Why are conservatives clueless about our Constitution?

[teapartysamurai]

Know who's famous for being unwilling to compromise politically? Ayn Rand.

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on ANY policy in the US?

War with Afganistan comes to mind.

WAR is a policy? SERIOUSLY? ,lol

But how'd Dubya do in his war? Oh right, Iraq diverted his attention AND troops against the 'good war' to the one which Dubya created on false premises!

I notice you haven't addressed this:

Do you all remember, NO new taxes???

Bush (41) agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts to go to bringing down the deficit. NOT ONE DIME WAS EVER USED TO DO THAT!

The Democrats lied to Bush, promising they would if he agreed to the tax increase.

Instead they used the broken promise (regardless of the fact they broke their promise) against Bush in the 92 election.

Which is FUNNY, because Clinton ALSO PROMISED TO CUT TAXES.

Instead he raised them retroactive to Jan 1, 1993.

But liberals were quiet about that broken promise.

I have a very LONG memory of liberals agreeing to cut spending.

Haven't seen them cut a dime yet.

Liars, every last one of them.

BTW, the surplus happened because Republicans forced a capital gains tax cut on Clinton. The very thing Bush 41 said would fix the recession but Democrats refused to go along with in '90.

If you will remember, Clinton's own CBO projected deficits clear into 2010 before the Republicans won in 1994. The surplus happened AFTER they took control and forced Clinton to sign a bill cutting capital gains AND WELFARE REFORM

 

[teapartysamurai]

Conservatives wrap themselves in the Constitution and act like they are the only ones concerned with the founders principles in crafting this great document

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise. Congressmen and Senators must compromise with each other to craft a bill and get it passed....

I will give you this if you will give me that

That is how our government has functioned for hundreds of years. Instead, Conservatives have instituted a policy of....If I don't get my way, nothing will get done

That attitude is an insult to our founders who formed our very government out of compromise

where does it say compromise in the constitution?

perhaps we should just compromise every year and change the entire constitution....

while compromise often makes good government, it is not always in the best interest of the country and certainly NOT a constitutional mandate. your thread is full of fail.

WAS the Constitution formed (like our nation) with compromise?

Because something ISN'T in the US Constitution, should that mean we needn't be for it, like capitalism?

Capitalism isn't in the Constitution?

Dude, we have property rights. THAT's capitalism.

It's socialism that isn't in the Constitution.

Take your marxist fantasies to Democratic Underground. They wouldn't probably take them seriously.

PLEASE point to capitalism in the Constitution?


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
2. government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
3. a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation
   
   Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.
   
   The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics

American School economics - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Oh goody.

Some liberal pointy heads tell you what you want to hear.

If that's true, then how come capitalism is the way of life here in the US instead of your vaunted socialism?

 

[boedicca]

The correct title for this thread is:

Why Do Progressives Persistently Project Their Pathologies On People Who Disagree With Them?

 

[Uncensored2008]

'Liberty'? lol

I wish I could live in fantasyland like the GOP. Sadly, I have to live with facts and reality.
The problem with the conservative movement in America is that it is based on bigotry, hatred, and, greed. Above all, greed. Money is their god. They worship money and the holders of it and despise those who don't have it.

You and your filthy party wage war on civil rights. Obama has attacked the 1st amendment openly for the last 4 years. Here we see you ignorantly attacking the 2nd. You desire an authoritarian dictatorship, but you lack the means to accomplish it.

Is America going to let you regulate speech? No.

Will we let you regulate the right to self-defense? No.

So you may as well pack up and move to North Korea - realize your dream now - everything you propose awaits you.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The correct title for this thread is:

Why Do Progressives Persistently Project Their Pathologies On People Who Disagree With Them?

On this we agree!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Know who's famous for being unwilling to compromise politically? Ayn Rand.

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on ANY policy in the US?

War with Afganistan comes to mind.

WAR is a policy? SERIOUSLY? ,lol

But how'd Dubya do in his war? Oh right, Iraq diverted his attention AND troops against the 'good war' to the one which Dubya created on false premises!

