The End of Liberalism

[☭proletarian☭]

It acted outside its constitutional authority. You statists wouldn't understand, but those of us who support the republic place the law above political entities.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

wait... did NY just call me a conservative?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Scotus does not have the authority to change the Constitution. Without an amendment saying the states are no longer populated by free persons, the Constitution clearly grants the power of secession to the States.

Not that you statists care about liberty.

Thank you for that completely new talking point. I've never quite heard anything so original.

or so full of crap

 

[Truthmatters]

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scotus does not have the authority to take from the states the powers given them by the Constitution. Scotus' political declaration in that case is meaningless and has no legal merit.

 

[Truthmatters]

Too bad our courts dont agree with you

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Do you doubt that Scotus remains a political tool to this day?

Also, please learn English.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."

NOT: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect opt-out-if-you-want-to-confederation..."


These sophomoric perversions of the constitution that claim a right to sucede have been cast aside since the Jackson administration.

But all was finally put to rest with the 14th Amendment:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It states very clearly that citizens of the United States cannot be deprived of the priviledge of U.S. citizenship by states.

So there ya go

 

[nodoginnafight]

Now, since I have provide the specific words of the Constitution that prohibit a state's secession - please try to counter with your section of the constitution that allows it ......

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's astounding that some of the very folks who post here about the absolute authority of the U.S. Constitution are the LEAST informed about what it says.

 

[geauxtohell]

Scotus does not have the authority to change the Constitution. Without an amendment saying the states are no longer populated by free persons, the Constitution clearly grants the power of secession to the States.

Not that you statists care about liberty.

Let's get specific. The federal income tax is constitutionally supported by a constitutional amendment. If a state seceded, presumably, everyone there would stop paying income tax to the U. S.

How could that possibly be legal, when the Supremacy clause requires compliance to federal law by the states?

I wish I had a "magic, flexible constitution" that I could suit to fit my needs and personal beliefs.

That would be nice.

I guess I'll just abide by the rule of law like everyone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If there is one person, or maybe two who countered this concentration of wealth, it was FDR and LBJ; Reagan, Clinton, and Bush helped bring it back.


Wealth Distribution

The Growing Divide | United for a Fair Economy

You misunderstand both this post, and history.

Capitalism created the middle class.

Wrong. Laughably wrong.

ha ha

I require a bit more than your spittle-chin denial.

Care to explain the provenance of the middle class?

If you cannot, your silence will be satisfactory.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You misunderstand both this post, and history.

Capitalism created the middle class.

Wrong. Laughably wrong.

ha ha

I require a bit more than your spittle-chin denial.

Care to explain the provenance of the middle class?

If you cannot, your silence will be satisfactory.

Right after you acknowledge you were wrong about 'corporatism' chiclet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Scotus does not have the authority to change the Constitution. Without an amendment saying the states are no longer populated by free persons, the Constitution clearly grants the power of secession to the States.

Not that you statists care about liberty.

Let's get specific. The federal income tax is constitutionally supported by a constitutional amendment. If a state seceded, presumably, everyone there would stop paying income tax to the U. S.

How could that possibly be legal, when the Supremacy clause requires compliance to federal law by the states?

Once they secede, genius, they're no longer a member state- the federal laws have as much weight over them as they have over Portugal.

You can't secede! A state can't magically declare itself no longer under the jurisdiction of the federal government via the constitution any more than you can declare you and your half acre no longer a part of Mutantsburg township, Crackpot county, Alabama, or wherever it is you live.

You're attempting the most ludicrous circular argument in the history of the phenomenon. Grow up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong. Laughably wrong.

ha ha

I require a bit more than your spittle-chin denial.

Care to explain the provenance of the middle class?

If you cannot, your silence will be satisfactory.

Right after you acknowledge you were wrong about 'corporatism' chiclet.

What a compliment, remembering me so clearly!

And- I was not wrong, but nice try at deflection

since I clearly caught with your education down.


