Stuff I Disagree with Tea Partiers, Libertarians and Liberals On

[Missourian]

I agree with most in this thread on the Constitution being interpreted by the intent of the framers.

When you are done with this topic, we can discuss this one in more detail.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".​

Good post otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence dating back to Runnymede predicated on the rule of law, due process, and a presumption of innocence.

The belief in the rule of law over the text of the constitution has resulted in the ruling that the 14th Amendment does not give the Congress the power to write laws that prohibit the states, and the ruling that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional. I have no idea why you constantly glorify the rule of law and the idea that the Constitution is not literal, but if you keep doing so we will eventually end up with a government that is completely free to kill you just because they classify you as as a terrorist.

Justice Kennedy expressed it best, I think, in his majority opinion from Lawrence v Texas (2003):

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

They did not presume to have this insight.

They never intended that the courts could rule that the Constitution doesn't apply either, yet SCOTUS has never had a problem carving out little pieces of it and throwing it away. Kennedy is one of the worst Justices in regard to ignoring the Constitution in favor of government power to oppress.

By the way, the framers did not need to understand due process vis a vis people having sex. The due process clause specifically did not apply to the states. It was not until the 14th Amendment incorporated the Constitution against the states that it mattered at all, and even then it should not have been what made the difference in Lawrence.

Indeed – the Framers never intended the Constitution to be sacrosanct, nor their intent or judgment perceived infallible. The law changes as intended and as it needs to, but the principles of the Constitution endure, vital guideposts to ensure the rule of law remains preeminent.

Correct, which is why they provided a process by which it could be amended. The fact that they made the amendment process as difficult as they did indicates that they did not want that change to be done as a whim.

As Kennedy notes the law changes to accommodate the needs of later generations; the Constitution, the centerpiece of American law, inspires us it live up to its potential. So it is not the Constitution that changes per se, but our understanding of it as we apply it to our everyday lives and as interpreted by the courts.

If our understanding of the Constitution permits the government to ignore it, as the current rule of law does, then it is wrong. Anyone with an IQ above that of frozen water should understand this simple fact.

In Lawrence, therefore, the Court struck down as un-Constitutional the Texas law singling out homosexuals for discriminatory treatment – to wit: criminalizing their ‘behavior.’ Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, et al would argue the people of Texas have the ‘right’ to discriminate against gays if they wish to do so.

You are demonstrating that you have no idea at all what the position of at least one candidate is. That makes me suspect that you have no idea what the rest of them actually stand for either.

This is where the TPM, libertarians, conservatives, and others on the right have it wrong: the 14th Amendment ensures each American is guaranteed his civil rights regardless of jurisdiction. That a majority of the people of a given state or jurisdiction wish to ban ‘gay marriage’ or abortion is irrelevant, per the rule of law the majority are not authorized to decide whether or not the minority may enjoy its rights. (See: West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943). [/qoute]

This is where you have everyone's position wrong.

Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, all of whom running for president and all of whom extreme rightist, are clearly ignorant of – or maintain contempt for – the fundamental Constitutional principle of the rule of law.

Can you give me quotes from each of them to back that blanket statement up?

With regard to Perry, for example, and his advocacy of the fallacy of ‘states’ rights,’ over 50 years ago the Court made clear the original intent of the Supremacy Clause as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment:

The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.

The historic phrase `a government of laws and not of men' epitomizes the distinguishing character of our political society. When John Adams put that phrase into the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights he was not indulging in a rhetorical flourish. He was expressing the aim of those who, with him, framed the Declaration of Independence and founded the Republic. `A government of laws and not of men' was the rejection in positive terms of rule by fiat, whether by the fiat of governmental or private power. Every act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law, as finally pronounced by this Court.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

One can only infer, therefore, that Perry, the TPM, and others on the right either are ignorant of Cooper or reject it and over 200 years of Constitutional case law altogether.

How does Perry, who is the only person that says anything anywhere close to what you are asserting, have it wrong when he asserts that contract law should be decided in the states?

By the way, Cooper doesn't apply in the way you are saying it does. Cooper specifically applied to state governments rejecting federal authority in decisions that have already been handed down. Unless you can point out anywhere that any person is rejecting federal authority in a like manner you are just spouting nonsense.

 

[oreo]

* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

* Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

* Libs: We have too much entitlement. We have families that are 3rd generation on welfare. That's at least 2 too many. To say that these programs are never abused is ridiculous.

* Conservs: I love what some of you have taught me about the duplication of state and fed agencies. Thank you for that. I would agree with much of what you say in this regard. But I would never let go of the CIA, SEC, FAA, EPA and so on.

