Reconciliation...

[Liability]

So in 2012, all we need is a simple majority to:

1. Privatize Social Security
2. Close Department of Education
3. Start robust domestic drilling
4. Make English Official US language
5. National Voter ID

This Majority Rules thingy is so ******* sweet!

Yep.

However, you would never get a Republican majority to vote for ANY of those things. Except maybe the drilling.


So when it comes to issues that are important to you Frank, apparently you're just out of luck.

So replace the Republicans with actual Constitutionally loyal Conservatives and replace as many of the liberal Democrats with Constitutionally loyal Conservatives as we can!

A bare majority would suffice!

 

[Wry Catcher]

So in 2012, all we need is a simple majority to:

1. Privatize Social Security
2. Close Department of Education
3. Start robust domestic drilling
4. Make English Official US language
5. National Voter ID

This Majority Rules thingy is so ******* sweet!

Yep.

However, you would never get a Republican majority to vote for ANY of those things. Except maybe the drilling.


So when it comes to issues that are important to you Frank, apparently you're just out of luck.

So replace the Republicans with actual Constitutionally loyal Conservatives and replace as many of the liberal Democrats with Constitutionally loyal Conservatives as we can!

A bare majority would suffice!

And what would be the policies of said "bare majority"? And what of the consequences of those policies in the real world? Or, is critical thinking not a skill set of the conservative constitutionalist and such questions never occur to you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Medicare is more efficient??? at what?

At insuring people, at a lower cost.

Just ask any old person whether they want their Medicare to be privatized. I think you know what the response would be.

If you don't count the multitrillion underfunding, you might have a point.

 

[Liability]

Medicare is more efficient??? at what?

At insuring people, at a lower cost.

Just ask any old person whether they want their Medicare to be privatized. I think you know what the response would be.

If you don't count the multitrillion underfunding, you might have a point.

Indeed.

If you don't count the Federal Debt, the US Budget is ENORMOUSLY in the black!

 

[Liability]

Yep.

However, you would never get a Republican majority to vote for ANY of those things. Except maybe the drilling.


So when it comes to issues that are important to you Frank, apparently you're just out of luck.

So replace the Republicans with actual Constitutionally loyal Conservatives and replace as many of the liberal Democrats with Constitutionally loyal Conservatives as we can!

A bare majority would suffice!

And what would be the policies of said "bare majority"?

The answer, dimwit, is that the "policies" would be damn restricted and restrictive. Accepting the limitations imposed on the Federal Government by virtue of the Enumerated Powers makes for a much simpler role for the bozos in the Administration and Congress!

And what of the consequences of those policies in the real world?

They would be FAR better than the consequences of the moron presently infesting the Oval Office undermining our national credibility and effectiveness.

Or, is critical thinking not a skill set of the conservative constitutionalist and such questions never occur to you?

Yes.

I realize you are too stupid to grasp why your "question" is meaningless, but that's ok. I'll let you wallow in your inferiority.

 

[Vast LWC]

So replace the Republicans with actual Constitutionally loyal Conservatives and replace as many of the liberal Democrats with Constitutionally loyal Conservatives as we can!

A bare majority would suffice!

"Constitutionally Loyal"...

LOL. Whatever you say on that little nickname.

But, putting that aside, good luck on that.

 

[Liability]

So replace the Republicans with actual Constitutionally loyal Conservatives and replace as many of the liberal Democrats with Constitutionally loyal Conservatives as we can!

A bare majority would suffice!

"Constitutionally Loyal"...

LOL. Whatever you say on that little nickname.

But, putting that aside, good luck on that.

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

 

[Vast LWC]

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

I was laughing at your suggestion that anyone who interprets the Constitution in a way that's different from your personal interpretation is somehow "Constitutionally Disloyal".

Perhaps you missed that.

But your assertion that anyone that disagrees with your point of view is somehow a traitor comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a far right-winger.

 

[saveliberty]

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

I was laughing at your suggestion that anyone who interprets the Constitution in a way that's different from your personal interpretation is somehow "Constitutionally Disloyal".

Perhaps you missed that.

But your assertion that anyone that disagrees with your point of view is somehow a traitor comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a far right-winger.

You know, Hell pairs people like you two for eternity. Enjoy the practice.

 

[Liability]

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

I was laughing at your suggestion that anyone who interprets the Constitution in a way that's different from your personal interpretation is somehow "Constitutionally Disloyal".