You asked for a correct policy conservatives have been on. I answered. War with Afganistan was correct and proper. How it went down is another question.

 

[Yurt]

Conservatives wrap themselves in the Constitution and act like they are the only ones concerned with the founders principles in crafting this great document

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise. Congressmen and Senators must compromise with each other to craft a bill and get it passed....

I will give you this if you will give me that

That is how our government has functioned for hundreds of years. Instead, Conservatives have instituted a policy of....If I don't get my way, nothing will get done

That attitude is an insult to our founders who formed our very government out of compromise

where does it say compromise in the constitution?

perhaps we should just compromise every year and change the entire constitution....

while compromise often makes good government, it is not always in the best interest of the country and certainly NOT a constitutional mandate. your thread is full of fail.

WAS the Constitution formed (like our nation) with compromise?

Because something ISN'T in the US Constitution, should that mean we needn't be for it, like capitalism?

i never said that, in fact i said compromise is often good government. but for RW to say conservatives are clueless about the constitution, because they supposedly never compromise, a LIE, is rather stupid and a false claim. as i said, show me where in the constitution it mandates compromise. you can't, ergo, the constitution has NOTHING to do with compromise.

the constitution, which clearly RW is ignorant of, is about LIMITING government's power and giving them certain enumerated powers.

this thread is one big fail and RW will likely ignore these types of posts because he is not interested in debate, just smearing conservatives and he knows he doesn't know squat about the constitution.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Know who's famous for being unwilling to compromise politically? Ayn Rand.

"There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction."

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on ANY policy in the US?

War with Afganistan comes to mind.

WAR is a policy? SERIOUSLY? ,lol

But how'd Dubya do in his war? Oh right, Iraq diverted his attention AND troops against the 'good war' to the one which Dubya created on false premises!

You asked for a correct policy conservatives have been on. I answered. War with Afganistan was correct and proper. How it went down is another question.

All you have to do is compared the Bush/Reagan years to the Obama years.

Unemployment alone proves how much better conservatives do the job than liberals.

 

[rightwinger]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

 

[Dad2three]

I REPEAT!

WHAT ARE YOU LYING LIBERALS WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON????????

You talk compromise but you don't mean it.

It only means WE compromise, YOU DON'T.

So what are YOU willing to compromise on????

THIS IS ANOTHER THREAD I'M ABOUT TO KILL, BECAUSE NONE OF YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HONESTLY ANSWER THAT ONE AND YOU KNOW IT!

OK....lets go there

Spending cuts in exchange for tax increases
Cuts in the Military in exchange for cuts in social spending
Immigration reform in return for tighter border security
Alternate energy investment in return for increased drilling rights

I'm game....you willing to COMPROMISE?

What about ABORTION????

What about gay rights?

And I've seen you libs "compromise" on cutting spending in exchange for tax increases.

The tax increases are immediate, the spending cuts never come, they are only promised.

Which spending cuts were promised? By whom and when?

Weird, Clinton had 4 (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut) surpluses with nearly 20% of GDP in revenues, the GOP gets into office with Dubya, gut revenues (TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS, LESS THAN 15% OF GDP) with 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (NOT cutting spending), ramps up spending with 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED Medicare expansion, but the conservatives whine about the Dems? lol

Do you all remember, NO new taxes???

Bush (41) agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts to go to bringing down the deficit. NOT ONE DIME WAS EVER USED TO DO THAT!

The Democrats lied to Bush, promising they would if he agreed to the tax increase.

Instead they used the broken promise (regardless of the fact they broke their promise) against Bush in the 92 election.

Which is FUNNY, because Clinton ALSO PROMISED TO CUT TAXES.

Instead he raised them retroactive to Jan 1, 1993.

But liberals were quiet about that broken promise.

I have a very LONG memory of liberals agreeing to cut spending.

Haven't seen them cut a dime yet.

Liars, every last one of them.

BTW, the surplus happened because Republicans forced a capital gains tax cut on Clinton. The very thing Bush 41 said would fix the recession but Democrats refused to go along with in '90.

