meanings. You'd be surprised to know that Madison and Hamilton could not agree with each other or with themselves over many of the constitutional arguments...yet people like you seem to think you have some secret sauce that can help you interpret things the framers themselves could not.

btw, Madison wrote to somebody who asked about meanings and interpretations, to look to the ratifiers, not the framers.

Who ratified the US Constitution? Not the framers or the states, but the 'people' of each state as a national body. Twas an up or down vote -- take it or leave it -- written behind closed doors -- no official records were kept.

In their wisdom the framers probably foresaw people like you coming down the road.

Aw.....Dante....

Don't let history get in the way of your reality.

The Federalists were an explanation and the two combined are how the Federal Government behaved for 150 years.

You lose.

 

[Listening]

Ho Hum....

Federalist 45 (penned by Madison):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

On the General Welfare Clause....you'll find dozens of these kinds of references

Lettes to the Editor: General Welfare Is to Be Via the Enumerated Powers - WSJ.com

They all quote Madison and restate his argument, ad naseum, that if the General Welfare Clause meant unlimited power then the U.S. Constitution would be crap and that states powers (as guaranteed by the 10th amendment) would be meaningless. He further goes on to say that they have the General Welfare Clause to allow them to do the job they are chartered with in the Constitution (not to do anything they like). Their powers (as suggested in Federalist 45) are few and defined.

Unfortunately, the Federalist Papers do not supersede the Constititution. And the powers of the states, are limited to each state. States do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce, the federal government does. And Congress can make any law it so deems to provide for the general welfare of the country, as long as it is uniform throughout the entire country. And a single-payer, non-profit, universal healthcare system, definately meets that definition.

It's the federal governments job to deal with all threats to the nation as a whole. And when you got a for-profit, $2 trillion/yr, healthcare industry monopoly, that is the cause for 51% of all bankruptcy's filed in the US, that is a threat to this country and its citizens. All the government has to do, is cut the defense budget in half, end the wars, close all our bases around the world, raise the capital gains tax by 10% and we got enough money to provide healthcare for the nation, money to jumpstart the economy through infrastructure projects AND pay down the deficit, all at the same time.

Problem solved.

I guess you can't read. If that were the case, we would not need a U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution was clearly written to limit the federal government. Or did you miss that.

Therefore your claim is Bulls**t.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ho Hum....

Federalist 45 (penned by Madison):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

On the General Welfare Clause....you'll find dozens of these kinds of references

Lettes to the Editor: General Welfare Is to Be Via the Enumerated Powers - WSJ.com

They all quote Madison and restate his argument, ad naseum, that if the General Welfare Clause meant unlimited power then the U.S. Constitution would be crap and that states powers (as guaranteed by the 10th amendment) would be meaningless. He further goes on to say that they have the General Welfare Clause to allow them to do the job they are chartered with in the Constitution (not to do anything they like). Their powers (as suggested in Federalist 45) are few and defined.

The Federalist were an argument presented to the people of the state of New York. They formed an argument, not a creed to be followed by fundamentalist leaders.

After the US Constitution was ratified 'by the people' and NOT the States, Madison wrote lots of things about interpretation and meanings. You'd be surprised to know that Madison and Hamilton could not agree with each other or with themselves over many of the constitutional arguments...yet people like you seem to think you have some secret sauce that can help you interpret things the framers themselves could not.

btw, Madison wrote to somebody who asked about meanings and interpretations, to look to the ratifiers, not the framers.

Who ratified the US Constitution? Not the framers or the states, but the 'people' of each state as a national body. Twas an up or down vote -- take it or leave it -- written behind closed doors -- no official records were kept.

In their wisdom the framers probably foresaw people like you coming down the road.

Aw.....Dante....

Don't let history get in the way of your reality.

The Federalists were an explanation and the two combined are how the Federal Government behaved for 150 years.

You lose.

Since Hamilton won the ear of Washington, which precedes Adams' Presidency, how the Federal Government could and should act/behave has been an open question in many respects. Add the Marshall Court which happens after Adams leaves and Jefferson comes in and you get a - fierce battle - between Democratic Republicans led by Jefferson and Madison and Federalists led by Hamilton and Marshall -- or - States Rights with an agrarian utopia in mind versus what became a commercial, industrial, capitalist society that made America great.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ho Hum....

