To the Conservatives.

[RetiredGySgt]

Here's my advice for the conservatives:
1) If you want to be the alternative, you actually have to offer an alternative.
2) Stop reading other people's e-mails. If they wanted you to know something, they would share it with you. The fact that you are not on their friends list should tell you something.
3) Stop worrying about who is taking what up which orifice. It's a creepy fascination and quite frankly, it makes you seem just a wee bit gay.

Really hate to break it to you but the democrats oppose gay marriage as well.

 

[Care4all]

The Senate has the right and power to change already existing or delivered appropriation bills. The Constitution is clear on that. Once they do the House has to agree or they have to come to an understanding or the bill does not pass. Nothing unconstitutional at all.

you know, if the house had not already deliberated the bail out bill and VOTED DOWN the bailout bill, the Senate adding the bailout bill to another appropriations bill was definately used to get around the constitution's requirements imo.

If it were not a violation of the constitution then the Constitution should not have the words, ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE....

A slippery slope indeed.

 

[michiganFats]

Retired Gunny, what does the democrats opposing gay marriage have to do with anything I posted? All I was doing is what the thread requested, advice for conservatives. In addition, I find it amusing that you focused on the gay marriage topic, is this your cry for help? Are you just a wee bit too gay to be able to stand yourself?

 

[Gaar]

In terms of interpreting the Constitution, they mean the same thing.

In terms of policy -- that's different. You can argue policy all you want. But you can't argue that it's unconstitutional.

The General Welfare clause, in the Constitution, is a Myth.

It is cited in ONE spot, where they are explicitly discussing Taxing and Spending, that is all!!!

And some Idiots would have you believe that means they can Legislate just about ANYTHING under such a clause, when any Intelligent person KNOWS the Constitution was written to specifically enumerate the things the Government would have Authority over, and all else go back to the States and the People.

 

[jreeves]

Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks

He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.

Give it a rest. Remember how much we have hated the petty bitching and moaning from the left for the last 8 years. Lets be better then those guys. Stick to facts and reality.

Obama will be appointing people to positions, that gives us ammo. He will be advancing his plan for the Country, more ammo. Chose the effective High Road and avod the easy mudslinging low road.

He is already side stepping promises. Attack him on THAT. Wait for the new Congress and point out all the bad decisions by the Democrats. In 2 years we can reclaim the Congress and in 4 we can put Obama out of office if he does all the idiotic things he has promised to do.

Crying about a Birth Certificate that the State has already said is valid is a waste of time. Complaining because he did not do what you would do with the death of his Grandmother is PETTY.

There are real issues to discuss. Though most we have to wait for him to actually start pushing them.

He hasn't even taken office and he has started breaking promises. Wow, what will the next 4 years be like.
Obama backs off jobs tax credit - Waltham, MA - The Daily News Tribune
President-elect Barack Obama has quietly dropped a key part of his $300 billion tax relief plan, itself part of a broader $775 billion stimulus plan.

During the campaign he pledged to "save or create" 3 million jobs and one way he planned to do that was a $3,000 employer tax credit for every new job created. The idea met with immediate resistance on Capitol Hill. Republicans and many Democrats objected that the tax credit would be an administrative nightmare and prone to abuse. And the potential cost could be huge.

 

[GHook93]

Obama is our President elect. Get over it already. Stop the petty bitching about his birth certificate and his grandmother. Stop the personal attacks

100% agree! As a fiscal conservative, not social though, I say as Americans we need to support our President in this horrendous economic times! Be an American first and conservative/Republican second!

He has enough REAL issues for us to discuss. His policies suck and we have him on tape advancing them.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and let his actions speak for him and then judge.

Give it a rest. Remember how much we have hated the petty bitching and moaning from the left for the last 8 years. Lets be better then those guys. Stick to facts and reality.

100% agree! The conservative, especially the talk show host cried a major foul at the liberals and democrats wanting Bush to fail. They called them anti-americans. Now in a reversal many conservatives/republicans are doing the same.