But, when one evinces the abject ignorance that you have, I guess

the most decorous thing to do would be to avert one’s gaze.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Funny...the true liberals who beliieve in the rights of the people base our arguments on the Constitution, while the authoritatian statemen base it on the politicians

 

[sealybobo]

"From the very beginning of the Obama presidency Democrats have been acting like kids in a candy store - doubling down on the TARP bailout and the $787 billion stimulus/slush fund. The most recent 1.1 trillion spending bill and now the health care bill which, with a little accounting sleight-of-hand, comes in at under one trillion, the Democrats are spending like there are no more tomorrows.

What will be the results of all of this out of control spending?

The consequences will be many but one of the most surprising results could be the end of liberalism. At least that's the opinion of this editorial in the Washington Examiner. Which begins with this extraordinary statement: " With its most vigorous advocate in memory presiding in the White House and commanding Democratic majorities in Congress, it's difficult to believe that the end of liberalism may be within sight."

In other words, within the lifetimes of the vast majority of living Americans, government as we have known it since the New Deal will become paralyzed, unable to deliver even basic services, let alone the myriad of entitlements that politicians had promised would last forever. Liberalism will owe its undoing to its blind faith that government could forever be the inexhaustible provider of ever more spending, more benefits and more prosperity, with nary a day of reckoning."
American Thinker Blog: The end of liberalism?

You know what pisses me off? That in year one of the Dems rule, people have the balls to talk about the end of liberalism. What a joke. We have 3 more years of liberalism. Even if the GOP take control back next year, which they won't, they will have to deal with President Obama. Imagine all the liberal bills that will be passed next year. Just like the GOP passed a lot of bills in 2006, so shall we in 2010.

You know what else pisses me off? That Gore lost after 8 great years of Clinton. He didn't lose, but it was close enough that the GOP could steal the 2000 election with a split US Supreme Court ruling to give the election to Bush. Gore should have gotten one term to prove himself. He was part of 8 great years so he should have gotten a chance to lead.

So the GOP took prosperity and gave us horse shit.

Liberals will control one or both houses for decades to come. And we should hold the White House at least until 2012. I say 2016 at least, but that we shall see.

 

[sealybobo]

Let's get specific. The federal income tax is constitutionally supported by a constitutional amendment. If a state seceded, presumably, everyone there would stop paying income tax to the U. S.

How could that possibly be legal, when the Supremacy clause requires compliance to federal law by the states?

Once they secede, genius, they're no longer a member state- the federal laws have as much weight over them as they have over Portugal.

You can't secede! A state can't magically declare itself no longer under the jurisdiction of the federal government via the constitution any more than you can declare you and your half acre no longer a part of Mutantsburg township, Crackpot county, Alabama, or wherever it is you live.

You're attempting the most ludicrous circular argument in the history of the phenomenon. Grow up.

I heard Texas has some weird agreement with the US that if it wants to secede and we won't let it, then it becomes 5 different states. That would mean it would get 10 senators. Can you imagine that? So Austin would be a state, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, etc. Texas is huge so it could be 4 or 5 seperate states.

But FUCK giving it that much power. Not until its voters get more educated.

 

[oreo]

"From the very beginning of the Obama presidency Democrats have been acting like kids in a candy store - doubling down on the TARP bailout and the $787 billion stimulus/slush fund. The most recent 1.1 trillion spending bill and now the health care bill which, with a little accounting sleight-of-hand, comes in at under one trillion, the Democrats are spending like there are no more tomorrows.

What will be the results of all of this out of control spending?

The consequences will be many but one of the most surprising results could be the end of liberalism. At least that's the opinion of this editorial in the Washington Examiner. Which begins with this extraordinary statement: " With its most vigorous advocate in memory presiding in the White House and commanding Democratic majorities in Congress, it's difficult to believe that the end of liberalism may be within sight."