* LIbs: So waht if a candidate is a Christian? Obama is. I don't care if Rick Perry prays for rain, prosperity or a Super Bowl win for the Houstan Texans (He better pray friggin hard for that one!). While you have all this rhetoric about Christians oppressing you or whatever, what exactly are you doing when you villify someone for their faith alone. Now if Perry says he wants prayer to mandatory in schools, show me and I will b1tch slap him.

* Conservs: You will never convince me that the CRA of '64 is not absolutely necessary and completely Constitutional. Sorry - that definitely falls into my view of "All men created equal" and "General Welfare".

* ObamaCare sucks. It's just plain stupid. But guess what? I've had government health care when I served in the military (Not one person bought private insurance during my time in uniform) and when I lived in Mexico, Canada and The Ukraine. I've also received it in other countries. I would happily give up $300B of our military spending for a Public Option.

* IT IS NOT ALL STILL BUSH'S FRIGGIN FAULT!!!! Enough said on that one.

* Libs: I am for enhanced interrogation on rare occasion. Conservs: This does not mean water-boarding. Nothing about Git-Mo or what Cheney / Bush did was about gaining actionable intel. Because of my background, I am uniquely qualified to prove this. It is not hard to do.

Okay, enough of the late night ramblings after the post-tennis glasses of Merlot.

I'm sure this will spark debate on issues, facts, passion replies and well reasoned arguments from some of you. And of course, the usual insults and labels from the whackjobs...

I am a 30 year sub-chapter S corporation (electrical contractor) and I can tell when someone is trying to B.S. me.

You're a fraud--because you stated this.

Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

Common sense business people always look at expenses--and YES taxes and tax rates ALWAYS affect their bottom line.

Obama since he started--has been threatening a 39% tax bracket on those making 250K per year--from the current 33% that they pay. 39% is what multi-billion dollar corporations pay. If you had in state and local taxes you're asking the hardest working--most innovative people in this country to pay .50 cents on every dollar they earn. In return they have tucked in like a turtle and are waiting for the threat to leave.

And here are Steve Wynn's comments--a DEMOCRAT--CEO of Wynn's casino and resort in LV--and one who voted for Barack Obama.

“I’m saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime. A lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, ‘Oh God, don’t be attacking Obama.’ Well, this is Obama’s deal, and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America.”

“The guy [Obama] keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe ‘we ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest or hold too much money.’ We haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.”

“Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.”

Steve Wynn's Anti-Obama Rant - Is He Right? | BNET

 

[Sundial]

* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

The meaning of the Constitution do not change unless it is amended. When people refer to a living Constitution, they are referring to the idea that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time without amendments. This is simply not true, and is not true of any law. If the entire meaning of the Constitution can be changed without an amendment, then there is literally no purpose to having a Constitution. The Constitution is to be taken literally because law is taken literally. Popular intent may change with the times, but intent of the Constitution does not. When the states ratified the Constitution, there was a general understanding of the intent of the document. Changing the meaning of words and the intent of a contract after it is signed and still expecting everyone to abide by it is fraud.

The fact that there is an amendment process outlined in the Constitution alone disproves any claim that the meaning of the document can be changed at will. It can only be changed if the method outlined is followed. Would you ever sign a contract that could mean something totally different the next morning? Of course not. Such a document could not even be called a contract. The term "living constitution" is in itself a contradiction.

The Constitution is interpreted because it has to be. What "arms" are included in the right to bear arms? Flintlock muzzle-loading muskets? Hand grenades? Flame throwers?

What does "freedom of speech" actually mean? Does it mean you have the right to call someone an asshole? A pedophile? Does it apply to photographs?

When is a search or a seizure "unreasonable"?

The Constitution is vague. It's ambiguous. It's full of high-sounding phrases, but short on practical application. It was put together by men who passionately disagreed with each other, which often makes the idea of original intention moot.

The Constitution doesn't have an "intent," and even if it did we wouldn't all agree about what it was. The Framers themselves did not agree.

The interpretation changes over time because we have no choice but to make it up as we go along.

 

[IndependntLogic]

*

* Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

I am a 30 year sub-chapter S corporation (electrical contractor) and I can tell when someone is trying to B.S. me.

You're a fraud--because you stated this.

Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

Common sense business people always look at expenses--and YES taxes and tax rates ALWAYS affect their bottom line.

“Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.”

[/B]

View attachment 14692

Oh Reeeeeallly???? So you're going to question my bona fides? Okay, let me be tactful here. You're full of sh1t. You sir, are either a fraud or a really sh1tty businessman. And I am never one to be afraid to put my feet to the fire.