That ^ is merely a function of your inability to comprehend simple declarative sentences. It is not at all what I said. I was not suggesting that those who disagree with my view are Constitutionally disloyal, you idiot. But one can still BE either loyal to the Constitutional principle of enumerated powers or DISloyal to that principle, you moron.

* * * *

But your assertion that anyone that disagrees with your point of view is somehow a traitor comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a far right-winger.

Again, I never said any such thing -- and it's not even a reasonable inference form anything I did say, you bombastic schmuck.

 

[Liability]

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

I was laughing at your suggestion that anyone who interprets the Constitution in a way that's different from your personal interpretation is somehow "Constitutionally Disloyal".

Perhaps you missed that.

But your assertion that anyone that disagrees with your point of view is somehow a traitor comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a far right-winger.

You know, Hell pairs people like you two for eternity. Enjoy the practice.

Why? Because he's a retard who claims I said something I never said?

Are you as hampered in reading comprehension as he is?

 

[Vast LWC]

That ^ is merely a function of your inability to comprehend simple declarative sentences. It is not at all what I said. I was not suggesting that those who disagree with my view are Constitutionally disloyal, you idiot. But one can still BE either loyal to the Constitutional principle of enumerated powers or DISloyal to that principle, you moron.

By declaring that your far-right conservative buddies were "Constitutionally Loyal", you were logically saying that everyone else was not "Constitutionally Loyal".

Perhaps the problem is your inability to understand logic.

If group A are the only people that are "Constitutionally Loyal", than any group that is not part of group A, logically, is not "Constitutionally Loyal".

But your assertion that anyone that disagrees with your point of view is somehow a traitor comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a far right-winger.

Again, I never said any such thing -- and it's not even a reasonable inference form anything I did say, you bombastic schmuck.

In the United States, being loyal to the constitution is to be patriotic. Therefore to be disloyal to the constitution is to be a traitor...

When I joined the military, for instance, I took an oath to defend the constitution.

You're making all kinds of backhanded accusations, and then you're denying that's what you meant. Perhaps you need to check your language before you write something.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why? Because he's a retard who claims I said something I never said?

Are you as hampered in reading comprehension as he is?

No because we're both engaging in ridiculous name-calling instead of discussing the issue at hand, and he's right.

I stand corrected. Good point. Somebody neg-rep me.

 

[Liability]

Why? Because he's a retard who claims I said something I never said?

Are you as hampered in reading comprehension as he is?

No because we're both engaging in ridiculous name-calling instead of discussing the issue at hand, and he's right.

I stand corrected. Good point. Somebody neg-rep me.

I was discussing the reconciliation and will continue to do so. But you interjected your ad hominem and made a false claim at that time about what I had allegedly said.

I will not neg rep you. ****. I almost neg rep'd saveliberty, but decided to just let it slide.

On the other hand, you just displayed actual maturity, so what say we stop the banter?

If you will address the points without distorting what I have said, that process would be easier.

Again, one may disagree with my views on Constitutional interpretation without being disloyal, arguably. But it is nevertheless quite possible to BE disloyal to the Constitution by intentionally and actively ignoring the FACT that the powers granted to the Federal Government are enumerated and are supposed to be LIMITED by that enumeration!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liability, do you ever think?
It is funny you would spent so many words to say so little, and avoid the obvious consequences of an ideology not far removed from anarchy. You suggest the influence of the federal government will be restricted; yet don't answer the question (which likely never occurred to you) of what happens when there is a power vacuum. And restricted Fed. Authority, what does that mean? Control by states? Counties? Regions? Cities? Ad hoc groups of old white guys?
No FDA - what of the risk of food born disease. Do we all have the ability to evaluate the safety of our food?
Maybe the water supply ought to be privatized too? I'm sure Blackwater would assure the safety of our water, for a price.
What of the rule of law? Should the 195 old white guys maintain the safety of New Orleans? Won't be many tourist dollars there if that is so. Or maybe the local sheriff will mandate that each white man over the age of ten be armed at all times. That would surely make all white men feel safe.
How about the navigation of our rivers, or the repair of our highway system? A toll each time one crosses a state line, and maybe the county line too? Maybe the highway system ought to be privatized too - lots of opportunity for Blackwater or Hailburton.
Who would defend Texas when the nations to the south decide to invade - think those 195 white guys next door will come to your aid?
How wil air traffic be controlled - 747's all on VFR's - that should be interesting.
You know liabiltiy, I hesitiate to call you stupid, but it's pretty clear you rely on emotion and not rational thought.