If you will remember, Clinton's own CBO projected deficits clear into 2010 before the Republicans won in 1994. The surplus happened AFTER they took control and forced Clinton to sign a bill cutting capital gains.

"Bush (41) agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts to go to bringing down the deficit. NOT ONE DIME WAS EVER USED TO DO THAT!"


LINK?

"because Clinton ALSO PROMISED TO CUT TAXES."

LINK?

Mr. Clinton refuses to make the kind of absolute pledge against raising taxes on the middle class that Mr. Bush made during the 1988 campaign.

"If the money doesn't come in, then we ought to find some other part of the budget to cut or we ought to phase in the programs over a longer period of time," he said Thursday on the NBC News program "Today."
THE 1992 CAMPAIGN Taxes Clinton Promises to Protect Middle Class on Taxes - New York Times


So the surplus WASN'T because Clinton/Dems cut the deficits in 1993 AND created new revenues with tax increases, it was because of the GOP when not ONE GOPer voted for Clinton's 1993 bill?

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit." — Goldman Sachs, March 1998

ABOUT THE $700+ BILLION TAX CUT CLINTON HAD TO VETO? OR THE PROOF ONCE DUBYA GOT INTO OFFICE, THE GOP'S PLAN WAS SPEND, SPEND, SPEND WHILE GUTTING REVENUES?

Starve the beast sound familiar? lol

Yeah, it was the GOP who is fiscally responsible *shaking head*

 

[Yurt]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

see...i told you RW is ignorant of the constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

good lord you are stupid person RW

 

[Dad2three]

Conservatives wrap themselves in the Constitution and act like they are the only ones concerned with the founders principles in crafting this great document

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise. Congressmen and Senators must compromise with each other to craft a bill and get it passed....

I will give you this if you will give me that

That is how our government has functioned for hundreds of years. Instead, Conservatives have instituted a policy of....If I don't get my way, nothing will get done

That attitude is an insult to our founders who formed our very government out of compromise

where does it say compromise in the constitution?

perhaps we should just compromise every year and change the entire constitution....

while compromise often makes good government, it is not always in the best interest of the country and certainly NOT a constitutional mandate. your thread is full of fail.

WAS the Constitution formed (like our nation) with compromise?

Because something ISN'T in the US Constitution, should that mean we needn't be for it, like capitalism?

i never said that, in fact i said compromise is often good government. but for RW to say conservatives are clueless about the constitution, because they supposedly never compromise, a LIE, is rather stupid and a false claim. as i said, show me where in the constitution it mandates compromise. you can't, ergo, the constitution has NOTHING to do with compromise.

the constitution, which clearly RW is ignorant of, is about LIMITING government's power and giving them certain enumerated powers.

this thread is one big fail and RW will likely ignore these types of posts because he is not interested in debate, just smearing conservatives and he knows he doesn't know squat about the constitution.

Yeah, the guys who CHOSE Big Federal Gov't over the 'small states rights' Articles of Confederation, were wrong.....

Limit? Oh you mean to what WE decide we want tit limited too?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US/


ONE nation to EVER use the libertarian bullshit you seem to posit?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

Yeah are you full of it:

From Article I, Section VIII, where the Congress’ explicit powers are named:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

From Article II, Section II, where the powers of the President are defined:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States;

Nice try, but as usual, your grasp of the Constitution comes from liberal liars who want to get around the Constitution.

And before you go on about the every two years thing in the first part, you better go back to your Democrats. THEY ARE THE ONES THE REFUSE TO PASS A BUDGET AND GO ON WITH CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS, VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

You lose all around.



Damn It's easy kicking liberal butt!

​

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

Except of course that you're lying.

The militia was not "state run," but rather an armed populace who would rise to meet threats.

Since leftists ARE the gravest threat to the nation, I understand your desire to disarm the populace.

{
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.}

10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia composition and classes LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Dad2three]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

see...i told you RW is ignorant of the constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

good lord you are stupid person RW

lol, DOESN'T refute his posit, which was true, the Founders were concerned with standing armies, liar! At the time, the 'regular army' as nonexistent!


