What's fundamentally wrong with America?

[candycorn]

What have you ever done that is Patriotic?

Have you ever noticed that in one breath these blowhards swear the end is near, liberty is under attack, it's end is at hand and the only thing standing between a totalitarian regime is them and people like them....YET....they can't ever seem to spare enough time away from the keyboard to go fight the supposed invaders?

Hey stupid, the "invaders" are internal. And it's still illegal to kill Americans, even if they are libtards destroying America like cancer.

So parking your ass behind a keyboard is the best way of fighting back there tough guy? Or are you just a coward?

 

[P@triot]

Article 1 of the Constitution defines how WE THE PEOPLE elect our representatives and how those representatives pass laws. Every one of those programs you listed were enacted by that constitutionally elected government and are Constitutional

You lose

So let me get this straight - if tomorrow, representatives pass a law that says liberals have no right to religion, free speech, or press, you'll recognize that as Constitutional?

Thanks for showing the world what an unhinged partisan hack buffoon you are. You lose.

Thats where our great Constitution comes into play

Such a bill would be Vetoed by the President
If it were overrided by Congress, the Court would swiftly strike it down as unconstitutional

Is this a great country or what?

It would? Says who? If I'm president, I sign that bill. And if I'm on the Supreme Court, I support it. Now what?

This shows what a disingenuous asshole you are. You run from the facts when they prove you wrong. When I give a scenario that you find terrifying, rather than admit that you would fight that as being unconstitutional, you falsely claim that a theoretical president would veto it in an attempt to avoid admitting you are wrong.

This is why you get owned and embarrassed every time you post...

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler opines

There was no "partnership" in the 1800's when America expanded and experienced real growth. It wasn't until the 1900's - when Karl Marx philosophy made it's way over here - that libtards started crying "we can't do it without government" (even though we had been doing it for 130 years).

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

Read some books dude,

You know jack shit about this nation and its history.

I read more in an hour than you do in a year, you ignorant high school drop out.

I love how eat-it here says "wrong" but can't back that up with even ONE reason why he THINKS it's wrong, much less a single fact, source, or link.

 

[P@triot]

Have you ever noticed that in one breath these blowhards swear the end is near, liberty is under attack, it's end is at hand and the only thing standing between a totalitarian regime is them and people like them....YET....they can't ever seem to spare enough time away from the keyboard to go fight the supposed invaders?

Hey stupid, the "invaders" are internal. And it's still illegal to kill Americans, even if they are libtards destroying America like cancer.

So parking your ass behind a keyboard is the best way of fighting back there tough guy? Or are you just a coward?

Listen to the libtard "tough guy" (sarcasm - liberals are universally cowards who attack and rape women as we saw at the Occupy Wall Street disease spreading libtard conventions) advocate for violence and murder

You have NO idea what I do every day - why do you insist on opening your mouth and embarassing yourself. Seriously, the smartest thing to ever come out of your mouth was another man's dick....

 

[PMZ]

Hey stupid, the "invaders" are internal. And it's still illegal to kill Americans, even if they are libtards destroying America like cancer.

So parking your ass behind a keyboard is the best way of fighting back there tough guy? Or are you just a coward?

Listen to the libtard "tough guy" (sarcasm - liberals are universally cowards who attack and rape women as we saw at the Occupy Wall Street disease spreading libtard conventions) advocate for violence and murder

You have NO idea what I do every day - why do you insist on opening your mouth and embarassing yourself. Seriously, the smartest thing to ever come out of your mouth was another man's dick....

I think that you do American politics a huge favor by demonstrating the product of media extremism.

 

[candycorn]

Hey stupid, the "invaders" are internal. And it's still illegal to kill Americans, even if they are libtards destroying America like cancer.

So parking your ass behind a keyboard is the best way of fighting back there tough guy? Or are you just a coward?

Listen to the libtard "tough guy" (sarcasm - liberals are universally cowards who attack and rape women as we saw at the Occupy Wall Street disease spreading libtard conventions) advocate for violence and murder

You have NO idea what I do every day - why do you insist on opening your mouth and embarassing yourself. Seriously, the smartest thing to ever come out of your mouth was another man's dick....

Basically what you do all day is chase people around the Internet and try to insult them. That pretty much sums up your entire pathetic existence.

 

[Erand7899]

I'll give you anything you want. 100% of your every whim.

All I ask in return is that it is Constitutional (and no - a Supreme Court radically stacked with libtards does NOT make something constitutional).

You want Social Security? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Medicare? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Medicaid? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Food Stamps? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want subsidized housing? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Obamacare? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

I'm willing to trade your infinite wishes for my ONE already required demand. Lets's see how much you assholes are willing to "compromise" now... I'm willing NOT one will accept this - and it's already the requirement of the U.S. Constitution. I'm not adding one more item to what already exists.

