Would you agree to the assertion that the US is the rightful property of the Democratic Party?

[EricJ]

This seems to be a running theme with certain leftist elements. Do you agree with their assertion? Why or why not?

Straw man much?

 

[BluesLegend]

OP the left are more evil than you realize. Its not just the country they feel is their property, its the people in it. Call it what you want the progressive left supports a form of slavery, in this case to the state. African Americans have gone from the southern plantations to the Democratic party plantations.

They didn't have a choice about being on the plantations, but they do about the party they support. Does that bother you?

Hey don't get mad at me, its prominent black leaders calling the Democratic party a 'plantation'. Nothing to say? No I didn't think so.

So someone using the word "Plantation" translates to the left supporting slavery in your diseased little mind? That's just another reason people say the GOP is crazy.

Its not my fault blacks are likening the left to slave owners, maybe you should take this matter up with them. No, don't have the stones? I think we all know the answer. By and large the left are gutless loud mouths, all talk.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This seems to be a running theme with certain leftist elements. Do you agree with their assertion? Why or why not?

The Democrats lost the country years ago.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Republicans have figured out how to rule from the minority

Using gerrymander to hold the House
Having the Senate based on low population states

Far fewer voters actually vote Republican, yet Republicans have a big majority in Congress

You realize Republicans can gerrymander because they are the majority at the State level, LOL. Didn't think that through.

And you never complained about gerrymandering when it inflated Democratic majorities the last 4 decades, did you?

Good point

In many of those states Republicans have gerrymandered at the state level to win those state level seats. Democratic cities are placed in one district while farmland is placed in several districts

That doesn't contradict what I said, Alfalfa. Your playground logic aside, they can gerrymander State seats for the same reason. And actually to flip legislatures, they had to overcome Democrat gerrymandered States which required even larger majorities.

And again you show your flagrant hypocrisy. We both know you squawked not a peep the Democrats doing it to super-majority themselves since the 60s. Suddenly it's an issue for you. Yeah, your issue is "gerrymandering." Not.

Democrats have always had larger percentage of voters than Republicans. Blue states are more populated than red states yet they both count the same. Cities are more populated than farmland but farmland gets an equal number of representatives

Fail. How many Congressmen does New York City have itself? Don't talk to me about equality. It's skewed in favor of democrats.

 

[BULLDOG]

OP the left are more evil than you realize. Its not just the country they feel is their property, its the people in it. Call it what you want the progressive left supports a form of slavery, in this case to the state. African Americans have gone from the southern plantations to the Democratic party plantations.

They didn't have a choice about being on the plantations, but they do about the party they support. Does that bother you?

Hey don't get mad at me, its prominent black leaders calling the Democratic party a 'plantation'. Nothing to say? No I didn't think so.

So someone using the word "Plantation" translates to the left supporting slavery in your diseased little mind? That's just another reason people say the GOP is crazy.

Its not my fault blacks are likening the left to slave owners, maybe you should take this matter up with them. No, don't have the stones? I think we all know the answer. By and large the left are gutless loud mouths, all talk.

And the GOP is a pathetic bunch of teabaggers who will fall for every straw man fox tells them to believe. By all means, keep up the crazy. It will make the upcoming election that much more entertaining.

 

[BULLDOG]

...its prominent black leaders calling the Democratic party a 'plantation'.

Name one?

I don't take orders from trolls, run along I think your mom is calling you.

It was your claim dumbass.

 

[eagle1462010]

Rights in the Constitution. Hamilton was wary of articulating specific restrictions on federal power, for he felt it was clear that the default position of the federal government was an absence of power, and any specific power existed only by grant from the Constitution:

[A Bill of Rights] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

—Alexander Hamilton (1788), Federalist No. 84
These observations foreshadow passage of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified three years later, which codified the doctrine of enumerated powers:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

—Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 1791
The principle expressed in Federalist No. 45 was later echoed by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:

The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.