So let me ask the "sage advice" of your highness. Right now, my company has been offered a contract that will net me over $1M. That's right. Me personally. The thing is, if I don't handle it quickly and efficiently, I ruin a reputation I've worked hard to build for more than a decade. That means I would have to hire at least one, if not two people.
Do I take the contract and hire the people?
Do I turn down the contract and let my competitors get it, thus insuring they will have a good chance to capture one of my best clients? Because after all, the All Powerful Oz (Obama), may or may not increase my taxes at some time in the next "X" number of years!!!
Tell me oh wise one, what do I do in a supply demand, market share situation like this?
(This would be where you dodge the question, change the subject, sling some insults or Cut & Run).

So as long as we're talking credentials, I am not some coward who claims to be the head of a business but won't back it up with proof. Our site has been up for years and is easily verifiable.
Of course, any electrical contractor who isn't a complete idiot, will have a site that has been registered with ICANN for a decade or more. So let's see who's full of sh1t. What's your website address? Show me yours and I'm happy to show you mine.

So. We done calling each other a fraud yet? Or are you ready to show the proof I'm happy to provide? And when I prove who I am, are you going to have the character to apologize?

Didn't think so....

 

[Oddball]

Sure have. Along with the Anti-Federalist papers.

However, as I said, if we find the Constitution lacking then we have the ability to amend it. That's the way the Constitution was meant to change with the times, through the amendment process not through the government simply doing whatever it wants regardless of the Constitution.

Your better than many. However, you still have to apply the intent to changing circumstances. I agree with you however about changing intent but I would argue it has been abused by both sides in different ways.

The intent was to provide a framework for prevention of and redress for aggression and fraud amongst the several states and the people, not to become the instrument of that aggression and fraud.

 

[flacaltenn]

*

* Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

I am a 30 year sub-chapter S corporation (electrical contractor) and I can tell when someone is trying to B.S. me.

You're a fraud--because you stated this.



Common sense business people always look at expenses--and YES taxes and tax rates ALWAYS affect their bottom line.

“Business is being hammered. The business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States. Until he’s gone, everybody’s going to be sitting on their thumbs.”

[/B]

View attachment 14692

Oh Reeeeeallly???? So you're going to question my bona fides? Okay, let me be tactful here. You're full of sh1t. You sir, are either a fraud or a really sh1tty businessman. And I am never one to be afraid to put my feet to the fire.

So let me ask the "sage advice" of your highness. Right now, my company has been offered a contract that will net me over $1M. That's right. Me personally. The thing is, if I don't handle it quickly and efficiently, I ruin a reputation I've worked hard to build for more than a decade. That means I would have to hire at least one, if not two people.
Do I take the contract and hire the people?
Do I turn down the contract and let my competitors get it, thus insuring they will have a good chance to capture one of my best clients? Because after all, the All Powerful Oz (Obama), may or may not increase my taxes at some time in the next "X" number of years!!!
Tell me oh wise one, what do I do in a supply demand, market share situation like this?
(This would be where you dodge the question, change the subject, sling some insults or Cut & Run).

So as long as we're talking credentials, I am not some coward who claims to be the head of a business but won't back it up with proof. Our site has been up for years and is easily verifiable.
Of course, any electrical contractor who isn't a complete idiot, will have a site that has been registered with ICANN for a decade or more. So let's see who's full of sh1t. What's your website address? Show me yours and I'm happy to show you mine.

So. We done calling each other a fraud yet? Or are you ready to show the proof I'm happy to provide? And when I prove who I am, are you going to have the character to apologize?

Didn't think so....

So you're comparing an opportunity at ONE CONTRACT to the general decisions of a business owner to RISK capital WITHOUT something just landing in their laps? Perhaps like a decision to move a STRUGGLING business to a better location??

Sorry mr. countryclub.. Not the same.. And indeed it's a special case of what I and others are facing at the moment.. Congrats on the opportunity -- by all means -- go do it.. But you'll be OUT of that CONTRACT before the increased taxes, the increased healthcare costs, the increased energy costs, the increased compliance costs actually hit.. Good for you..

I'm just worried that the folks you hire in for that bonanza won't have a clue that's it's based on ONE contract until you have to lay them off at the end.. The majority of us DON'T run our businesses on a vision of the "next job".. Take the blinders off and look at the GENERAL decisions that need to get made.. And I'm not ATTACKING you -- just encouraging you to look beyond your personal experience when you debate politics in general..

 

[IndependntLogic]

I agree with most in this thread on the Constitution being interpreted by the intent of the framers.

When you are done with this topic, we can discuss this one in more detail.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".​

Good post otherwise.