Armies in that context WAS militia. Who do you think Washington used to defeat the conservative up-risers in Shay's rebellion?

 

[Yurt]

Conservatives wrap themselves in the Constitution and act like they are the only ones concerned with the founders principles in crafting this great document

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise. Congressmen and Senators must compromise with each other to craft a bill and get it passed....

I will give you this if you will give me that

That is how our government has functioned for hundreds of years. Instead, Conservatives have instituted a policy of....If I don't get my way, nothing will get done

That attitude is an insult to our founders who formed our very government out of compromise

where does it say compromise in the constitution?

perhaps we should just compromise every year and change the entire constitution....

while compromise often makes good government, it is not always in the best interest of the country and certainly NOT a constitutional mandate. your thread is full of fail.

WAS the Constitution formed (like our nation) with compromise?

Because something ISN'T in the US Constitution, should that mean we needn't be for it, like capitalism?

i never said that, in fact i said compromise is often good government. but for RW to say conservatives are clueless about the constitution, because they supposedly never compromise, a LIE, is rather stupid and a false claim. as i said, show me where in the constitution it mandates compromise. you can't, ergo, the constitution has NOTHING to do with compromise.

the constitution, which clearly RW is ignorant of, is about LIMITING government's power and giving them certain enumerated powers.

this thread is one big fail and RW will likely ignore these types of posts because he is not interested in debate, just smearing conservatives and he knows he doesn't know squat about the constitution.

Yeah, the guys who CHOSE Big Federal Gov't over the 'small states rights' Articles of Confederation, were wrong.....

Limit? Oh you mean to what WE decide we want tit limited too?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US/


ONE nation to EVER use the libertarian bullshit you seem to posit?

i didn't realize people got drunk so early in the morning....your post is incoherent to put it mildly

 

[Yurt]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

see...i told you RW is ignorant of the constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....

good lord you are stupid person RW

lol, DOESN'T refute his posit, which was true, the Founders were concerned with standing armies, liar! At the time, the 'regular army' as nonexistent!


Armies in that context WAS militia. Who do you think Washington used to defeat the conservative up-risers in Shay's rebellion?

there is no standing army clause? really? what the **** do you think raise and army means? and for two years...that is a standing army. good lord, no wonder RW is running from these posts.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I REPEAT!

WHAT ARE YOU LYING LIBERALS WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON????????

You talk compromise but you don't mean it.

It only means WE compromise, YOU DON'T.

So what are YOU willing to compromise on????

THIS IS ANOTHER THREAD I'M ABOUT TO KILL, BECAUSE NONE OF YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HONESTLY ANSWER THAT ONE AND YOU KNOW IT!

OK....lets go there

Spending cuts in exchange for tax increases
Cuts in the Military in exchange for cuts in social spending
Immigration reform in return for tighter border security
Alternate energy investment in return for increased drilling rights

I'm game....you willing to COMPROMISE?

What about ABORTION????

What about gay rights?

And I've seen you libs "compromise" on cutting spending in exchange for tax increases.

The tax increases are immediate, the spending cuts never come, they are only promised.

Which spending cuts were promised? By whom and when?

Weird, Clinton had 4 (3 after vetoing the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut) surpluses with nearly 20% of GDP in revenues, the GOP gets into office with Dubya, gut revenues (TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS, LESS THAN 15% OF GDP) with 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (NOT cutting spending), ramps up spending with 2 UNFUNDED wars and UNFUNDED Medicare expansion, but the conservatives whine about the Dems? lol

Do you all remember, NO new taxes???

Bush (41) agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts to go to bringing down the deficit. NOT ONE DIME WAS EVER USED TO DO THAT!

The Democrats lied to Bush, promising they would if he agreed to the tax increase.

Instead they used the broken promise (regardless of the fact they broke their promise) against Bush in the 92 election.

Which is FUNNY, because Clinton ALSO PROMISED TO CUT TAXES.

Instead he raised them retroactive to Jan 1, 1993.

But liberals were quiet about that broken promise.

I have a very LONG memory of liberals agreeing to cut spending.