Oh, brother…

As opposed to what? ‘Illegally amending’ the Constitution?

The Constitution already authorizes the items noted above and more.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). That you disapprove of almost two centuries of case law is thankfully irrelevant.

The real problem is the abject willingness of many of you to accept that nine lawyers appointed by politicians have the wisdom of the ages, and can do no wrong. Over two centuries of case law, these unelected arbiters of our Constitution have turned that amazing document into just a damn piece of paper. A guide to provide direction to these supreme rulers.

The first clue that should trigger some doubt, is the fact that the vast majority of opinions are 5/4 decisions, meaning that one man is deciding what is constitutional, and four others disagreeing with the decision. Yet, these cloudy decisions determine the future of this great republic, and form the basis for future 5/4 decisions.

When you finally lose the last vestige of your rights as a free citizen, you will be able to thank the Supreme Court for your fate.

 

[bendog]

Well?

Obama promised to change us fundamentally, and liberals cheered.

So please tell me what's wrong, why it needs to be changed and why it's been fundamental.

We still lack a unity of all of us being in this together. Of a rising tide lifting all boats. Ask not what your country can do for you .... Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Whether Obama is capable of leading towards unity remains a question. I am doubtful, though.

 

[PMZ]

I'll give you anything you want. 100% of your every whim.

All I ask in return is that it is Constitutional (and no - a Supreme Court radically stacked with libtards does NOT make something constitutional).

You want Social Security? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Medicare? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Medicaid? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Food Stamps? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want subsidized housing? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Obamacare? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

I'm willing to trade your infinite wishes for my ONE already required demand. Lets's see how much you assholes are willing to "compromise" now... I'm willing NOT one will accept this - and it's already the requirement of the U.S. Constitution. I'm not adding one more item to what already exists.

Oh, brother…

As opposed to what? ‘Illegally amending’ the Constitution?

The Constitution already authorizes the items noted above and more.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). That you disapprove of almost two centuries of case law is thankfully irrelevant.

The real problem is the abject willingness of many of you to accept that nine lawyers appointed by politicians have the wisdom of the ages, and can do no wrong. Over two centuries of case law, these unelected arbiters of our Constitution have turned that amazing document into just a damn piece of paper. A guide to provide direction to these supreme rulers.

The first clue that should trigger some doubt, is the fact that the vast majority of opinions are 5/4 decisions, meaning that one man is deciding what is constitutional, and four others disagreeing with the decision. Yet, these cloudy decisions determine the future of this great republic, and form the basis for future 5/4 decisions.

When you finally lose the last vestige of your rights as a free citizen, you will be able to thank the Supreme Court for your fate.

Your argument would be stronger if you offered an alternative to what our Constitution now specifies.

 

[PMZ]

Well?

Obama promised to change us fundamentally, and liberals cheered.

So please tell me what's wrong, why it needs to be changed and why it's been fundamental.

We still lack a unity of all of us being in this together. Of a rising tide lifting all boats. Ask not what your country can do for you .... Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Whether Obama is capable of leading towards unity remains a question. I am doubtful, though.

I doubt that anyone as President can counter 24/7/365 paid professional media entertainers sowing a partisan culture.

 

[candycorn]

I'll give you anything you want. 100% of your every whim.

All I ask in return is that it is Constitutional (and no - a Supreme Court radically stacked with libtards does NOT make something constitutional).

You want Social Security? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Medicare? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Medicaid? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Food Stamps? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want subsidized housing? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Obamacare? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

I'm willing to trade your infinite wishes for my ONE already required demand. Lets's see how much you assholes are willing to "compromise" now... I'm willing NOT one will accept this - and it's already the requirement of the U.S. Constitution. I'm not adding one more item to what already exists.

Oh, brother…

As opposed to what? ‘Illegally amending’ the Constitution?

The Constitution already authorizes the items noted above and more.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). That you disapprove of almost two centuries of case law is thankfully irrelevant.

The real problem is the abject willingness of many of you to accept that nine lawyers appointed by politicians have the wisdom of the ages, and can do no wrong. Over two centuries of case law, these unelected arbiters of our Constitution have turned that amazing document into just a damn piece of paper. A guide to provide direction to these supreme rulers.

The first clue that should trigger some doubt, is the fact that the vast majority of opinions are 5/4 decisions, meaning that one man is deciding what is constitutional, and four others disagreeing with the decision. Yet, these cloudy decisions determine the future of this great republic, and form the basis for future 5/4 decisions.

When you finally lose the last vestige of your rights as a free citizen, you will be able to thank the Supreme Court for your fate.

Anymore than the faith we put in the framers of the Constitution, I'd argue. Certainly if today's man or woman is flawed, their contemporaries from 1787 were equally as flawed, if not moreso.

 

[bendog]

Well?

Obama promised to change us fundamentally, and liberals cheered.

