What Does This Mean??

[DiamondDave]

it's funnier how you think that just because a bare majority elected some asshole that people can't voice dissatisfaction or criticism of said asshole.

Nothing about 'can't' was said.

Then why is it that you Obama ass kissers' pat answer is the "He's the president and was elected yada yada"

And why is it that a reference to voting him out is considered ominous and threatening?

But when Bush was in office.. their tune was much different, now wasn't it

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nothing about 'can't' was said.

Then why is it that you Obama ass kissers' pat answer is the "He's the president and was elected yada yada"

And why is it that a reference to voting him out is considered ominous and threatening?

But when Bush was in office.. their tune was much different, now wasn't it

I seem to remember a "Bush is not my president" mantra.

 

[Si modo]

Hey, it's THEIR government!!! The 20% of Americans, at most, who think like the Tea Partiers, believe that the government should belong to them, so they can rule the other 80%.

Surely you can provide some supporting information for your numbers, right?

Rather, I bet those numbers might scare too many even more.

Yup, those are fucking terrifying words Rand Paul said.

Rand Paul proved, to me, last night, that he's an imbecile. I have closed the book on him.

So, you just pulled those numbers out of your butt, eh, Dodge?

Yeah, it's really imbecilic for someone to say they want to take the government back (only not so much when the Dems say it, apparently to partisans).

 

[rightwinger]

Funny stuff.

Agreed...it would be funny if not for the fact that they take themselves seriously

The idea the government stopped evolving once the Constitution was ratified. The idea that if the founding fathers did not envision it......it cannot be done.

The first President rode around in a horse and buggy....current Presidents use Air Force One

That is the same level of advancement that running a government today compares to running a government in the 18th century

it's funnier how you think that just because a bare majority elected some asshole that people can't voice dissatisfaction or criticism of said asshole.

More proof that Tea Baggers can't count.....Obama had 8.5 million more votes than McCain and they claim it is a "bare majority". Yet Bush had fewer votes than Gore and they claimed it was a mandate

What can you expect? Its the same group that looks at acrowd of 85,000 protesters and claims it is 1.5 million

 

[Skull Pilot]

Agreed...it would be funny if not for the fact that they take themselves seriously

The idea the government stopped evolving once the Constitution was ratified. The idea that if the founding fathers did not envision it......it cannot be done.

The first President rode around in a horse and buggy....current Presidents use Air Force One

That is the same level of advancement that running a government today compares to running a government in the 18th century

it's funnier how you think that just because a bare majority elected some asshole that people can't voice dissatisfaction or criticism of said asshole.

More proof that Tea Baggers can't count.....Obama had 8.5 million more votes than McCain and they claim it is a "bare majority". Yet Bush had fewer votes than Gore and they claimed it was a mandate

What can you expect? Its the same group that looks at acrowd of 85,000 protesters and claims it is 1.5 million

I'm not obsessed with the tea party as you are as i am not a member and merely see them as citizens exercising their rights not some kind of threat as you dimmies see them.. And All crowd figures are exaggerated. Remember the "Million " Man March?

And Obama got 53% of the vote so he only had a 3% majority.

I don't call that overwhelming when a less than 3% shift will unseat him.

 

[Liability]

The current Government was elected by a wide margin by "We the People". Nothing they have done is even remotely unconstitutional

Just because your side was hounded out of office doesn't make it unconstitutional

The dispute is not whether the current government got voted in by the majority. That's already acknowledged.

The dispute is as to your second contention which is patently false.

The claim you make that "Nothing they have done is even remotely unconstitutional" is facially false and patently ridiculous.

There is not legitimate Constitutional authority for the actions taken by this hideous government. They have violated the Constitution in numerous ways at numerous times and at various junctures. It is startling that guys like you cannot admit it.

What Constitutional authority can POSSIBL
Y justify the horrendous law that would compel me to buy not just health insurance but health insurance of THEIR fucking liking? fuck them. Unconstitutional.

What is the fucking Constitutional authority for putting us into debt that is beyond the ability of even the next generation to pay? None. It is a violation of the precept of a limited government that runs so deep that it cannot be justified on ANY valid Constitutional principle.