Federalist 45 (penned by Madison):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

On the General Welfare Clause....you'll find dozens of these kinds of references

Lettes to the Editor: General Welfare Is to Be Via the Enumerated Powers - WSJ.com

They all quote Madison and restate his argument, ad naseum, that if the General Welfare Clause meant unlimited power then the U.S. Constitution would be crap and that states powers (as guaranteed by the 10th amendment) would be meaningless. He further goes on to say that they have the General Welfare Clause to allow them to do the job they are chartered with in the Constitution (not to do anything they like). Their powers (as suggested in Federalist 45) are few and defined.

Unfortunately, the Federalist Papers do not supersede the Constititution. And the powers of the states, are limited to each state. States do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce, the federal government does. And Congress can make any law it so deems to provide for the general welfare of the country, as long as it is uniform throughout the entire country. And a single-payer, non-profit, universal healthcare system, definately meets that definition.

It's the federal governments job to deal with all threats to the nation as a whole. And when you got a for-profit, $2 trillion/yr, healthcare industry monopoly, that is the cause for 51% of all bankruptcy's filed in the US, that is a threat to this country and its citizens. All the government has to do, is cut the defense budget in half, end the wars, close all our bases around the world, raise the capital gains tax by 10% and we got enough money to provide healthcare for the nation, money to jumpstart the economy through infrastructure projects AND pay down the deficit, all at the same time.

Problem solved.

I guess you can't read. If that were the case, we would not need a U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution was clearly written to limit the federal government. Or did you miss that.

Therefore your claim is Bulls**t.

Wrong. It was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution lists the limits, the powers of, the Federal government.

The Articles of Confederation constituted a weak Federal government and the Constitution expanded the powers of the Federal government while recognizing the 'people' as a national body as opposed to a collection of states.

 

[Listening]

Unfortunately, the Federalist Papers do not supersede the Constititution. And the powers of the states, are limited to each state. States do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce, the federal government does. And Congress can make any law it so deems to provide for the general welfare of the country, as long as it is uniform throughout the entire country. And a single-payer, non-profit, universal healthcare system, definately meets that definition.

It's the federal governments job to deal with all threats to the nation as a whole. And when you got a for-profit, $2 trillion/yr, healthcare industry monopoly, that is the cause for 51% of all bankruptcy's filed in the US, that is a threat to this country and its citizens. All the government has to do, is cut the defense budget in half, end the wars, close all our bases around the world, raise the capital gains tax by 10% and we got enough money to provide healthcare for the nation, money to jumpstart the economy through infrastructure projects AND pay down the deficit, all at the same time.

Problem solved.

I guess you can't read. If that were the case, we would not need a U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution was clearly written to limit the federal government. Or did you miss that.

Therefore your claim is Bulls**t.

Wrong. It was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution lists the limits, the powers of, the Federal government.

The Articles of Confederation constituted a weak Federal government and the Constitution expanded the powers of the Federal government while recognizing the 'people' as a national body as opposed to a collection of states.

Such a statement is laughable.

If that were true, we would not be a Republic.

Our education system really sucks.

 

[Listening]

The Federalist were an argument presented to the people of the state of New York. They formed an argument, not a creed to be followed by fundamentalist leaders.

After the US Constitution was ratified 'by the people' and NOT the States, Madison wrote lots of things about interpretation and meanings. You'd be surprised to know that Madison and Hamilton could not agree with each other or with themselves over many of the constitutional arguments...yet people like you seem to think you have some secret sauce that can help you interpret things the framers themselves could not.

btw, Madison wrote to somebody who asked about meanings and interpretations, to look to the ratifiers, not the framers.

Who ratified the US Constitution? Not the framers or the states, but the 'people' of each state as a national body. Twas an up or down vote -- take it or leave it -- written behind closed doors -- no official records were kept.

In their wisdom the framers probably foresaw people like you coming down the road.

Aw.....Dante....

Don't let history get in the way of your reality.

The Federalists were an explanation and the two combined are how the Federal Government behaved for 150 years.

You lose.

