Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution

[teapartysamurai]

Constitution? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Constitution - Big Journalism

Here is the money quote that tells it all:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8"]YouTube - Phil Hare doesn't care.[/ame]


What gets me is his cowardice when he is confronted with his lying. He takes the out of all outrageous liars. We have all met them. They tell ridiculous lies but demand we all believe them implicitly. When you "dare" not to believe them, they become outraged. (Bill Clinton springs to mind, in that category).

So, he just trounces out because he knows he can't defend his outrageous lie, but he is still furious, they didn't believe it.

"Do you KNOW what I do for a living? Peasant! How DARE you question me on the bill!"

They really nailed him on this video. I love it.

We need to get every one of those louses that voted for the bill on video, just like this and put them on the internet for everyone to see and remember for election time.

November 2 is coming people, and I can't wait!

 

[Vanquish]

This video should make us all ashamed.

1. He did say he doesn't care about the constitution. That's bad. Dreadfully bad.
2. The video is insulting, "gotcha" rhetoric. I'm all for people holding representative accountable, but as you can tell from the video they insulted the man by calling him Nazi, Communist and now a liar.

So here we have another example of how no one is winning when civilized debate falls by the wayside.

 

[teapartysamurai]

This video should make us all ashamed.

1. He did say he doesn't care about the constitution. That's bad. Dreadfully bad.
2. The video is insulting, "gotcha" rhetoric. I'm all for people holding representative accountable, but as you can tell from the video they insulted the man by calling him Nazi, Communist and now a liar.

So here we have another example of how no one is winning when civilized debate falls by the wayside.

Now here this, someone's lying and it isn't me! Centrist my ass. If I had a dime for every liberal that claimed to be a "centrist, progressive, blah blah blah," I would be richer than George Soros.

The only person who said "NAZI" in this video was PHIL HARRIS the Congressman. He says under his breathe "oh you call me a liar and a Nazi."

No one in the video beside Phil Harris utters the word Nazi.

Another tactic of the LYING LIBERALS. They KNOW they cannot fight the truth on the right, so they are trying to smear us.

And if ANYONE has been calling anyone NAZI it has been liberals who have called conservatives Nazi since I have been alive.

And shall we remember Nancy Pelosi's lying claim of tea partiers carrying "swastikaaaaaaaahs."

Keep on lying liberals. All it reveals is, how afraid you are to debate us honestly, because if you do, you know you lose.

 

[George Costanza]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

WHAT???????

The interstate commerce clause says the government can FORCE you to buy something?????

What the hell????????

PLEASE try to explain that one. I would LOVE to hear you try and explain that one.

And if the government is forcing you to do something it is at the point of a gun. It's not like the government has never done that before.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Good for him for revealing the true nature of his beliefs...we need people to reveal their true colors!

 

[Oscar Wao]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

Not buying something isn't commerce.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

Not buying something isn't commerce.

And forcing people to buy something isn't commerce either. It's an unfunded mandate.

 

[DiamondDave]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

Still is amazing that these wingers fully believe the commerce clause (and the 'general welfare' clause) is a catch all for any government power

 

[Murf76]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

Not buying a product or service is not "commerce". That's inactivity.

What's more, the Commerce Clause was originally intended, in a domestic sense, to prevent States from putting tariffs on one another. Everybody knows that. It's disingenuous, at best, to claim otherwise. The Commerce Clause has been sorely abused, and this Healthcare pile-o-crap is just the latest, albeit most egregious, example.

I don't believe that the Supreme Court will allow this perversion of the Commerce Clause to stand. But if they do, there is NOTHING that the central government can no longer demand of American citizens. The U.S. Constitution will be effectively dead.

And that brings us to "the point of the gun". All government is essentially FORCE. Laws cannot stand unless they are enforced by the government that makes them. Ayn Rand used this phrase, "at the point of a gun" frequently to describe the "force" of government. And she was correct. Certainly, if one fails to observe some arbitrary law of government, force will be applied by increment. We might start off with a written complaint against us, an order to a court hearing, a warrant for arrest, and when tracked out to the end scenario, when all other methods of forcing compliance are exhausted... that citizen will have a gun put in his face.

THIS is what you stand for when you stand for Obamacare. You stand for the END of Constitutional Law, and for the use of FORCE to be applied upon citizens in order to uphold the baseless, arbitrary legislation of the mob.

 

[George Costanza]

WHAT???????

The interstate commerce clause says the government can FORCE you to buy something?????

What the hell????????

PLEASE try to explain that one. I would LOVE to hear you try and explain that one.

Most of the writing I have read on the health care bill's anticipated treatment by the United States Supreme Court, states that the Court will probably refuse to strike the bill down, mainly on the basis of the Commerce Clause.

And if the government is forcing you to do something it is at the point of a gun. It's not like the government has never done that before.

I thought so. Just an inflammatory phrase designed to scare people.

 

[Oddball]

Where in the Constitution is there any authority for this bill?

The Commerce Clause.

Another thing - what is the origin of the phrase, "at the point of a gun," that is tossed about so freely by rabid conservatives, opposed to the bill? It certainly does not mention anything about "at the point of a gun" in the bill itself.

What is the origin of that phrase, other than from the inflammatory brain of some right wing strategist, bent on mischaracterizing the health care bill?

The very nature of gubmint is the proactive use of physical force.

Refuse to buy insurance.

Then refuse to pay the fine.

Then refuse to show up for audits and court.

How long before the people with guns eventually show up?

No mischaracterization or inflammatory hyperbole at all.

 

[Vanquish]

This video should make us all ashamed.