Where in our Constitution did WE give to the Federal Government the right to outright OWN any industry or corporations? Yet this fucking Administration screwed the GM bond holders in a startling abuse of power and took literal control over GM.

Not even "remotely" unConstitutional? You are fucking crazy or tragically retarded. What it is not even remotely is Constitutional.

What Constitutional justification can their POSSIBLY BE to give the voters of DC a Congressional representative? But the Obama Administration, a bunch of ass-clowns, supports that crap, too.

What are the CONSTITUTIONAL bases for all the appointed "czars" in Comrade President's Administration? Quick answer: NONE.

What about the BAILOUTS? Are you gonna try to pretend that there's a valid Constitutional BASIS for that bullshit? Take a peek at the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . .

You would present more of a sincere argument if not for the fact that you claim every action by the Obama administration is unconstitutional. It makes it clear that the right believes that just because their disgraced policies are no longer respected that whatever the newly elected government does is unconstitutional.

Another falacy of your argument is that you leave out the "in my opinion....it is unconstitutional" or "May be unconstitutional" In fact, it is up to the courts to decide...not message board posters. The laws passed muster with the Congressional Legal staff so untill such time as a court of law disallows them, they are within the bounds of the Constitution

Healthcare- being challenged, but is still the law of the land
Debt- Nothing unconstitutional about debt, if so, Reagan and Bush would have been impeached
Czars- another name for advisors...shows how petty you are becoming
Bailouts- Been done before and there is nothing preventing it from being done again

YOUR notions of what might be more credible are irrelevant since you have zero credibility. And, oh yeah, you need to lie to make your pointless points. This means that you lose before you even begin.

To clarify for you, you dishonest poseur: I never said that EVERYTHING the Obama Administration is doing is unConstitutional. I DID point out SEVERAL perfectly valid examples of where they have been acting unConstitutionally.

Your contention as to my alleged "falacy [sic]" is also flatly stupid. No surprise.

YOU, being the spoon fed lap dog lib you are, might find it necessary to have a court tell you that an unConstitutional act is (or isn't) unConstitutional. But that's you.

Something which violates the Constitution IS unConstitutional even if the SCOTUS says it's ok.

When they ruled in Dred Scott, the fact that THEY said it didn't transform their idiotic opinion into fact. That which was unConstitutional was and remained unConstitutional DESPITE their erroneous ruling.

Debt itself isn't unConstitutional, in and of itself. But the expenditure of funds is something only CONGRESS may authorize and that's not what's happening.

And CZARS are NOT (contrary to your dishonest claim) mere "advisors," either, stupid. Why must you lie as your sole reflexive resort?

I do not have the time or patience to properly educate one as miserably close-minded and uninformed as you, especially when your ignorance is so studiously rooted in your failed political philosophy.

 

[Liability]

The present government was lawfully elected by the American people....what is he talking about?

The present government is acting in violation of our Constitution and in violation of their oaths to comply with the Constitution.

It is crystal clear what he is talking about.

We want OUR government back, meaning the limited one permitted by the Constitution.

This isn't even tough stuff, ya dipsticks.

Funny stuff.

Only to some douchebag liberoidal assclowns like you who couldn't give a shit about our national principles or the future of this Republic.

 

[rightwinger]

it's funnier how you think that just because a bare majority elected some asshole that people can't voice dissatisfaction or criticism of said asshole.

More proof that Tea Baggers can't count.....Obama had 8.5 million more votes than McCain and they claim it is a "bare majority". Yet Bush had fewer votes than Gore and they claimed it was a mandate

What can you expect? Its the same group that looks at acrowd of 85,000 protesters and claims it is 1.5 million

I'm not obsessed with the tea party as you are as i am not a member and merely see them as citizens exercising their rights not some kind of threat as you dimmies see them.. And All crowd figures are exaggerated. Remember the "Million " Man March?

And Obama got 53% of the vote so he only had a 3% majority.

I don't call that overwhelming when a less than 3% shift will unseat him.