I'd be pleased. You're not one of those posters who comes out blasting anyone who disagrees with you on anything. Nor do you presume to have supreme knowledge beyond all other posters and come off with that "Well of course you don't have my opinion, you aren't close personal friends with 55 dead guys, like I was..." or some such BS.

I'll start a new thread in this category.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution is interpreted because it has to be. What "arms" are included in the right to bear arms? Flintlock muzzle-loading muskets? Hand grenades? Flame throwers?

Arms are arms. If you can carry it you can keep it.

What does "freedom of speech" actually mean? Does it mean you have the right to call someone an asshole? A pedophile? Does it apply to photographs?

Yes.

When is a search or a seizure "unreasonable"?

Searches are always unreasonable, which is why you need a warrant issued by a judge.

The Constitution is vague. It's ambiguous. It's full of high-sounding phrases, but short on practical application. It was put together by men who passionately disagreed with each other, which often makes the idea of original intention moot.

It is only vague if you think that it is designed to give the government power. If you understand it is designed to protect individuals from the government it is perfectly clear.

The Constitution doesn't have an "intent," and even if it did we wouldn't all agree about what it was. The Framers themselves did not agree.

It does have an intent, the framers never disagreed about that. They just argued about the best way to ensure their intent was enforced.

The interpretation changes over time because we have no choice but to make it up as we go along.

Quite true. You have to make it up as you go along because doing anything else would run you smack dab into the fact that the Constitution prohibits about 75% of what the federal government does on a daily basis.

 

[old navy]

* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

The meaning of the Constitution do not change unless it is amended. When people refer to a living Constitution, they are referring to the idea that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time without amendments. This is simply not true, and is not true of any law. If the entire meaning of the Constitution can be changed without an amendment, then there is literally no purpose to having a Constitution. The Constitution is to be taken literally because law is taken literally. Popular intent may change with the times, but intent of the Constitution does not. When the states ratified the Constitution, there was a general understanding of the intent of the document. Changing the meaning of words and the intent of a contract after it is signed and still expecting everyone to abide by it is fraud.

The fact that there is an amendment process outlined in the Constitution alone disproves any claim that the meaning of the document can be changed at will. It can only be changed if the method outlined is followed. Would you ever sign a contract that could mean something totally different the next morning? Of course not. Such a document could not even be called a contract. The term "living constitution" is in itself a contradiction.

The Constitution is interpreted because it has to be. What "arms" are included in the right to bear arms? Flintlock muzzle-loading muskets? Hand grenades? Flame throwers?

What does "freedom of speech" actually mean? Does it mean you have the right to call someone an asshole? A pedophile? Does it apply to photographs?

When is a search or a seizure "unreasonable"?

The Constitution is vague. It's ambiguous. It's full of high-sounding phrases, but short on practical application. It was put together by men who passionately disagreed with each other, which often makes the idea of original intention moot.

The Constitution doesn't have an "intent," and even if it did we wouldn't all agree about what it was. The Framers themselves did not agree.

The interpretation changes over time because we have no choice but to make it up as we go along.

You could not be more wrong.

 

[old navy]

For those of you that think that the U.S. Constitution is a bunch of words by a bunch "old white guys" that mean nothing and can be disregarded or interpreted any way you wish, get the *%# out of my country.

You are wrong and not welcome here.

 

[Immanuel]

1) TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

2) LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

3) I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

4) Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

5) Libs: We have too much entitlement. We have families that are 3rd generation on welfare. That's at least 2 too many. To say that these programs are never abused is ridiculous.

6) Conservs: I love what some of you have taught me about the duplication of state and fed agencies. Thank you for that. I would agree with much of what you say in this regard. But I would never let go of the CIA, SEC, FAA, EPA and so on.

7) LIbs: So waht if a candidate is a Christian? Obama is. I don't care if Rick Perry prays for rain, prosperity or a Super Bowl win for the Houstan Texans (He better pray friggin hard for that one!). While you have all this rhetoric about Christians oppressing you or whatever, what exactly are you doing when you villify someone for their faith alone. Now if Perry says he wants prayer to mandatory in schools, show me and I will b1tch slap him.

8) Conservs: You will never convince me that the CRA of '64 is not absolutely necessary and completely Constitutional. Sorry - that definitely falls into my view of "All men created equal" and "General Welfare".

9) ObamaCare sucks. It's just plain stupid. But guess what? I've had government health care when I served in the military (Not one person bought private insurance during my time in uniform) and when I lived in Mexico, Canada and The Ukraine. I've also received it in other countries. I would happily give up $300B of our military spending for a Public Option.

10) IT IS NOT ALL STILL BUSH'S FRIGGIN FAULT!!!! Enough said on that one.