In other words, within the lifetimes of the vast majority of living Americans, government as we have known it since the New Deal will become paralyzed, unable to deliver even basic services, let alone the myriad of entitlements that politicians had promised would last forever. Liberalism will owe its undoing to its blind faith that government could forever be the inexhaustible provider of ever more spending, more benefits and more prosperity, with nary a day of reckoning."
American Thinker Blog: The end of liberalism?

There's no doubt that this country will swing wildly to the right over the next 6 to 8 years. The reason why we're here in the first place is that so many in this country forgot what "liberal" meant. Most are too young to remember--& as we know it was an overwhelming youth vote that put Obama in the White house--along with many in the middle of the road class that worried about Obama--but thought this is it--here is our chance to vote for the 1st black American President.

Let's face it, on the campaign trail Obama sounded like a moderate--& he swayed public opinion his way very quickly. Once in office he broke many of his campaign promises & immediately jumped to the left. Hey with Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid--we are on a run-a-way train with no brakes & they have used this power very efficiently.

What does it spell for the American public? 10+ unemployment with no private sector job growth in site aka (jobless recovery)--the cap & tax bill meant to skyrocket electricity bills taking more money out of American pockets to "save the planet."--& now the health care bill--meant to cure the ills of the health insurance premiums in this country. And all of these bills loaded with billions of pork & nonsense spending==which always equals higher taxes.

The Obama presidency & liberalism is a real education for the youth of this country, & something they'll never forget--& will never vote for again. It's just too bad that every generation has to learn this expensive lesson on their own. My generation was Jimmy Carter.

 

[sealybobo]

"From the very beginning of the Obama presidency Democrats have been acting like kids in a candy store - doubling down on the TARP bailout and the $787 billion stimulus/slush fund. The most recent 1.1 trillion spending bill and now the health care bill which, with a little accounting sleight-of-hand, comes in at under one trillion, the Democrats are spending like there are no more tomorrows.

What will be the results of all of this out of control spending?

The consequences will be many but one of the most surprising results could be the end of liberalism. At least that's the opinion of this editorial in the Washington Examiner. Which begins with this extraordinary statement: " With its most vigorous advocate in memory presiding in the White House and commanding Democratic majorities in Congress, it's difficult to believe that the end of liberalism may be within sight."

In other words, within the lifetimes of the vast majority of living Americans, government as we have known it since the New Deal will become paralyzed, unable to deliver even basic services, let alone the myriad of entitlements that politicians had promised would last forever. Liberalism will owe its undoing to its blind faith that government could forever be the inexhaustible provider of ever more spending, more benefits and more prosperity, with nary a day of reckoning."
American Thinker Blog: The end of liberalism?

There's no doubt that this country will swing wildly to the right over the next 6 to 8 years. The reason why we're here in the first place is that so many in this country forgot what "liberal" meant. Most are too young to remember--& as we know it was an overwhelming youth vote that put Obama in the White house--along with many in the middle of the road class that worried about Obama--but thought this is it--here is our chance to vote for the 1st black American President.

Let's face it, on the campaign trail Obama sounded like a moderate--& he swayed public opinion his way very quickly. Once in office he broke many of his campaign promises & immediately jumped to the left. Hey with Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid--we are on a run-a-way train with no brakes & they have used this power very efficiently.

What does it spell for the American public? 10+ unemployment with no private sector job growth in site aka (jobless recovery)--the cap & tax bill meant to skyrocket electricity bills taking more money out of American pockets to "save the planet."--& now the health care bill--meant to cure the ills of the health insurance premiums in this country. And all of these bills loaded with billions of pork & nonsense spending==which always equals higher taxes.

The Obama presidency & liberalism is a real education for the youth of this country, & something they'll never forget--& will never vote for again. It's just too bad that every generation has to learn this expensive lesson on their own. My generation was Jimmy Carter.

View attachment 9067

No way we will swing far right. We already tried that. It went horribly wrong.