Obama defeated McCain by an overwhelming 2:1 majority. The election was over by 9 PM when the polls closed

 

[rightwinger]

The dispute is not whether the current government got voted in by the majority. That's already acknowledged.

The dispute is as to your second contention which is patently false.

The claim you make that "Nothing they have done is even remotely unconstitutional" is facially false and patently ridiculous.

There is not legitimate Constitutional authority for the actions taken by this hideous government. They have violated the Constitution in numerous ways at numerous times and at various junctures. It is startling that guys like you cannot admit it.

What Constitutional authority can POSSIBL
Y justify the horrendous law that would compel me to buy not just health insurance but health insurance of THEIR fucking liking? fuck them. Unconstitutional.

What is the fucking Constitutional authority for putting us into debt that is beyond the ability of even the next generation to pay? None. It is a violation of the precept of a limited government that runs so deep that it cannot be justified on ANY valid Constitutional principle.

Where in our Constitution did WE give to the Federal Government the right to outright OWN any industry or corporations? Yet this fucking Administration screwed the GM bond holders in a startling abuse of power and took literal control over GM.

Not even "remotely" unConstitutional? You are fucking crazy or tragically retarded. What it is not even remotely is Constitutional.

What Constitutional justification can their POSSIBLY BE to give the voters of DC a Congressional representative? But the Obama Administration, a bunch of ass-clowns, supports that crap, too.

What are the CONSTITUTIONAL bases for all the appointed "czars" in Comrade President's Administration? Quick answer: NONE.

What about the BAILOUTS? Are you gonna try to pretend that there's a valid Constitutional BASIS for that bullshit? Take a peek at the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7.

You would present more of a sincere argument if not for the fact that you claim every action by the Obama administration is unconstitutional. It makes it clear that the right believes that just because their disgraced policies are no longer respected that whatever the newly elected government does is unconstitutional.

Another falacy of your argument is that you leave out the "in my opinion....it is unconstitutional" or "May be unconstitutional" In fact, it is up to the courts to decide...not message board posters. The laws passed muster with the Congressional Legal staff so untill such time as a court of law disallows them, they are within the bounds of the Constitution

Healthcare- being challenged, but is still the law of the land
Debt- Nothing unconstitutional about debt, if so, Reagan and Bush would have been impeached
Czars- another name for advisors...shows how petty you are becoming
Bailouts- Been done before and there is nothing preventing it from being done again

YOUR notions of what might be more credible are irrelevant since you have zero credibility. And, oh yeah, you need to lie to make your pointless points. This means that you lose before you even begin.

To clarify for you, you dishonest poseur: I never said that EVERYTHING the Obama Administration is doing is unConstitutional. I DID point out SEVERAL perfectly valid examples of where they have been acting unConstitutionally.

Your contention as to my alleged "falacy [sic]" is also flatly stupid. No surprise.

YOU, being the spoon fed lap dog lib you are, might find it necessary to have a court tell you that an unConstitutional act is (or isn't) unConstitutional. But that's you.

Something which violates the Constitution IS unConstitutional even if the SCOTUS says it's ok.When they ruled in Dred Scott, the fact that THEY said it didn't transform their idiotic opinion into fact. That which was unConstitutional was and remained unConstitutional DESPITE their erroneous ruling.

Debt itself isn't unConstitutional, in and of itself. But the expenditure of funds is something only CONGRESS may authorize and that's not what's happening.

And CZARS are NOT (contrary to your dishonest claim) mere "advisors," either, stupid. Why must you lie as your sole reflexive resort?

I do not have the time or patience to properly educate one as miserably close-minded and uninformed as you, especially when your ignorance is so studiously rooted in your failed political philosophy.

LOL....Yes Liability gets to decide what is Constitutional or not

Unfortunately, in our system of Government, the Supreme Court gets to make the determination. They may be right in your opinion...they may be wrong. But what the court says goes.

The Obama Administration has not done a single thing that is unconstitutional. If you can get the court to agree with your Rightwing spin.....I will concede the point.

Until such time......Everything is Constitutional

 

[Tom Clancy]

Funny stuff.