—Justice Joseph Story (1833)[1]
Perhaps vindicating Hamilton's opinion that, at least in the case of the Tenth Amendment (an original component of the Bill of Rights he rallied against), articulating restrictions of federal power were unnecessary, the Supreme Court found in United States v. Sprague (1931) that

The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified...

—Justice Owen Roberts (1931)[2]

Federalist No. 45 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The federalist papers are not part of the constitution or any other governing law of our country.

The Federalist papers were articles by some of the Founding Fathers to explain the Constitution to the people and to get Ratification................

They were explaining what the new Constitution was supposed to mean, so the people could be informed. You may now proceed to the Federalist versus the anti Federalist portion of they don't matter if you choose........In the end they compromised and passed one of the Best Gov't systems in the world..................

It worked fine, until some dumb asses thought they could use tax payer money to spend on anything they deemed fair game................

Which was the beginning of the end when the time comes to pay the fiddler.

Who exactly do you think it was who started spending money for on anything they pleased without our laws first giving them the authority to do that? And why do you think all three branches of government let them get away with that?

For the common good ring a bell under FDR, when the SCOTUS said they could do so...................Back in his try at a COURT PACKING SCHEME when he didn't get his way......................

To that date it had been unconstitutional to do so.............The Lib President of the time whined like a little bitch when he didn't get his way............after the Courts had reversed his policy.................He was the first to break the chain, just as Wilson created the Federal Reserve under his watch so they could manipulate currency..............and then in a couple of decades they caused the Great Depression...............

Changing the rules for FDR was under turbulent times, and WWII..................Liberals always take advantage during times of crisis........................

How's the funding going for FDR programs...............

 

[BluesLegend]

OP the left are more evil than you realize. Its not just the country they feel is their property, its the people in it. Call it what you want the progressive left supports a form of slavery, in this case to the state. African Americans have gone from the southern plantations to the Democratic party plantations.

They didn't have a choice about being on the plantations, but they do about the party they support. Does that bother you?

Hey don't get mad at me, its prominent black leaders calling the Democratic party a 'plantation'. Nothing to say? No I didn't think so.

So someone using the word "Plantation" translates to the left supporting slavery in your diseased little mind? That's just another reason people say the GOP is crazy.

Its not my fault blacks are likening the left to slave owners, maybe you should take this matter up with them. No, don't have the stones? I think we all know the answer. By and large the left are gutless loud mouths, all talk.

And the GOP is a pathetic bunch of teabaggers who will fall for every straw man fox tells them to believe. By all means, keep up the crazy. It will make the upcoming election that much more entertaining.

After getting bitch slapped in the historic 2014 election so bad you have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a bitch slapping that epic you leftist should think twice before talking election smack.

 

[BluesLegend]

...its prominent black leaders calling the Democratic party a 'plantation'.

Name one?

I don't take orders from trolls, run along I think your mom is calling you.

It was your claim dumbass.

Shouldn't you be out attending a gay rights rally or something?

 

[BULLDOG]

Rights in the Constitution. Hamilton was wary of articulating specific restrictions on federal power, for he felt it was clear that the default position of the federal government was an absence of power, and any specific power existed only by grant from the Constitution:

[A Bill of Rights] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

—Alexander Hamilton (1788), Federalist No. 84
These observations foreshadow passage of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified three years later, which codified the doctrine of enumerated powers:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

—Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 1791
The principle expressed in Federalist No. 45 was later echoed by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:

The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.

—Justice Joseph Story (1833)[1]
Perhaps vindicating Hamilton's opinion that, at least in the case of the Tenth Amendment (an original component of the Bill of Rights he rallied against), articulating restrictions of federal power were unnecessary, the Supreme Court found in United States v. Sprague (1931) that

The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified...

—Justice Owen Roberts (1931)[2]

Federalist No. 45 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The federalist papers are not part of the constitution or any other governing law of our country.

The Federalist papers were articles by some of the Founding Fathers to explain the Constitution to the people and to get Ratification................