Haven't seen them cut a dime yet.

Liars, every last one of them.

BTW, the surplus happened because Republicans forced a capital gains tax cut on Clinton. The very thing Bush 41 said would fix the recession but Democrats refused to go along with in '90.

If you will remember, Clinton's own CBO projected deficits clear into 2010 before the Republicans won in 1994. The surplus happened AFTER they took control and forced Clinton to sign a bill cutting capital gains.

"Bush (41) agreed to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts to go to bringing down the deficit. NOT ONE DIME WAS EVER USED TO DO THAT!"


LINK?

"because Clinton ALSO PROMISED TO CUT TAXES."

LINK?

Mr. Clinton refuses to make the kind of absolute pledge against raising taxes on the middle class that Mr. Bush made during the 1988 campaign.

"If the money doesn't come in, then we ought to find some other part of the budget to cut or we ought to phase in the programs over a longer period of time," he said Thursday on the NBC News program "Today."
THE 1992 CAMPAIGN Taxes Clinton Promises to Protect Middle Class on Taxes - New York Times


So the surplus WASN'T because Clinton/Dems cut the deficits in 1993 AND created new revenues with tax increases, it was because of the GOP when not ONE GOPer voted for Clinton's 1993 bill?

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit." — Goldman Sachs, March 1998

ABOUT THE $700+ BILLION TAX CUT CLINTON HAD TO VETO? OR THE PROOF ONCE DUBYA GOT INTO OFFICE, THE GOP'S PLAN WAS SPEND, SPEND, SPEND WHILE GUTTING REVENUES?

Starve the beast sound familiar? lol

Yeah, it was the GOP who is fiscally responsible *shaking head*

Wow, you have a short memory:

In 1990, Washington, D.C., was in a panic. The deficit would kill us all. The Japanese (the Chinese of the era) would eat our lunch. Foreign creditors would own America within a decade. Democrats and Republicans in Washington just had to do something, said the mainstream media. Wars, natural-disaster relief, and bailouts were handled without regard to looming entitlement crises. Tax increases were obviously on the table for anyone with half a brain. Sound familiar?

Back then, the solution was practical and obvious to Beltway types, who had been here before in 1982’s TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) tax hike: Democrats would promise future spending cuts in exchange for Republicans’ agreeing to immediate tax increases.

That’s exactly what happened. In October of 1990, Pres. George H. W. Bush agreed to a five-year, $137 billion tax increase. In exchange, House speaker Tom Foley (D., Wash.) and Senate majority leader George Mitchell (D., Me.) promised to cut spending by $274 billion over the FY1991–1995 period. In total, this $2-for-$1 deal was supposed to cut the budget deficit by $411 billion over this budget window. Almost three-quarters of the House GOP conference — 126 representatives — voted against their president’s deal, citing the promise they had made to their constituents when they signed the then-new “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” maintained by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. It was not enough. Washington had won, and taxpayers had lost.

The deal turned out to be a disaster for President Bush. By breaking his “read my lips” promise at a summit with Congressional Democrats (famously held at Andrews Air Force Base), he lost his political support and likely the 1992 election. Undoing the seminal Tax Reform Act of 1986, he raised the top marginal income-tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent — and also phased out some deductions and exemptions. He hiked Medicare payroll taxes. He raised excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, beer, wine, and other common goods. He famously added a 10 percent “luxury tax” on yachts, which had to be repealed three years later since all it served to do was put boat makers out of business, causing layoffs.

These tax hikes became a setup for the 1993 Clinton tax hikes, the cornerstone of which was raising the top individual rate to 39.6 percent, the level President Obama wants to return to after the 2012 elections. In many ways, the conservative movement is still paying the price for Papa Bush’s stupid mistake.

Surely, though, all those spending cuts must have done some good; after all, the deal promised twice as much in spending cuts as it delivered in tax increases. Think again. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected before the deal that 1991–1995 spending would total $7.07 trillion. In fact, total spending for this period was $7.09 trillion. In other words, in return for agreeing to tax hikes, Republicans got $22 billion in extra spending rather than the promised $274 billion in cuts. This was despite the fact that there was another “spending cut” deal in 1993 — the Clinton tax-increase budget.