So please tell me what's wrong, why it needs to be changed and why it's been fundamental.

We still lack a unity of all of us being in this together. Of a rising tide lifting all boats. Ask not what your country can do for you .... Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Whether Obama is capable of leading towards unity remains a question. I am doubtful, though.

I doubt that anyone as President can counter 24/7/365 paid professional media entertainers sowing a partisan culture.

yeah, I considered that. Honestly, had Obama not gone for obamacare but opted for a less comprehensive, and less effective, means to provide some health care to workers not covered privately, then I think some gopers in the senate would not have become so antagonistic. And, honestly, I think Obama's got an elitist streak, which rubs some the wrong way.

However, it's not disbutable that the gop's path to power is based on pitting some of us against some of us. It's the Fox talking heads concept.

Imo it's possible that Obama's legacy will be sort of a national unification and it might not fully emerge until we boomers are dead and buried. Teddy Roosevelt's social philosopy was more consistent with Ike-Reagan than with Harding/Coolidge ... though Reagan shared a philosophy with the latter but as a pragmatic matter had to toe a more moderate path ... he did raise taxes to save social security and medicare, which is verbotten to today's gop.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That you disapprove of almost two centuries of case law is thankfully irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant. Right on topic, you might say.

However trite, it’s nonetheless true: everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

The same is true with regard to Constitutional jurisprudence: everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own case law. That some reject McCulloch and its progeny, for example, remains legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Article 1 of the Constitution defines how WE THE PEOPLE elect our representatives and how those representatives pass laws. Every one of those programs you listed were enacted by that constitutionally elected government and are Constitutional

You lose

This is yet another glaring example of what is wrong with America today. You have a parasite voting class like winger here who have never read the U.S. Constitution and have zero understanding of it.

The fact is - our representatives are not given unlimited powers and cannot pass what ever they want. It really is that simple (and of winger wasn't too lazy to read a couple of short pages, he would know that too).

They are delegated (key word) 18 enumerated powers by the states. That is all they have power over. They are not authorized to make legislation over anything else. Not healthcare. Not housing. Not Social Security. And if they want that power, they have to amend the Constitution.

The fact that winger nonsensically throws out "Article I" where it doesn't even apply and then adds "We The People" followed by "elect our officials" because he *thinks* it sounds intelligent speaks volumes as to just how completely uninformed he is about the U.S. Constitution and his own government.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

The Constitution’s authority comes from the people, not the states. See, e.g., US Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton (1995). And Congress, representing the people, is authorized by the Constitution (the people) to enact any legislation determined necessary and proper to realize a legitimate legislative end, such as the ACA.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is yet another glaring example of what is wrong with America today. You have a parasite voting class like winger here who have never read the U.S. Constitution and have zero understanding of it.

The fact is - our representatives are not given unlimited powers and cannot pass what ever they want. It really is that simple (and of winger wasn't too lazy to read a couple of short pages, he would know that too).

They are delegated (key word) 18 enumerated powers by the states. That is all they have power over. They are not authorized to make legislation over anything else. Not healthcare. Not housing. Not Social Security. And if they want that power, they have to amend the Constitution.

The fact that winger nonsensically throws out "Article I" where it doesn't even apply and then adds "We The People" followed by "elect our officials" because he *thinks* it sounds intelligent speaks volumes as to just how completely uninformed he is about the U.S. Constitution and his own government.

I'm afraid you lose again Rott

Not only have I read the Constitution but I understand and appreciate the form of government that it creates
In fact, our legislators CAN pass anything they want. Put it would have to withstand a presidential veto and a judicial review
Our laws, enacted by We the people understand that the Federal Government has more than the enumerated powers. You, however are free to challenge any perceived abuse of power by the Federal Government in the courts

Those laws that you seem to object to have passed both and withstood the test of time

And yet they've taken their toll.

Actually not.

Laws enacted pursuant to the Bill of Rights have allowed generations of Americans to exercise their fundamental civil liberties: where African American children may attend school with white children, where Hispanic Americans may not be discriminated against because of their ethnicity, where citizens cannot be denied their right to vote because of race, where a state may not deny a citizen his right to counsel, where interracial couples may not be denied the right to marry, where the state may not dictate to a citizen whether he may or may not have a child, where all persons in the United States are entitled to due process, regardless their immigration status, and where homosexuals may no longer be treated as criminals simply because of who they are.

With regard to Commerce Clause jurisprudence: working Americans may expect a fair wage, safe working conditions, and to be free from inappropriate or capricious treatment by employers. Consumers can expect goods and services to be subject to regulatory policy designed to minimize health and safety risks. Communities can provide and ensure their residents clean, safe drinking water, roads and bridges, schools and hospitals, and functioning sewer and sanitation systems. Over the decades Commerce Clause jurisprudence has created the foundation upon which a modern and prosperous Nation was built.