They were explaining what the new Constitution was supposed to mean, so the people could be informed. You may now proceed to the Federalist versus the anti Federalist portion of they don't matter if you choose........In the end they compromised and passed one of the Best Gov't systems in the world..................

It worked fine, until some dumb asses thought they could use tax payer money to spend on anything they deemed fair game................

Which was the beginning of the end when the time comes to pay the fiddler.

Who exactly do you think it was who started spending money for on anything they pleased without our laws first giving them the authority to do that? And why do you think all three branches of government let them get away with that?

For the common good ring a bell under FDR, when the SCOTUS said they could do so...................Back in his try at a COURT PACKING SCHEME when he didn't get his way......................

To that date it had been unconstitutional to do so.............The Lib President of the time whined like a little bitch when he didn't get his way............after the Courts had reversed his policy.................He was the first to break the chain, just as Wilson created the Federal Reserve under his watch so they could manipulate currency..............and then in a couple of decades they caused the Great Depression...............

Changing the rules for FDR was under turbulent times, and WWII..................Liberals always take advantage during times of crisis........................

How's the funding going for FDR programs...............

So you are contending that the laws enacted while FDR was president weren't passed by congress and approved by the Supreme Court as required by the constitution? You are certainly allowed to not like those duly enacted laws, but calling them unconstitutional is ignorant and childish.

 

[BULLDOG]

They didn't have a choice about being on the plantations, but they do about the party they support. Does that bother you?

Hey don't get mad at me, its prominent black leaders calling the Democratic party a 'plantation'. Nothing to say? No I didn't think so.

So someone using the word "Plantation" translates to the left supporting slavery in your diseased little mind? That's just another reason people say the GOP is crazy.

Its not my fault blacks are likening the left to slave owners, maybe you should take this matter up with them. No, don't have the stones? I think we all know the answer. By and large the left are gutless loud mouths, all talk.

And the GOP is a pathetic bunch of teabaggers who will fall for every straw man fox tells them to believe. By all means, keep up the crazy. It will make the upcoming election that much more entertaining.

After getting bitch slapped in the historic 2014 election so bad you have to go all the way back to 1921 to find a bitch slapping that epic you leftist should think twice before talking election smack.

Sorry, but we will decide for ourselves what we should do. You have enough of your own problems trying to figure just how much crazy you can stuff into your clown car.

 

[BULLDOG]

...its prominent black leaders calling the Democratic party a 'plantation'.

Name one?

I don't take orders from trolls, run along I think your mom is calling you.

It was your claim dumbass.

Shouldn't you be out attending a gay rights rally or something?

Don't worry about my schedule. Are you even going to try to back up your silly claims or are you just another teabagger spouting crazy shit and then running away?

 

[eagle1462010]

Rights in the Constitution. Hamilton was wary of articulating specific restrictions on federal power, for he felt it was clear that the default position of the federal government was an absence of power, and any specific power existed only by grant from the Constitution:

[A Bill of Rights] would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

—Alexander Hamilton (1788), Federalist No. 84
These observations foreshadow passage of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified three years later, which codified the doctrine of enumerated powers:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

—Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified 1791
The principle expressed in Federalist No. 45 was later echoed by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:

The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.

—Justice Joseph Story (1833)[1]
Perhaps vindicating Hamilton's opinion that, at least in the case of the Tenth Amendment (an original component of the Bill of Rights he rallied against), articulating restrictions of federal power were unnecessary, the Supreme Court found in United States v. Sprague (1931) that

The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified...

—Justice Owen Roberts (1931)[2]

Federalist No. 45 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The federalist papers are not part of the constitution or any other governing law of our country.

The Federalist papers were articles by some of the Founding Fathers to explain the Constitution to the people and to get Ratification................

They were explaining what the new Constitution was supposed to mean, so the people could be informed. You may now proceed to the Federalist versus the anti Federalist portion of they don't matter if you choose........In the end they compromised and passed one of the Best Gov't systems in the world..................

It worked fine, until some dumb asses thought they could use tax payer money to spend on anything they deemed fair game................