Obama will be appointing people to positions, that gives us ammo.

A lot of his appointment have been to bad!

 

[WillowTree]

To my panty waist Conservative brethren. So what I'm reading is you want to be nice and cooperate, to unite, to play by the rules. That's all fine and good. But, you must remember the Liberals don't play by those rules. When you are in power they do everything possible to block, obstruct, villify, and spread doctrines of hate against you. So you play nice now, and let them mow over you with hatred and just know you will lose every single time. Watch them now spend the next four years and many valuable resources to continue their doctrine of hatred toward the Bush Administration. And, you play nicely with them and cooperate. ANd, expect them to hand you your stupid ass on a plate in 2012. That's the gratitude you will get for being the appeasers.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.


You wanna argue, argue with James Madison.

Here, you argue with Madison. From The Federalist 41:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

Geez...another "general welfare" guy!

 

[Gunny]

Well the Constitution states that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House. So if they originate in the Senate, as the bailout bill did, then they are in fact unconstitutional.

only the House can initiate or originate an appropriations bill. Not ALL bills gunny, just appropriations must originate in the House.

I had read the reasoning beind this is that the House of Representatives, represent us....the people....no taxation without representation kind of thing...since it is our taxes paying for what they appropriate.

While the Senate or Senators represent the State they come from or the state's government....we did not even elect US senators back then, the State gvt picked them to represent them.

ALL bills must pass the senate and house before they go to the president...this can not be bypassed.

With all bills and legislation or statute, the house or senate can initiate them....according to the constitution, BUT with one exception of appropriation bills, where it says they MUST ORIGINATE in the house of representatives and pass with vote the house of representatives before they send it on to the senate for their tweaking and approval.

I don't think the Senate would have added the bailout to an existing house appropriations bill that had passed if they could have constitutionally, initiated the bailout bill on their own, to send to the house.

what they did, adding this bailout to a recently passed house appropriations bill that the senate was up to tweak, was a slippery slope, and an extreme bending of the constitution if not a flat out slap in the face to it....again, imo!

care

IMO, y'all are playing semantics. So does the Senate/Congress. It's a game used to technically, legally circumvent procedure/rules/law.

The Constitution became a joke during the Lincoln Presidency and has been little more since. Just a piece of paper for lawmakers and extremists to play word games with.

The Senate initiates appropriation bills all the time and apparently has a found a way of wording them satisfactory to the House and legal scholars. This one's no different, and throwing up the bullshit flag at this point is like trying to put out a forest fire with a squirt gun.

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the bailouts. It is just my opinion that there are better arguments than this one. The US government has no legal right to interfere in private industry at all.

But don't tell HelloDummyLlama ... he obviously thinks he is the shit.

 

[Avatar4321]

I have to say, I can't believe the focus of the argument against the bail out bill has been appropriations when there is so much more wrong with the bill. The bill in and of itself is unconstitutional because they never had authority to bail out banks.

It may be unconstitutional for the Senate appropriate the funds, so to speak, but what the heck is the point of focusing on a slight tear in the page when theirs a huge freaking hole in the middle of the paper?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Banks are Interstate trade, The US Government has the power to make and enfoce any law they want in regards interstate trade. The US Government certified they would protect banks that alone gives them the authority.

It is quote Constitutional.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article 1 section 8.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Old Rocks]

I plan on giving BHO the same presumption of innocence and level of respect that Liberals gave GWB.

GWB had 95+ of the American People and most of the people worldwide behind him after 9-11. Had he gone and gotten Bin Laden then rebuilt that sad nation of Afghanistan, he would have been a hero at home and abroad. Instead, he choose to make war on a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11. And failed to get the mastermind of 9-11. And spent this nation into a recession verging on a Depression.

When all the living Presidents were in that church after 9-11, and they sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic, my thoughts were that the terrorists and Bin Laden just as well give their souls to God, because their asses were ours. Now, over seven years later the terrorist threat is even greater, and Bin Laden is still alive. That is just one aspect of Bush's legacy of incompetantance and failure.