Since Hamilton won the ear of Washington, which precedes Adams' Presidency, how the Federal Government could and should act/behave has been an open question in many respects. Add the Marshall Court which happens after Adams leaves and Jefferson comes in and you get a - fierce battle - between Democratic Republicans led by Jefferson and Madison and Federalists led by Hamilton and Marshall -- or - States Rights with an agrarian utopia in mind versus what became a commercial, industrial, capitalist society that made America great.

This was only with respect to the National Bank.

Marshall's famous ruling came only because the people threw out the centralists in the form of John Adams in the election of 1800 and replaced them, not only with Jefferson...but a congress that set the course for a decentralized country for over a decade.

So much so that the North, when it pushed it to far, managed to bait the South in going to far thus sparking the Civil War.

Adam's appointed Marshall at the last minute and even Marshall proved to be a very inconsistent judge by his own standards.

Industrialization was not to come for over a century.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I guess you can't read. If that were the case, we would not need a U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution was clearly written to limit the federal government. Or did you miss that.

Therefore your claim is Bulls**t.

Wrong. It was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution lists the limits, the powers of, the Federal government.

The Articles of Confederation constituted a weak Federal government and the Constitution expanded the powers of the Federal government while recognizing the 'people' as a national body as opposed to a collection of states.

Such a statement is laughable.

If that were true, we would not be a Republic.

Our education system really sucks.

attempt to refute one statement in the above post...you can't

running on empty is no way to travel

 

[Listening]

Wrong. It was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution lists the limits, the powers of, the Federal government.

The Articles of Confederation constituted a weak Federal government and the Constitution expanded the powers of the Federal government while recognizing the 'people' as a national body as opposed to a collection of states.

Such a statement is laughable.

If that were true, we would not be a Republic.

Our education system really sucks.

attempt to refute one statement in the above post...you can't

running on empty is no way to travel

The guy who basically wrote the constitution also explained to the people of New York how power was partitioned.

So the refutation is clearly found in Federalist 45 and in the 9th and 10th amendments.

If you can tell me that Madison didn't mean that from 45, I'll be interested. Otherwise, it is the word of the "Father of the Constitution" against the "Whiny Moron on USMB".

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I guess you can't read. If that were the case, we would not need a U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution was clearly written to limit the federal government. Or did you miss that.

Therefore your claim is Bulls**t.

Wrong. It was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution lists the limits, the powers of, the Federal government.

The Articles of Confederation constituted a weak Federal government and the Constitution expanded the powers of the Federal government while recognizing the 'people' as a national body as opposed to a collection of states.

Such a statement is laughable.

If that were true, we would not be a Republic.

Our education system really sucks.

You don't even know what qualifies us as being a Republic?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Aw.....Dante....

Don't let history get in the way of your reality.

The Federalists were an explanation and the two combined are how the Federal Government behaved for 150 years.

You lose.

Since Hamilton won the ear of Washington, which precedes Adams' Presidency, how the Federal Government could and should act/behave has been an open question in many respects. Add the Marshall Court which happens after Adams leaves and Jefferson comes in and you get a - fierce battle - between Democratic Republicans led by Jefferson and Madison and Federalists led by Hamilton and Marshall -- or - States Rights with an agrarian utopia in mind versus what became a commercial, industrial, capitalist society that made America great.

This was only with respect to the National Bank.

Marshall's famous ruling came only because the people threw out the centralists in the form of John Adams in the election of 1800 and replaced them, not only with Jefferson...but a congress that set the course for a decentralized country for over a decade.

So much so that the North, when it pushed it to far, managed to bait the South in going to far thus sparking the Civil War.

Adam's appointed Marshall at the last minute and even Marshall proved to be a very inconsistent judge by his own standards.

Industrialization was not to come for over a century.

Without a central bank and other issues won by the Federalists versus the agraian nutjobs like Jefferson, the USA would not have been prepared to take over the lead in the Industrial revolution.

Marshall proved to be more consistent in his love of the System of Government and the Institutions the US Constitution gave us, than either Jefferson or Madison. Marshall checked his ideological principles at the door when it was a case of defending the Constitution and saving the Republic and it's Governmental Branches.

Ideologues like you ignorantly put forth Jefferson as some kind of example (myth of course) to follow, yet educated and informed people know people like you would destroy the very system they profess to be protecting -- the Republic

 

[Listening]

Wrong. It was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution lists the limits, the powers of, the Federal government.