Which was the beginning of the end when the time comes to pay the fiddler.

Who exactly do you think it was who started spending money for on anything they pleased without our laws first giving them the authority to do that? And why do you think all three branches of government let them get away with that?

For the common good ring a bell under FDR, when the SCOTUS said they could do so...................Back in his try at a COURT PACKING SCHEME when he didn't get his way......................

To that date it had been unconstitutional to do so.............The Lib President of the time whined like a little bitch when he didn't get his way............after the Courts had reversed his policy.................He was the first to break the chain, just as Wilson created the Federal Reserve under his watch so they could manipulate currency..............and then in a couple of decades they caused the Great Depression...............

Changing the rules for FDR was under turbulent times, and WWII..................Liberals always take advantage during times of crisis........................

How's the funding going for FDR programs...............

So you are contending that the laws enacted while FDR was president weren't passed by congress and approved by the Supreme Court as required by the constitution? You are certainly allowed to not like those duly enacted laws, but calling them unconstitutional is ignorant and childish.

BS

SCOTUS up til that point had classified them as Unconstitutional bitch............

Do you know how to read posts.................Or do you just ignore the information presented..............

That Clarify it for you.

 

[Roadrunner]

Republicans have figured out how to rule from the minority

Using gerrymander to hold the House
Having the Senate based on low population states

Far fewer voters actually vote Republican, yet Republicans have a big majority in Congress

You realize Republicans can gerrymander because they are the majority at the State level, LOL. Didn't think that through.

And you never complained about gerrymandering when it inflated Democratic majorities the last 4 decades, did you?

Good point

In many of those states Republicans have gerrymandered at the state level to win those state level seats. Democratic cities are placed in one district while farmland is placed in several districts

Whiner.

Special districts are created for the likes of Shelia Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters, so just STFU with the whining about gerrymandering.

Elections have consequences.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[BULLDOG]

The federalist papers are not part of the constitution or any other governing law of our country.

The Federalist papers were articles by some of the Founding Fathers to explain the Constitution to the people and to get Ratification................

They were explaining what the new Constitution was supposed to mean, so the people could be informed. You may now proceed to the Federalist versus the anti Federalist portion of they don't matter if you choose........In the end they compromised and passed one of the Best Gov't systems in the world..................

It worked fine, until some dumb asses thought they could use tax payer money to spend on anything they deemed fair game................

Which was the beginning of the end when the time comes to pay the fiddler.

Who exactly do you think it was who started spending money for on anything they pleased without our laws first giving them the authority to do that? And why do you think all three branches of government let them get away with that?

For the common good ring a bell under FDR, when the SCOTUS said they could do so...................Back in his try at a COURT PACKING SCHEME when he didn't get his way......................

To that date it had been unconstitutional to do so.............The Lib President of the time whined like a little bitch when he didn't get his way............after the Courts had reversed his policy.................He was the first to break the chain, just as Wilson created the Federal Reserve under his watch so they could manipulate currency..............and then in a couple of decades they caused the Great Depression...............

Changing the rules for FDR was under turbulent times, and WWII..................Liberals always take advantage during times of crisis........................

How's the funding going for FDR programs...............

So you are contending that the laws enacted while FDR was president weren't passed by congress and approved by the Supreme Court as required by the constitution? You are certainly allowed to not like those duly enacted laws, but calling them unconstitutional is ignorant and childish.

BS

SCOTUS up til that point had classified them as Unconstitutional bitch............

Do you know how to read posts.................Or do you just ignore the information presented..............

That Clarify it for you.

Up until that point? What about after that point? Did they change their mind at that point, and was it unconstitutional for them to change their minds?

 

[eagle1462010]

FDR whined like a little bitch when he didn't get his way................

When his approach was shot down by SCOTUS.........he attempted to FIRE THEM..............and then APPOINT 6 MORE JUSTICES TO OVERRULE THEM..............

And many say FDR was a great President.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Federalist papers were articles by some of the Founding Fathers to explain the Constitution to the people and to get Ratification................