No, Bush earned every bit of the contempt in which he is held by liberals and most thinking conservatives.

 

[sealybobo]

Give it a rest. Remember how much we have hated the petty bitching and moaning from the left for the last 8 years. Lets be better then those guys. Stick to facts and reality.

Funny you say we were being petty for 8 years and yet here we are with the results of your party running the government. Next great depression, bankrupt treasury and an endless war. Nice. And look at how many seats you lost in 06 and 08. Are you sure we were just being petty? Or did your party suck balls?

What a joke. Bush had it easy compared to what Clinton went though. And Bush should have been tried and put in prison, if not executed for the treason he perpetrated on this country, much less impeached.

Remember, it was Bush's war and economic policies that put this country in the dumper. If you don't think so, ask the rest of the world. They know what caused the global meltdown. And none of them are saying Freddy/Fanny. That's just right wing bullshit spin.

But I applaud what you are asking of your fellow jackasses. They bitched about Clinton for 8 years while he ran a prosperous nation to great wealth. We all did well. So please, who cares if Obama gets a blowjob. What is important is that he undoes what the GOP did.

 

[Gaar]

Funny you say we were being petty for 8 years and yet here we are with the results of your party running the government.

Someone needs to explain to these IDIOTS who has been in charge of BOTH Houses of Congress for 2+ YEARS NOW...

And then try explaining to them who holds the purse strings here in the U.S.

 

[sealybobo]

Someone needs to explain to these IDIOTS who has been in charge of BOTH Houses of Congress for 2+ YEARS NOW...

And then try explaining to them who holds the purse strings here in the U.S.

Someone needs to explain to these idiots how the Dems had the smallest of majorities the last 2 years and that the GOP vowed to obstruct any and all progress so they could run against a do nothing congress in 2008. It backfired on your ass!

Remember you ******* idiots kept saying, "look, Congress' approval rating is lower than the Presidents", suggesting that America was just as upset with Pelosi & Reed.

Yet not one Democratic encumbant lost a seat. What does that tell you, fuckking retard?

And then look how Bush didn't veto one ******* thing in his first 6 years in office. That's a record. And then he veto'ed Democratic bills unless they were packed with GOP pork.

Yes, we had to fund the war, otherwise give idiots like you ammo for the 2008 election. We played you like a fiddle loser.

Anyways, we knew your strategy long before 2008. Here is an op ed piece from 2007 predicting that you guys would try to blame all the countries problems on the Democrats who just took office in January 07. http://www.thomhartmann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=38

And with Bush blocking anything they tried to do, it doesn't seem very sincere you blaming the Dems for anything that went wrong.

Just like I won't blame the GOP for ANYTHING that happens between Feb 1 09 and December 2010.

 

[sealybobo]

Someone needs to explain to these IDIOTS who has been in charge of BOTH Houses of Congress for 2+ YEARS NOW...

And then try explaining to them who holds the purse strings here in the U.S.

One great example is SCHIP. It passed both houses with bipartisan support. Do you know what that means Gaar?

Ok, so Bush veto'ed it 2 times.

Last week it was passed a 3rd time Gaar. Guess what? Obama's going to sign it.

Now that we don't have Republicans blocking progress, we will get a lot more done. We only need a few of you fuckers to sign on to get anything passed. That should be easy.

 

[Gaar]

Someone needs to explain to these idiots how the Dems had the smallest of majorities the last 2 years and that the GOP vowed to obstruct any and all progress so they could run against a do nothing congress in 2008. It backfired on your ass!

Remember you ******* idiots kept saying, "look, Congress' approval rating is lower than the Presidents", suggesting that America was just as upset with Pelosi & Reed.

Yet not one Democratic encumbant lost a seat. What does that tell you, fuckking retard?