The Articles of Confederation constituted a weak Federal government and the Constitution expanded the powers of the Federal government while recognizing the 'people' as a national body as opposed to a collection of states.

Such a statement is laughable.

If that were true, we would not be a Republic.

Our education system really sucks.

You don't even know what qualifies us as being a Republic?

Are you drunk ?

And while you are showing me how you are smarter than Madison, why don't you explain the purpose behind our current electoral system...or why Senators (1/2 of congress) were originally appointed by the states.

I look forward to it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Such a statement is laughable.

If that were true, we would not be a Republic.

Our education system really sucks.

attempt to refute one statement in the above post...you can't

running on empty is no way to travel

The guy who basically wrote the constitution also explained to the people of New York how power was partitioned.

So the refutation is clearly found in Federalist 45 and in the 9th and 10th amendments.

If you can tell me that Madison didn't mean that from 45, I'll be interested. Otherwise, it is the word of the "Father of the Constitution" against the "Whiny Moron on USMB".

The US Constitution was a joint project. 'Father of the Constitution' is a cute and misleading phrase.

Though Madison lost most of his battles over how to amend the Virginia Plan (most importantly over the exclusion of the Council of Revision), in the process he increasingly shifted the debate away from a position of pure state sovereignty.

Since most disagreements over what to include in the constitution were ultimately disputes over the balance of sovereignty between the states and national government, Madison's influence was critical.

Wood notes that Madison's ultimate contribution was not in designing any particular constitutional framework, but in shifting the debate toward a compromise of "shared sovereignty" between the national and state governments.

James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Madison himself wrote in letters that anyone looking for the 'original intent' or meanings' in the document should look to what the 'people' who ratified the document thought they were ratifying, not to look to the framers like himself for meanings -- as the ultimate authority lay in what the 'people' understood the words and the document to say.


You really should read something like Rakove's Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

 

[Listening]

Since Hamilton won the ear of Washington, which precedes Adams' Presidency, how the Federal Government could and should act/behave has been an open question in many respects. Add the Marshall Court which happens after Adams leaves and Jefferson comes in and you get a - fierce battle - between Democratic Republicans led by Jefferson and Madison and Federalists led by Hamilton and Marshall -- or - States Rights with an agrarian utopia in mind versus what became a commercial, industrial, capitalist society that made America great.

This was only with respect to the National Bank.

Marshall's famous ruling came only because the people threw out the centralists in the form of John Adams in the election of 1800 and replaced them, not only with Jefferson...but a congress that set the course for a decentralized country for over a decade.

So much so that the North, when it pushed it to far, managed to bait the South in going to far thus sparking the Civil War.

Adam's appointed Marshall at the last minute and even Marshall proved to be a very inconsistent judge by his own standards.

Industrialization was not to come for over a century.

Without a central bank and other issues won by the Federalists versus the agraian nutjobs like Jefferson, the USA would not have been prepared to take over the lead in the Industrial revolution.

Marshall proved to be more consistent in his love of the System of Government and the Institutions the US Constitution gave us, than either Jefferson or Madison. Marshall checked his ideological principles at the door when it was a case of defending the Constitution and saving the Republic and it's Governmental Branches.

Ideologues like you ignorantly put forth Jefferson as some kind of example (myth of course) to follow, yet educated and informed people know people like you would destroy the very system they profess to be protecting -- the Republic

Making up straw men seems to be one of your specialties.

I don't recall holding up Jefferson as an example of anything. What I said was that he won in 1800 along with a whole lot of people running for the House.....and crushed the Federalist Party which had this country on a course for monarchy.

Try again....and stay with the actual arguments.

I'd love to see your reasoning behind your ass kissing of Marshall. While I agree with Robert Bork, that Marshall was necessary to preserving the union, it is also very clear that he was often not consistent.

I recall reading the book Marshall vs. Jefferson. It took good history and turned it into bulls**t.

And for the record: Aaron Burr is still a hero in my book...only because he parked one between Hamilton's eyes. Hamilton, was huge liar and a schemer. It's unfortunate he didn't simply state his case up front instead of lying his ass off in a quest for power.