1. He did say he doesn't care about the constitution. That's bad. Dreadfully bad.
2. The video is insulting, "gotcha" rhetoric. I'm all for people holding representative accountable, but as you can tell from the video they insulted the man by calling him Nazi, Communist and now a liar.

So here we have another example of how no one is winning when civilized debate falls by the wayside.

Now here this, someone's lying and it isn't me! Centrist my ass. If I had a dime for every liberal that claimed to be a "centrist, progressive, blah blah blah," I would be richer than George Soros.

The only person who said "NAZI" in this video was PHIL HARRIS the Congressman. He says under his breathe "oh you call me a liar and a Nazi."

No one in the video beside Phil Harris utters the word Nazi.

Another tactic of the LYING LIBERALS. They KNOW they cannot fight the truth on the right, so they are trying to smear us.

And if ANYONE has been calling anyone NAZI it has been liberals who have called conservatives Nazi since I have been alive.

And shall we remember Nancy Pelosi's lying claim of tea partiers carrying "swastikaaaaaaaahs."

Keep on lying liberals. All it reveals is, how afraid you are to debate us honestly, because if you do, you know you lose.

If this is how you debate...there's no reason why anyone should listen to you. No really, I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're making it really hard.

I am a Centrist, buddy. I'm for term limits, I'm anti-abortion, I'm pro-gun...I could go on and on. So a) dont tell me what I am and b) dont accuse me of lying.

Hell, did you not see that I thought him saying he didnt care about the constitution was bad?

Do you just make up your mind about someone then start typing drivel? Come on, get your head unstuck and let's debate this rationally.

As far as the Nazi comment...you can tell from the context that he was called a Nazi earlier before the camera was rolling (or perhaps it was cut out). Do you want to look at this objectively ... or just be a partisan hack?

If you'd bother to read any of my other threads...I've linked to www.brain-terminal.com (a conservative filmmaker in the style of Michael Moore) where there are vids of dems using Nazi claims against Bush. I am a centrist, buddy.

If you want to be a partisan hack...you lose all credibility.

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

Sure, it was a power grab...but it's how the damn thing is interpreted in modern times.

 

[George Costanza]

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

Correctamundo.

Sure, it was a power grab...but it's how the damn thing is interpreted in modern times.

One man's power grab is another man's mandate.

I like your style, by the way. Good to see someone who is interested in rational posting.

 

[007]

If you want to be a partisan hack...you lose all credibility.

I don't think he/she has lost any credibility at all. He/she may be wrong about you, but he/she is right on the money with the rest of what they've said.

And personally, I don't have a lot of respect of a "centrist." You people just appear to lack conviction, and are unable to chose a side. Well I got news for ya pard, if this country ever breaks out in another Civil War, you're going to HAVE to chose a side. Might as well give it some thought now.

 

[007]

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

Correctamundo.

Sure, it was a power grab...but it's how the damn thing is interpreted in modern times.

One man's power grab is another man's mandate.

I like your style, by the way. Good to see someone who is interested in rational posting.

The government has NO authority to MANDATE a FREE PERSON to BUY something. ZERO. ZILTCH, NONE! And if SCOTUS decides it does, this will turn into a revolution or Civil War. The people will never stand for it. Mark my words.

 

[Oddball]

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

TOTAL misinterpretation and misapplication of the commerce clause....Might as well be quoting Dred Scott.


Nonetheless, there's nothing in the commerce clause that can be, by even the most strained stretch of "logic", construed to conclude that the feds have any power to force the citizenry to buy any product or service.

 

[Vanquish]

As for the Commerce Clause...I hate to tell y'all, but it was the modern, conservative SCOTUS that made it so broad. They even said that one person growing a crop in their own yard for their own use, when taken in the aggregate effected interstate commerce and was subject to regulation.

TOTAL misinterpretation and misapplication of the commerce clause....Might as well be quoting Dred Scott.


Nonetheless, there's nothing in the commerce clause that can be, by even the most strained stretch of "logic", construed to conclude that the feds have any power to force the citizenry to buy any product or service.

I'll side with the SCOTUS, you side with...uhm...whoever it is you pick during kickball for your side.

 

[George Costanza]

The government has NO authority to MANDATE a FREE PERSON to BUY something. ZERO. ZILTCH, NONE! And if SCOTUS decides it does, this will turn into a revolution or Civil War. The people will never stand for it. Mark my words.

You may be right. It certainly is an interesting legal question. I'm betting The Supremes not only can do it, but will do it.

 

[Vanquish]

If you want to be a partisan hack...you lose all credibility.

I don't think he/she has lost any credibility at all. He/she may be wrong about you, but he/she is right on the money with the rest of what they've said.

And personally, I don't have a lot of respect of a "centrist." You people just appear to lack conviction, and are unable to chose a side. Well I got news for ya pard, if this country ever breaks out in another Civil War, you're going to HAVE to chose a side. Might as well give it some thought now.

Feel free to accept the arguments of people who...because of partisan hackery...try to convince you of things without OBJECTIVITY or HONESTY.

Read my sig...neither side has the 100% lock on reason or logic or a history of doing the right thing. NEITHER.

Feel free not to respect me. That's your choice...but when you expect someone to read one of your posts...a post I can guess has ZERO logic because you are more intent on proving conservatives right...even if facts or logic dictate differently...then don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

I'm actually glad you said this because compromise doesnt have to be a bad thing. That's what's missing in today's debates. People (on both sides) want to dig in ...and won't concede one point that the other side might actually have right.

Compromising has 2 meanings...sure it can mean selling out or giving in like a weakling...but if that's the only definition you accept, then you need an education.

Compromise is ALSO giving a bit to get a bit. It's one of the pillars of democracy. Working together despite differences to move forward.