Agreed...it would be funny if not for the fact that they take themselves seriously

The idea the government stopped evolving once the Constitution was ratified. The idea that if the founding fathers did not envision it......it cannot be done.

The first President rode around in a horse and buggy....current Presidents use Air Force One

That is the same level of advancement that running a government today compares to running a government in the 18th century

They are Constitutional Fundamentalists. They view the Constitution the way Christian fundamentalists view the Bible.

Constitution=/=Bible.

Constitution is their for a reason, it's what makes this country keep itself alive.

What else you gonna tell us? The Constitution is too vague?

 

[PixieStix]

What Does This Mean??

I think it means that you have no clue

 

[Liability]

You would present more of a sincere argument if not for the fact that you claim every action by the Obama administration is unconstitutional. It makes it clear that the right believes that just because their disgraced policies are no longer respected that whatever the newly elected government does is unconstitutional.

Another falacy of your argument is that you leave out the "in my opinion....it is unconstitutional" or "May be unconstitutional" In fact, it is up to the courts to decide...not message board posters. The laws passed muster with the Congressional Legal staff so untill such time as a court of law disallows them, they are within the bounds of the Constitution

Healthcare- being challenged, but is still the law of the land
Debt- Nothing unconstitutional about debt, if so, Reagan and Bush would have been impeached
Czars- another name for advisors...shows how petty you are becoming
Bailouts- Been done before and there is nothing preventing it from being done again

YOUR notions of what might be more credible are irrelevant since you have zero credibility. And, oh yeah, you need to lie to make your pointless points. This means that you lose before you even begin.

To clarify for you, you dishonest poseur: I never said that EVERYTHING the Obama Administration is doing is unConstitutional. I DID point out SEVERAL perfectly valid examples of where they have been acting unConstitutionally.

Your contention as to my alleged "falacy [sic]" is also flatly stupid. No surprise.

YOU, being the spoon fed lap dog lib you are, might find it necessary to have a court tell you that an unConstitutional act is (or isn't) unConstitutional. But that's you.

Something which violates the Constitution IS unConstitutional even if the SCOTUS says it's ok.When they ruled in Dred Scott, the fact that THEY said it didn't transform their idiotic opinion into fact. That which was unConstitutional was and remained unConstitutional DESPITE their erroneous ruling.

Debt itself isn't unConstitutional, in and of itself. But the expenditure of funds is something only CONGRESS may authorize and that's not what's happening.

And CZARS are NOT (contrary to your dishonest claim) mere "advisors," either, stupid. Why must you lie as your sole reflexive resort?

I do not have the time or patience to properly educate one as miserably close-minded and uninformed as you, especially when your ignorance is so studiously rooted in your failed political philosophy.

LOL....Yes Liability gets to decide what is Constitutional or not

Unfortunately, in our system of Government, the Supreme Court gets to make the determination. They may be right in your opinion...they may be wrong. But what the court says goes.

The Obama Administration has not done a single thing that is unconstitutional. If you can get the court to agree with your Rightwing spin.....I will concede the point.

Until such time......Everything is Constitutional

LOL!

Leftwingshitflinger thinks that, because the SCOTUS claimed for itself the right to decide whether an act is or isn't Constitutional, it somehow follows that they and they alone may do this.

Yes. It IS "unfortunate" that the SCOTUS makes these calls when they refuse to abide by the clear and historical meaning of the Constitution.

The Obama Administration clearly HAS violated the Constitution whether you agree or not, ya liberoidal idiot. And if the SCOTUS does reject some of the worst violations committed by the Obama Administration or not doesn't change that fact in any way.

 

[Liability]

More proof that Tea Baggers can't count.....Obama had 8.5 million more votes than McCain and they claim it is a "bare majority". Yet Bush had fewer votes than Gore and they claimed it was a mandate

What can you expect? Its the same group that looks at acrowd of 85,000 protesters and claims it is 1.5 million

I'm not obsessed with the tea party as you are as i am not a member and merely see them as citizens exercising their rights not some kind of threat as you dimmies see them.. And All crowd figures are exaggerated. Remember the "Million " Man March?