11) Libs: I am for enhanced interrogation on rare occasion. Conservs: This does not mean water-boarding. Nothing about Git-Mo or what Cheney / Bush did was about gaining actionable intel. Because of my background, I am uniquely qualified to prove this. It is not hard to do.

Okay, enough of the late night ramblings after the post-tennis glasses of Merlot.

I'm sure this will spark debate on issues, facts, passion replies and well reasoned arguments from some of you. And of course, the usual insults and labels from the whackjobs...

Good post.

Hopefully, I can deal with some of the answers.

1) I agree. Tea Partiers and Libertarians are not always right, but I get the impression that most of us (including you) think we are right and defend our points of view on the topic. The amendment process was established because the Founding Fathers understood that times would change and they allowed for the document to be updated. Seems to me that they were pretty intelligent.

2) I agree about the unions bearing some of the responsibility as well as CEO's but our leadership in Washington is more to blame than these two combined by a very large factor. Unions have and still do serve a purpose and it is not the members of the unions who are the problems. It is the corrupt union bosses that are the issue here. You know? The CEO's of the unions.

3) Not much I can dispute here. I now own a gun as well. Although it belonged to my dad and has a trigger lock on it but we can't find where he put the key to it... hmm, I have thought maybe mom knows where it is, but she ain't saying. So, I have to pay to have the lock removed and put a new one on it that has a key.

4) Most conservatives I know don't blame taxes exclusively for the unemployment/shipping jobs offshore problem. I don't. I blame taxes and regulations that make us no longer competitive. While I do not blame President Obama for all the regulations, I do blame him for his administrations anti-corporate attitudes and behaviors. Our leaders need to want to make us competitive again. If that means lower taxes (which I don't believe is the problem itself) then so be it. If it is our regulations then we should be looking at whether or not we are willing to live with lower standards or higher unemployment.

5) Agreed, but eliminating those programs is not the answer either. I think we should adjust those programs and make them hand ups not hand outs.

6) Don't know what "they" have taught you, but I agree I would not let go of many of the agencies if any at all. However, why do we have to look at the word "cut" as being cut out completely? Why can't the word mean reduce instead?

7) Good point and so what if President Obama is Muslim or Mitt Romney is Mormon? As a Christian myself, I appreciate this point. However, I can tell you that I believe in the Separation of Church and State. The last thing I want is my government telling me what God I should be worshiping. I have no problem with prayer in school as long as it is voluntary. I have no problem with nativity scenes on public property and I would welcome scenes from other religions as well. I actually enjoy learning about people and their faiths.

8) Trust me, I don't want to convince you that the CRA is not constitutional. I wish racism were a thing of the past. Unfortunately as was shown in a video the other day on this site (sorry don't remember the thread name or who posted it) in which a black man was beat and then run over and killed by a bunch of teenagers, Racism is still alive and kicking here in the Good Ole US of A. If you have any solutions, I'm open to hearing them.

Here's the link to the thread. I went to find it:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-...s-driving-over-killing-black-man-says-da.html

9) I don't like the way that "Obamacare" set up the public option idea. It was designed to eliminate private insurance companies within five years. I grew up with Kaiser Permenente Hospitals and if the public option was set up in such a manner, I would be the first one singing its praises. Instead what I see is another unfunded bureaucracy that will serve as nothing more than a free pass into emergency rooms.

10) You are right, it is not all Bush's fault. Our problems stem from before President Bush and extend after him. Neither he nor his policy bare none of the responsibility but neither are they excluded from it as well. President Obama is not to blame exclusively either. In fact, I personally (and I may not be right) put much more blame upon the men and women of Congress both past and present than I do on either of the Presidents. I don't understand why everyone seems to blame the Presidents while allowing Congress to screw this country up.

11) I, for one, do not approve of President Bush's treatment of suspected terrorists. I did not then and I do not now. Our Constitution protects American Citizens and only American Citizens. However, our Constitution was based upon what we believe to be basic human rights. Therefore, the question about whether or not the U.S. Constitution protect foreign suspects is mute. We extend more rights to dogs and cats than we do to human beings who happened to have been born in a foreign nation that we invaded. If they are proven to be terrorists... let them rot! Give them some kind of a hearing at least is all that I am saying.

Thanks for your post.

Immie

 

[IndependntLogic]

[/B]

View attachment 14692

Oh Reeeeeallly???? So you're going to question my bona fides? Okay, let me be tactful here. You're full of sh1t. You sir, are either a fraud or a really sh1tty businessman. And I am never one to be afraid to put my feet to the fire.