And then look how Bush didn't veto one ******* thing in his first 6 years in office. That's a record. And then he veto'ed Democratic bills unless they were packed with GOP pork.

Yes, we had to fund the war, otherwise give idiots like you ammo for the 2008 election. We played you like a fiddle loser.

Anyways, we knew your strategy long before 2008. Here is an op ed piece from 2007 predicting that you guys would try to blame all the countries problems on the Democrats who just took office in January 07. ThomHartmann.com - The Republican Plan For 2008 Begins Today

And with Bush blocking anything they tried to do, it doesn't seem very sincere you blaming the Dems for anything that went wrong.

Just like I won't blame the GOP for ANYTHING that happens between Feb 1 09 and December 2010.

You need to take a look at just who has been in "charge" of Freddie and Fannie while they were giving away Bad Loans, and which Party SUED to make that shit happen...

I guess for some, ignorance is indeed Bliss.

Take a look at some of the Lawsuits ACORN did against the Banking Industry, back in the '90's, and see just who was SUING to make Banks start giving these bad Loans...

Does the name Barack Hussein Obama ring any Bells, you Idiot?

 

[Gaar]

One great example is SCHIP. It passed both houses with bipartisan support. Do you know what that means Gaar?

Ok, so Bush veto'ed it 2 times.

Last week it was passed a 3rd time Gaar. Guess what? Obama's going to sign it.

Now that we don't have Republicans blocking progress, we will get a lot more done. We only need a few of you fuckers to sign on to get anything passed. That should be easy.

You need to look at why it was Vetoed...

The Rule changes make it easier than it already is for people not eligible to get assistance, and that shit needs to stop.

Illegal Aliens are driving this Country into Bankruptcy, and it needs to end.

 

[sealybobo]

You need to take a look at just who has been in "charge" of Freddie and Fannie while they were giving away Bad Loans, and which Party SUED to make that shit happen...

I guess for some, ignorance is indeed Bliss.

Take a look at some of the Lawsuits ACORN did against the Banking Industry, back in the '90's, and see just who was SUING to make Banks start giving these bad Loans...

Does the name Barack Hussein Obama ring any Bells, you Idiot?

Gaar, listen/read what you are saying. You sound sooo stupid.

The dems wanted "poor" people who worked to own homes, in the 90's.

Wow!!! What a horrible thing for them to want!!!!!

Gaar, my man, listen carefully. Had the Robber Barons not trashed the market this decade, those people would still be home owners.

That's why we told you 2004-2006 were not good years. But you kept pointing to record profits and the great stock market.

But we kept telling you that the middle class was not sharing the wealth. And you denied, lied, argued, defended.

You called us whiners.

You said we were the dumb ones to take loans from predatory lenders.

Yet we see predatory lenders screwed rich and poor people alike.

PS, GAAAR. If the Dems wanted poor people in the 90's to get home loans, the GOP this decade wanted EVERYONE to buy a home. That's why they deregulated the industry.

Not only are your arguments bad, they are also false. Lame old excuses.

 

[sealybobo]

You need to look at why it was Vetoed...

The Rule changes make it easier than it already is for people not eligible to get assistance, and that shit needs to stop.

Illegal Aliens are driving this Country into Bankruptcy, and it needs to end.

blablabla. I know why Bush veto'ed it. Because it didn't benefit the top 1%.

And illegals are already costing us a fortune GAAR!!!! Do you know that? This is another scam by the GOP.

This is how illegal employers can afford to pay such shitty wages to illegal workers. They don't pay health insurance. So when they or their kids get sick, they go to emergency rooms.

SCHIP will end up saving us money, even with illegals on the bill.

The GOP created the illegal employer problem. If you dare blame the bleeding heart liberals, let me remind you that bleeding heart liberals do not pay illegal's wages. If illegal employers didn't pay, then illegals would go home tomorrow. And all the bleeding heart liberals could cry for the illegals to stay all they want, there would be nothing to keep them here.

So we have an illegal employer problem. Remember that.