It is no longer the 18th Century, no matter how much some may wish it to be. We are no longer an agrarian society with a small rural population and an insular, isolated economy. What is fundamentally wrong with America, therefore, is those who refuse to accept this fact, and who lack the courage to work to create a greater American future.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'll give you anything you want. 100% of your every whim.

All I ask in return is that it is Constitutional (and no - a Supreme Court radically stacked with libtards does NOT make something constitutional).

You want Social Security? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Medicare? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Medicaid? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Food Stamps? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want subsidized housing? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

You want Obamacare? Legally amend the U.S. Constitution to make that a responsibility of the federal government.

I'm willing to trade your infinite wishes for my ONE already required demand. Lets's see how much you assholes are willing to "compromise" now... I'm willing NOT one will accept this - and it's already the requirement of the U.S. Constitution. I'm not adding one more item to what already exists.

Oh, brother…

As opposed to what? ‘Illegally amending’ the Constitution?

The Constitution already authorizes the items noted above and more.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). That you disapprove of almost two centuries of case law is thankfully irrelevant.

The real problem is the abject willingness of many of you to accept that nine lawyers appointed by politicians have the wisdom of the ages, and can do no wrong. Over two centuries of case law, these unelected arbiters of our Constitution have turned that amazing document into just a damn piece of paper. A guide to provide direction to these supreme rulers.

The first clue that should trigger some doubt, is the fact that the vast majority of opinions are 5/4 decisions, meaning that one man is deciding what is constitutional, and four others disagreeing with the decision. Yet, these cloudy decisions determine the future of this great republic, and form the basis for future 5/4 decisions.

When you finally lose the last vestige of your rights as a free citizen, you will be able to thank the Supreme Court for your fate.

If you understood the process of judicial review, you wouldn’t have posted this.

 

[dblack]

I'm afraid you lose again Rott

Not only have I read the Constitution but I understand and appreciate the form of government that it creates
In fact, our legislators CAN pass anything they want. Put it would have to withstand a presidential veto and a judicial review
Our laws, enacted by We the people understand that the Federal Government has more than the enumerated powers. You, however are free to challenge any perceived abuse of power by the Federal Government in the courts

Those laws that you seem to object to have passed both and withstood the test of time

And yet they've taken their toll.

Actually not.

Actually - it's matter of perspective and opinion, and yours isn't the only one. The fact that there is a growing sense of divisiveness and distrust of government is ample evidence that the laws in question have taken their toll.

The Constitution is a promise, a contract specifying what we give up as personal freedoms and grant to government as state powers. Every time that contract is superstitiously re-written, whether through claims of new power by the executive, or convenient re-interpretations by the judicial, trust in government erodes.

 

[P@triot]

Article 1 of the Constitution defines how WE THE PEOPLE elect our representatives and how those representatives pass laws. Every one of those programs you listed were enacted by that constitutionally elected government and are Constitutional

You lose

This is yet another glaring example of what is wrong with America today. You have a parasite voting class like winger here who have never read the U.S. Constitution and have zero understanding of it.

The fact is - our representatives are not given unlimited powers and cannot pass what ever they want. It really is that simple (and of winger wasn't too lazy to read a couple of short pages, he would know that too).

They are delegated (key word) 18 enumerated powers by the states. That is all they have power over. They are not authorized to make legislation over anything else. Not healthcare. Not housing. Not Social Security. And if they want that power, they have to amend the Constitution.

The fact that winger nonsensically throws out "Article I" where it doesn't even apply and then adds "We The People" followed by "elect our officials" because he *thinks* it sounds intelligent speaks volumes as to just how completely uninformed he is about the U.S. Constitution and his own government.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

The Constitution’s authority comes from the people, not the states. See, e.g., US Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton (1995). And Congress, representing the people, is authorized by the Constitution (the people) to enact any legislation determined necessary and proper to realize a legitimate legislative end, such as the ACA.

"But that's not in the Constitution" is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

So I ask again, if laws are passed that dictates it is "necessary and proper" to send all libtards to concentration camps and strip you of all rights in order to save the U.S., you'll support that as legal?

You're so ignorant of the Constitution and your own government, it is genuinely frightening. You have to point to "case law" because the Constitution proves you wrong and protects us from your oppressive little Nazi fantasies.

The Constitution does not authorize "case law" to trump itself, stupid. You should really try reading it some time.

 

[P@triot]

That you disapprove of almost two centuries of case law is thankfully irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant. Right on topic, you might say.

However trite, it’s nonetheless true: everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

The same is true with regard to Constitutional jurisprudence: everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own case law. That some reject McCulloch and its progeny, for example, remains legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

What is irrelevant is that fact that libtards like you reject the Constitution in favor of the irrelevant opinions of other libtards who happened to be judges