So let me ask the "sage advice" of your highness. Right now, my company has been offered a contract that will net me over $1M. That's right. Me personally. The thing is, if I don't handle it quickly and efficiently, I ruin a reputation I've worked hard to build for more than a decade. That means I would have to hire at least one, if not two people.
Do I take the contract and hire the people?
Do I turn down the contract and let my competitors get it, thus insuring they will have a good chance to capture one of my best clients? Because after all, the All Powerful Oz (Obama), may or may not increase my taxes at some time in the next "X" number of years!!!
Tell me oh wise one, what do I do in a supply demand, market share situation like this?
(This would be where you dodge the question, change the subject, sling some insults or Cut & Run).

So as long as we're talking credentials, I am not some coward who claims to be the head of a business but won't back it up with proof. Our site has been up for years and is easily verifiable.
Of course, any electrical contractor who isn't a complete idiot, will have a site that has been registered with ICANN for a decade or more. So let's see who's full of sh1t. What's your website address? Show me yours and I'm happy to show you mine.

So. We done calling each other a fraud yet? Or are you ready to show the proof I'm happy to provide? And when I prove who I am, are you going to have the character to apologize?

Didn't think so....

So you're comparing an opportunity at ONE CONTRACT to the general decisions of a business owner to RISK capital WITHOUT something just landing in their laps? Perhaps like a decision to move a STRUGGLING business to a better location??

Sorry mr. countryclub.. Not the same.. And indeed it's a special case of what I and others are facing at the moment.. Congrats on the opportunity -- by all means -- go do it.. But you'll be OUT of that CONTRACT before the increased taxes, the increased healthcare costs, the increased energy costs, the increased compliance costs actually hit.. Good for you..

I'm just worried that the folks you hire in for that bonanza won't have a clue that's it's based on ONE contract until you have to lay them off at the end.. The majority of us DON'T run our businesses on a vision of the "next job".. Take the blinders off and look at the GENERAL decisions that need to get made.. And I'm not ATTACKING you -- just encouraging you to look beyond your personal experience when you debate politics in general..

Well let's look at the guy who replied, calling me a fraud. An Electrical contractor. Let's say KB Homes comes to town and needs an electrical contractor. Danm! I guess he can't take the $800K in gross revenues for wiring all those houses?
Because after all, the contract is only good for the one year that it will take to build the subdivision. Kinda like the contract I have with our clients - and of course anyone coming on board during my ONE or TWO PERSON "hiring bonanza", as you call it. It will be over within a year. Which means whomever I hire will only be able to make $70K - $100K during that year. So you think that even knowing this, they won't want the work? What is your reasoning for this?
The other thing you don't consider is that this opportunity enables me to hire and aggressively pursue new contracts during that year. Bigger contracts that I can now handle because I've already got the man power. That was exactly how we built our business the first time, before my brother got sick and we had to close down for a bit.

In either case, the (business savvy) electrical or construction contractor, IT Consultant, lawyer, t-shirt maker, whatever, isn't going to turn down business because Boogey Man Obama may or may not ever raise taxes in the year 2078 or some such nonsense. Not if they want to ever grow or even survive, for that matter.

 

[IndependntLogic]

1) Good post.

Hopefully, I can deal with some of the answers.

1) I agree. Tea Partiers and Libertarians are not always right, but I get the impression that most of us (including you) think we are right and defend our points of view MOI???? Think I'm right?!?!?! Never! on the topic. The amendment process was established because the Founding Fathers understood that times would change and they allowed for the document to be updated. Seems to me that they were pretty intelligent.

2) I agree about the unions bearing some of the responsibility as well as CEO's but our leadership in Washington is more to blame than these two combined by a very large factor. Unions have and still do serve a purpose and it is not the members of the unions who are the problems. It is the corrupt union bosses that are the issue here. You know? The CEO's of the unions. Good point. And if it seemed that I was implying ALL unions are bad or that there is no room for them ever, that was not my intent.

3) Not much I can dispute here. I now own a gun as well. Although it belonged to my dad and has a trigger lock on it but we can't find where he put the key to it... hmm, I have thought maybe mom knows where it is, but she ain't saying. So, I have to pay to have the lock removed and put a new one on it that has a key. LOL Good luck!