 

[Vanquish]

No no no. You can't make a snide remark calling into question my claim...then run go hide when I call your bluff. You dont get to do that. Either come out and claim I'm not or quit that shit right now. Suddenly it's not relevant?

Fine. If you want it straight up without sparing your feelings... You don't make much more sense than some of the teenagers we occasionally see posting their opinions. So, if you really are an adult and an attorney, it's hard to imagine that you're any good at either... because you can't seem to connect the dots.

Well at least you finally came clean. I write legal briefs with multiple arguments in the alternative and argue them in court...so I'll stick with the opinions of federal and supreme court judges over yours. Don't take it personally.

As for the inability to use simple logic, you must be looking in the mirror. I don't see you proving that my A + B = C is wrong. Care to give an example? Of course not.

Nope. We've been back and forth again and again, but you stick to your blind support of Obama and his healthcare disaster like a cocklebur. I've wasted enough time with you. If you can't admit that it's total disingenuous bullshit to invite your political opponents to a bipartisan summit and then cleave to your own partisan starting-point... there's nothing to discuss.

I'm anything but blindly supporting BO. I hate what he's NOT changing about GITMO for instance. You can continually try to mis-characterize me...but you're waisting your time. Great work avoiding again.

You've proven throughout this thread that you can't give in ONE tiny point to your perceived enemy...while I have. You're the hack out of the two of us.

Don't have puppies, man. I missed one little question. You ignored entire posts.

I've substantively answered pretty much everything you've thrown at me.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. It's dirt and you know it. But you're willing to bend your own integrity and support it anyway. These backdoor deals on this one bill aren't the only time this has happened. Look at the dirt they did on the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. Ask yourself why Jeffrey Immelt is sitting on Obama's economic recovery board, and they just happened to legislate electronic medical records by 2014 in the Porkulus bill. Have you seen GE's new commercial touting their electronic medical records system? Don't you wonder what all GE is getting in exchange for all the good press they've provided through NBC and MSNBC? Didn't you wonder how the UAW ended up with big fat chunks of GM and Chrysler?

I don't think backroom deals like that are ok in the least. Nor do I dispute that they actually occurred. (Pssssst. That's me agreeing with you, not that you'll ever notice.

You've accused me of partisanship... but you don't know me. I don't tolerate dirty-dealing. Not from any of them. Belonging to a party isn't a substitute for honor. It doesn't matter what party they come from if they're slimeballs. Take Mark Sanford for example. That guy should've been put out on his ass. Bad enough that he should embarrass his office by not being able to keep his dick in his pants... but you don't just abandon your post for days on end without securing your responsibilities to the people you govern.

I know all I need to know for an internet forum discussion from what you've put on the page. Until now you've been pretty one-sided and wouldn't budge an inch. Glad to see you could muster a few examples of your own side's crooked dealings. Must have been hard for you...seeing as how you've fought it for how many pages?

So... maybe the question you should be asking yourself, is why you're willing to accept something you don't agree with.
It's your conscience though. Not mine. So, whatever.

I dont like backroom pork...but in the real world that's how stuff gets done. It pains me to say that because I'd rather there not be any of it. Unfortunately both sides do it and the inequities of politics mean that it will always happen.

You're pretty insulting. Just to let you know, that cuts into your credibility.


Another excuse. Obama KNEW, before he even made the invitation, that Republicans opposed this bill. What's more, good legislation is a result of exchanging ideas and debating their merits. It's not "working together". Washington is not Mr. Rogers' neighborhood... despite Ron Paul's striking similarity when wearing a red sweater.



Like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Maybe in his arrogance, he assumes everybody there is his buddy. And maybe in your blind devotion, you might assume the same. But this was not a private mediation between friends. It was very public and being broadcast in multiple venues.




They didn't go there to agree with Obama's fascist takeover of our healthcare system. They went there on the long-shot chance that he was actually serious about bipartisan solutions and because it was a good venue to showcase their alternative to Obamacare. Let's not forget that it hasn't been too long ago that the Democrats were denying that Republican plans even existed.

Perhaps you should ask your conservative congresspeople and senators. They've used the same rationale for Medicare and agencies like the FDA and EPA. I could school you on the constitutionality of executive branch agencies, but you'd just call me arrogant.

It might not surprise you to learn that I don't agree with SCOTUS decisions that allow the federal government to dole out welfare. And I don't agree with over-bloated federal agencies either.

Read this story about Davy Crockett sometime:
Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

I'm the guy highlighting the fact that you can't concede even one point to the other side. NEITHER side has a 100% lock on all the good ideas, but you're such a hack you won't admit that. Which makes everything you type worthless drivel. If you can't be objective, you're a hack.