And Obama got 53% of the vote so he only had a 3% majority.

I don't call that overwhelming when a less than 3% shift will unseat him.

Obama defeated McCain by an overwhelming 2:1 majority. The election was over by 9 PM when the polls closed

You must be babbling about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE margin of victory. The popular vote was far far from a 2 to 1 mandate, stupid.

It is theoretically possible to win each of ten states by a one vote margin, lose the other states by a unanimous vote and yet be elected President, Electoral College-wise.

If you think that means that a President would have earned any real (meaningful) mandate, you need to think a whole lot more clearly.

 

[DiamondDave]

Obama defeated McCain by an overwhelming 2:1 majority. The election was over by 9 PM when the polls closed

Unequivocally wrong... this was not a 66.67 - 33.33 election

 

[peach174]

Rinata,
Taking our country back means - a government by the people for the people. Not government
for the government and by the government. They are not listening to the people any more. Only the lobbists. We need to get Dems and Repups elected that will pass laws to get the money out of the hands of lobbists. Lobbists can lobby but not with money any more.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

"I have a message from the Tea Party that is loud and clear and doesn't mince words: We've come to take our government back."

-- Kentucky GOP Senate nominee Rand Paul

To me that sounds very ominous and threatening. Am I wrong??

Only to a pussy would that sound ominous and threatening. Still scared by bumps in the night too?

 

[rightwinger]

I'm not obsessed with the tea party as you are as i am not a member and merely see them as citizens exercising their rights not some kind of threat as you dimmies see them.. And All crowd figures are exaggerated. Remember the "Million " Man March?

And Obama got 53% of the vote so he only had a 3% majority.

I don't call that overwhelming when a less than 3% shift will unseat him.

Obama defeated McCain by an overwhelming 2:1 majority. The election was over by 9 PM when the polls closed

You must be babbling about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE margin of victory. The popular vote was far far from a 2 to 1 mandate, stupid.

It is theoretically possible to win each of ten states by a one vote margin, lose the other states by a unanimous vote and yet be elected President, Electoral College-wise.

If you think that means that a President would have earned any real (meaningful) mandate, you need to think a whole lot more clearly.

Presidents are elected by the Electoral College not by popular vote. If you have a problem with that....maybe President Al Gore can explain it further

 

[rightwinger]

Obama defeated McCain by an overwhelming 2:1 majority. The election was over by 9 PM when the polls closed

Unequivocally wrong... this was not a 66.67 - 33.33 election

You are unequivocally wrong

Obama 365
McCain 173

Over a 2:1 margin and a landslide

 

[Liability]

Obama defeated McCain by an overwhelming 2:1 majority. The election was over by 9 PM when the polls closed

You must be babbling about the ELECTORAL COLLEGE margin of victory. The popular vote was far far from a 2 to 1 mandate, stupid.

It is theoretically possible to win each of ten states by a one vote margin, lose the other states by a unanimous vote and yet be elected President, Electoral College-wise.

If you think that means that a President would have earned any real (meaningful) mandate, you need to think a whole lot more clearly.

Presidents are elected by the Electoral College not by popular vote. If you have a problem with that....maybe President Al Gore can explain it further

Not only do we all already know that inconsequential little factoid, ya bombastic self-serving retard, but it remains irrelevant to the conversation.

For it appears that you missed it:

the Electoral College determines the winner by getting voted into THEIR positions BY the general electorate.

IF you STILL can't grasp this, I'll be happy to talk down to you some more, you simpleton.

 

[Liability]

Obama defeated McCain by an overwhelming 2:1 majority. The election was over by 9 PM when the polls closed

Unequivocally wrong... this was not a 66.67 - 33.33 election

You are unequivocally wrong

Obama 365
McCain 173

Over a 2:1 margin and a landslide

Irrelevant.

Nobody is disputing the margin of the win in the ELECTORAL College, ya self-serving and fundamentally dishonest retard.

The POINT is that the POPULAR vote wasn't even roughly akin to the ultimate electoral college vote.

The actual popular vote resulted in a fucking narrow margin.

And all of your silly efforts to spin it cannot alter that fact.