4) Most conservatives I know don't blame taxes exclusively for the unemployment/shipping jobs offshore problem. I don't. I blame taxes and regulations that make us no longer competitive. While I do not blame President Obama for all the regulations, I do blame him for his administrations anti-corporate attitudes and behaviors. Our leaders need to want to make us competitive again. If that means lower taxes (which I don't believe is the problem itself) then so be it. If it is our regulations then we should be looking at whether or not we are willing to live with lower standards or higher unemployment.
I would prefer we not have to lower the standards of the middle-class and frankly, I am convinced that if Tea Partiers / Libertarians got their way, a decade from now, they would be scratching their heads wondering wtf happened - unintended consequences. Unlike the vast majority of TPs and L-tarians, I've lived in the countries that have all the marvelous qualities they want for ours. What is the result? Always the same. Higher crime rates, lower standards of living, the near elimination of a middle class by a corporatacracy. They can blast me as a "socialist" or "statist" (love that one!) all they want. Love the bumper sticker rhetoric. I'm going to start a thread on this one.

5) Agreed, but eliminating those programs is not the answer either. I think we should adjust those programs and make them hand ups not hand outs.

Good point. I didn't mean to imply we should get rid of them altogether.

6) Don't know what "they" have taught you, but I agree I would not let go of many of the agencies if any at all. However, why do we have to look at the word "cut" as being cut out completely? Why can't the word mean reduce instead?

Read the posts from the majority of Tea Partiers. There is no equivocation. They want to get rid of these agencies.

7) Good point and so what if President Obama is Muslim or Mitt Romney is Mormon? As a Christian myself, I appreciate this point. However, I can tell you that I believe in the Separation of Church and State. The last thing I want is my government telling me what God I should be worshiping. I have no problem with prayer in school as long as it is voluntary. I have no problem with nativity scenes on public property and I would welcome scenes from other religions as well. I actually enjoy learning about people and their faiths.


Jeez I love the voice of reason...

8) Trust me, I don't want to convince you that the CRA is not constitutional. I wish racism were a thing of the past. Unfortunately as was shown in a video the other day on this site (sorry don't remember the thread name or who posted it) in which a black man was beat and then run over and killed by a bunch of teenagers, Racism is still alive and kicking here in the Good Ole US of A. If you have any solutions, I'm open to hearing them.

Unlike many here, I don't claim to have all the answers. Ron Paul and many of the TP's are convinced that if we got rid of those stupid ol' race laws, flowers would bloom and the sun would shine brightly upon us all.
Because after all, we need to make sure to prioritize corporations over people. So what if the corps screw them wetbacks and n1ggars! Not the priorities I have.

9) I don't like the way that "Obamacare" set up the public option idea. It was designed to eliminate private insurance companies within five years. I grew up with Kaiser Permenente Hospitals and if the public option was set up in such a manner, I would be the first one singing its praises. Instead what I see is another unfunded bureaucracy that will serve as nothing more than a free pass into emergency rooms.

10) You are right, it is not all Bush's fault. Our problems stem from before President Bush and extend after him. Neither he nor his policy bare none of the responsibility but neither are they excluded from it as well. President Obama is not to blame exclusively either. In fact, I personally (and I may not be right) put much more blame upon the men and women of Congress both past and present than I do on either of the Presidents. I don't understand why everyone seems to blame the Presidents while allowing Congress to screw this country up.

11) I, for one, do not approve of President Bush's treatment of suspected terrorists. I did not then and I do not now. Our Constitution protects American Citizens and only American Citizens. However, our Constitution was based upon what we believe to be basic human rights. Therefore, the question about whether or not the U.S. Constitution protect foreign suspects is mute. We extend more rights to dogs and cats than we do to human beings who happened to have been born in a foreign nation that we invaded. If they are proven to be terrorists... let them rot! Give them some kind of a hearing at least is all that I am saying.

Thanks for your post.

Immie

Thank you. On the last point, the USC is not limited to US Citizens only. We can't torture an Australian tourist etc... Bush contended that the hundreds of detainees were enemy combatants. Okay fine. But it was all still bs.
I was in the NIS. I went through ICI and other programs in the military. The reason I know Git-mo was complete bullsh1t is because everything involved with it, was my area of expertise.

 

[Sactowndog]

Sure have. Along with the Anti-Federalist papers.

However, as I said, if we find the Constitution lacking then we have the ability to amend it. That's the way the Constitution was meant to change with the times, through the amendment process not through the government simply doing whatever it wants regardless of the Constitution.

Your better than many. However, you still have to apply the intent to changing circumstances. I agree with you however about changing intent but I would argue it has been abused by both sides in different ways.

Well I appreciate that you think I'm better than some, but I don't see how the intent of a document can simply change "with the times." And who gets to decide when the intent changes, and how it changes? That makes the Constitution essentially pointless in my mind. If the intent has to change with the times, then it has to be done through the amendment process.

Intent doesn't change that is the part where we agree. But circumstances and context changes greatly which is why you have to have interpretation.

 

[flacaltenn]

Windbag:

You had me cheering there for your last post until...

Searches are always unreasonable, which is why you need a warrant issued by a judge.