They were explaining what the new Constitution was supposed to mean, so the people could be informed. You may now proceed to the Federalist versus the anti Federalist portion of they don't matter if you choose........In the end they compromised and passed one of the Best Gov't systems in the world..................

It worked fine, until some dumb asses thought they could use tax payer money to spend on anything they deemed fair game................

Which was the beginning of the end when the time comes to pay the fiddler.

Who exactly do you think it was who started spending money for on anything they pleased without our laws first giving them the authority to do that? And why do you think all three branches of government let them get away with that?

For the common good ring a bell under FDR, when the SCOTUS said they could do so...................Back in his try at a COURT PACKING SCHEME when he didn't get his way......................

To that date it had been unconstitutional to do so.............The Lib President of the time whined like a little bitch when he didn't get his way............after the Courts had reversed his policy.................He was the first to break the chain, just as Wilson created the Federal Reserve under his watch so they could manipulate currency..............and then in a couple of decades they caused the Great Depression...............

Changing the rules for FDR was under turbulent times, and WWII..................Liberals always take advantage during times of crisis........................

How's the funding going for FDR programs...............

So you are contending that the laws enacted while FDR was president weren't passed by congress and approved by the Supreme Court as required by the constitution? You are certainly allowed to not like those duly enacted laws, but calling them unconstitutional is ignorant and childish.

BS

SCOTUS up til that point had classified them as Unconstitutional bitch............

Do you know how to read posts.................Or do you just ignore the information presented..............

That Clarify it for you.

Up until that point? What about after that point? Did they change their mind at that point, and was it unconstitutional for them to change their minds?

Eventually the old were replaced by the new.............and they changed what had been Constitutional or not Constitutional..................changing the rules........

All the Supremes to that point had RULED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL...............

All of a SUDDEN they were ALL WRONG......................and these new guys were the shit...................


BS that is..............appointed by whining bitches in the WH.............

 

[hjmick]

This seems to be a running theme with certain leftist elements. Do you agree with their assertion? Why or why not?

Would you kindly provide some examples? Some links to these assertions would suffice...

Once I have seen and read these examples I will be better able to address you query...


Generally speaking, however, I would not consider the United States to be the property of any one party.

 

[BULLDOG]

Who exactly do you think it was who started spending money for on anything they pleased without our laws first giving them the authority to do that? And why do you think all three branches of government let them get away with that?

For the common good ring a bell under FDR, when the SCOTUS said they could do so...................Back in his try at a COURT PACKING SCHEME when he didn't get his way......................

To that date it had been unconstitutional to do so.............The Lib President of the time whined like a little bitch when he didn't get his way............after the Courts had reversed his policy.................He was the first to break the chain, just as Wilson created the Federal Reserve under his watch so they could manipulate currency..............and then in a couple of decades they caused the Great Depression...............

Changing the rules for FDR was under turbulent times, and WWII..................Liberals always take advantage during times of crisis........................

How's the funding going for FDR programs...............

So you are contending that the laws enacted while FDR was president weren't passed by congress and approved by the Supreme Court as required by the constitution? You are certainly allowed to not like those duly enacted laws, but calling them unconstitutional is ignorant and childish.

BS

SCOTUS up til that point had classified them as Unconstitutional bitch............

Do you know how to read posts.................Or do you just ignore the information presented..............

That Clarify it for you.

Up until that point? What about after that point? Did they change their mind at that point, and was it unconstitutional for them to change their minds?

Eventually the old were replaced by the new.............and they changed what had been Constitutional or not Constitutional..................changing the rules........

All the Supremes to that point had RULED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL...............

All of a SUDDEN they were ALL WRONG......................and these new guys were the shit...................


BS that is..............appointed by whining bitches in the WH.............

The supreme court has reversed it's self on lots of things. Slavery, Women's voting rights, Poll taxes, Corporate Monopolies, Marriage between blacks and whites, etc,etc.etc. Are you trying to say a sitting supreme court can't reverse a previous courts findings, no matter who appointed them?