That's the very reason why I keep thinking you must be a snot-nosed teenager. You've called me a "hack" about a half dozen times now with no cause other than the fact that I won't agree with you. Grow up. People aren't always going to agree with you. But you'll stand a better chance of having somebody "concede a point"... if you actually have one.


Anyway, let me leave you with this 'cause I'm going to be busy over the next couple of days... We've had some back and forth, and even though I've rattled your cage now and then... so far I don't REALLY think you're a mindless troll. If I did, I wouldn't have bothered with you.

Frankly though, it doesn't matter if you and I agree about the healthcare summit on an anonymous message board. The whole exercise is just about looking at various situations from every angle. In example, I hadn't given much thought to the Jim Bunning situation until I got into a thread about it. But afterward, I realized it was worth a phone call to my no-account senators to let them know that they should either put up or shut up on PayGo.

What matters in the end is that we hold our leaders accountable. That we EXPECT them to behave with the same honor and integrity that we expect from ourselves, and that we participate in the process of self-governance. So... if you don't like the pork and the horse-trading... pick up the phone, get to the fax machine, hell... send up smoke signals... and remind these people who the boss is. WE are the sovereign. They only represent us as well as we make them.

Oddly, I agree with you about PayGo. It makes a lot of sense and no one is holding to it besides lip service.

 

[saveliberty]

I was laughing at your suggestion that anyone who interprets the Constitution in a way that's different from your personal interpretation is somehow "Constitutionally Disloyal".

Perhaps you missed that.

But your assertion that anyone that disagrees with your point of view is somehow a traitor comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a far right-winger.

You know, Hell pairs people like you two for eternity. Enjoy the practice.

Why? Because he's a retard who claims I said something I never said?

Are you as hampered in reading comprehension as he is?

Actually, I was making an insight into Hell without commentary of any sort as to either party's position or statements.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So replace the Republicans with actual Constitutionally loyal Conservatives and replace as many of the liberal Democrats with Constitutionally loyal Conservatives as we can!

A bare majority would suffice!

"Constitutionally Loyal"...

LOL. Whatever you say on that little nickname.

But, putting that aside, good luck on that.

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

Laughable is when someone with zero legal training and/or academic gravitas speaks to what "the Constitution actually calls-for".

Admit you have no legal training.
Admit you have never studied ConLaw.
Admit you post talking points yet have no background/education or training which qualifies you as an expert (or even an informed dilettante) on Constitutional issues.

 

[Meister]

"Constitutionally Loyal"...

LOL. Whatever you say on that little nickname.

But, putting that aside, good luck on that.

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

Laughable is when someone with zero legal training and/or academic gravitas speaks to what "the Constitution actually calls-for".

Admit you have no legal training.
Admit you have never studied ConLaw.
Admit you post talking points yet have no background/education or training which qualifies you as an expert (or even an informed dilettante) on Constitutional issues.

In what state did you pass the Bar Exam, Wry?

Oh yeah, you didn't need to, you were part of the Pride Integrity, and Guts brigade.

 

[Liability]

"Constitutionally Loyal"...

LOL. Whatever you say on that little nickname.

But, putting that aside, good luck on that.

Aside from the obvious fact that you are tragically incoherent, the only thing one can derive from that lame-ass post of yours is that you apparently believe that loyalty to what the Constitution actually calls-for is laugh-worthy.

This comes as no surprise. You are, after all, a lib.

Laughable is when someone with zero legal training and/or academic gravitas speaks to what "the Constitution actually calls-for".

Admit you have no legal training.
Admit you have never studied ConLaw.
Admit you post talking points yet have no background/education or training which qualifies you as an expert (or even an informed dilettante) on Constitutional issues.

I am not responsible for YOUR abject woeful ignorance amd the absurd willingness you often display to make stupid, baseless and ultimately incorrect ASSumptions, Fly Catcher.

It would be impossible for me to "admit" any of the above since I do, in fact, have legal training, I did study Constitutional Law and my experience dealing with Constitutional issues is simply an historical fact.

Furthermore, you imbecile, it is not even required that one be a lawyer to intelligently discuss the Constitution. That may help, but the thing that is actually required is studying history and grasping the gist of the complex set of things which the Framers were attempting to accomplish. There is a wealth of historical information, much of it very contemporaneous with their actions, which may be used to garner that historical insight.

Your appalling lack of basic education in the fields of American history and political philosophy is very sad; but, again, it is not my personal responsibility.