You must have missed the point a few months ago on rulings (state-level) that you should just LET the police into your house and complain later (in one case)... And in the other case, no warrant is needed if the police hear "flushing" noises (so if someone knocks while you're on the can -- Don't flush).

All this romantic horseshit about Rights and Liberty is so yesterday...

I'll thank you next time. But now I'm just gonna go pout about the hopelessness.

 

[Sactowndog]

So Windbag. What data are you using to make this assertion?

In my experience, our company which is very sizeable is aggressively outsourcing jobs overseas. In fact, every division VP is responsible for creating a plan to show the savings they are generating via off-shoring. I know because I sat in those meetings.

Our company has never been unionized so you can't blame the unions.

Lastly I sincerely doubt our business is so cutting edge that we are the only ones. If the situation in my company is an outlier I would love to see the data point since I have based a share of my investment strategy on this macro trend so I am not asking to be belligerent.

I certainly support the CHOICE to bargain collectively, but the reason that unions are ossified endangered species is in their simplistic view of what a "job" is.. You can no longer micromanage the scope of what a worker is responsible for contributing. There is no big bank of "turn the screw" jobs available anymore. You only need to look at the "self-checkout" lanes of retail stores to see how endangered the union view of a "job" is.. I think they could redefine themselves to be more supportive of CAREERS rather than jobs and that would serve their membership much better.. If we had a 21st century manufacturing paradigm -- "cheap labor" would be irrelevent and that overseas advantage would quickly fade..

So what is this post sent you off on a rant about unions. My point is to what extent are US jobs being "net" exported. My personal experience would indicate to a significant extent. Quantum claims otherwise. I would love to see the data since this isn't an insignificant point.

 

[Patrick2]

* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it.

The "living document" idea refers to leftwing justices inventing constitutional mandates from whole cloth, and pretending with the most specious reasoning that it comes from the Constitution, most notably Roe v. Wade. The founders were well aware that the people might want changes in the future, and provided for that in the amending process. It is that process that leftwingers spit on, they just want to circumvent it, and they don't think that the people really know what's best for themselves, rather they the leftwing elite know better. The leftwing espouses a basic principle of lawlessness, whereby they won't be stopped by something written over 200 years ago, and even worse, by white guys.

 

[Sactowndog]

No they aren't. I think unions are outdated, and they do contribute to higher labor costs, but they are not the reason jobs are being shipped overseas, which is not happening anyway.

So Windbag. What data are you using to make this assertion?

In my experience, our company which is very sizeable is aggressively outsourcing jobs overseas. In fact, every division VP is responsible for creating a plan to show the savings they are generating via off-shoring. I know because I sat in those meetings.

Our company has never been unionized so you can't blame the unions.

Lastly I sincerely doubt our business is so cutting edge that we are the only ones. If the situation in my company is an outlier I would love to see the data point since I have based a share of my investment strategy on this macro trend so I am not asking to be belligerent.

Wow, personal anecdotes to trump the fact that job growth has been going up for decades. You are absolutely right, you have proven me, the BLS, and the entire world economy, wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

Why do you have to respond to any legitimate request for data like an ass? Are you not getting any or something?

I recognize my data point is a single data point. Granted the Fortune 50 company where I work has significant impact but it is a data point none the less. And I am not talking about decades. I am talking what has been happening since trans-oceanic fiber optic cables have been laid dramatically reducing communication costs. What would cost $2.50 a minute now costs fractions of a penny. Combine that with products increasing becoming digital and you have a significant impact.

From my perspective things have shifted dramatically. I could be wrong and if you have a dissenting viewpoint and alternative information I would love to see it. This shouldn't be a partisan discussion. It is a fundamental impact that should be understood and then we can argue how best to address if in fact it is the case.

 

[Sactowndog]

Here's the thing, if it wasn't to be taken literally then there's no reason to have it at all. If it's not to be taken literally then why not have 4 branches of government, or maybe we get rid of one and just have 2? As for it being a living document because it can be amended, then why not amend it? If you want to do something that isn't in the Constitution then amend it so that it is. That's how we know it was meant to be taken literally. Otherwise there'd be no reason to amend it at all.

Because everything requires context and intrepretation. You can't right a literal document that can stand the test of time because the context changes too much. Have you read the Federalist Papers?

Be specific. Tell me exactly what about the Constitution is outdated. (By the way, I actually know the answer to that question, and can back it up. I am also willing to bet that, whatever you think is outdated, it is not what is actually outdated.)

I am talking context. The potential to electronically scan messages is not something that was envisioned at the time of the founders. You have to be generic enough that you can apply intent to changing conditions.

So you are missing my point.