Read My Lips Won t Happen Again National Review Online

 

[Dad2three]

Shitsensored, I have no objection to shooting clubs or teams in our school system. I think we have better things to spend our tax money on than making it part of the curriculum

shitflinger, what is the militia?

I'd wait for you to lie, but to save a little time:

{George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.}

History of the U.S. Militia

Now look, you're a feral baboon, a shit flinging monkey. Your only purpose in this forum is to shriek and fling shit at passers by, I get it.

But one of the turd you hurled was a complaint about training - IF your turd about training has merit, then are not the already socialized schools the place to do it?

I know, you never meant it as a serious point, you were just flinging shit, as a feral baboon does. Still, well trained DOES make sense, yet we see again that you balk at the proposal to actually train the militia.

Get thee to a baboonary.

Nice try shitsensored but your history falls flat

There was no standing Army in the Constitution. Seemed like an unnecessary luxury to the founders. Militias were intended to be our Army. The founders looked to state run militias stocked with well regulated men 17-45 who were trained and ready to fight

In spite of your feeble attempt to pass on NRA propaganda, our founders did not look to leave the defense of the country to a hodgepodge of drunken rednecks carrying guns

Yeah are you full of it:

From Article I, Section VIII, where the Congress’ explicit powers are named:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

From Article II, Section II, where the powers of the President are defined:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States;

Nice try, but as usual, your grasp of the Constitution comes from liberal liars who want to get around the Constitution.

And before you go on about the every two years thing in the first part, you better go back to your Democrats. THEY ARE THE ONES THE REFUSE TO PASS A BUDGET AND GO ON WITH CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS, VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

You lose all around.



Damn It's easy kicking liberal butt!

​

PLEASE link to where resolutions (appropriations) aren't the ONLY Constitutionally valid spending?



"The fact is that you don't need a budget. We can adopt appropriation bills and we can adopt authorization policies without a budget."


But the much more important fact Republicans have left out is that the Senate passed a budget on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis last summer -- one that unlike an annual "budget resolution" has the force of law behind it. The Budget Control Act -- the law that resolved the debt limit fight -- set binding appropriations caps for this fiscal year and the next and instituted a mechanism to contain spending on domestic discretionary programs -- education, research, community health programs and the like -- through the next decade.

The Truth Behind The GOP s 1000 Days Without A Budget Canard

EPIC FAIL BUBBA

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow, you have a short memory:

In 1990, Washington, D.C., was in a panic. The deficit would kill us all. The Japanese (the Chinese of the era) would eat our lunch. Foreign creditors would own America within a decade. Democrats and Republicans in Washington just had to do something, said the mainstream media. Wars, natural-disaster relief, and bailouts were handled without regard to looming entitlement crises. Tax increases were obviously on the table for anyone with half a brain. Sound familiar?

Back then, the solution was practical and obvious to Beltway types, who had been here before in 1982’s TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) tax hike: Democrats would promise future spending cuts in exchange for Republicans’ agreeing to immediate tax increases.

That’s exactly what happened. In October of 1990, Pres. George H. W. Bush agreed to a five-year, $137 billion tax increase. In exchange, House speaker Tom Foley (D., Wash.) and Senate majority leader George Mitchell (D., Me.) promised to cut spending by $274 billion over the FY1991–1995 period. In total, this $2-for-$1 deal was supposed to cut the budget deficit by $411 billion over this budget window. Almost three-quarters of the House GOP conference — 126 representatives — voted against their president’s deal, citing the promise they had made to their constituents when they signed the then-new “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” maintained by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. It was not enough. Washington had won, and taxpayers had lost.

The deal turned out to be a disaster for President Bush. By breaking his “read my lips” promise at a summit with Congressional Democrats (famously held at Andrews Air Force Base), he lost his political support and likely the 1992 election. Undoing the seminal Tax Reform Act of 1986, he raised the top marginal income-tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent — and also phased out some deductions and exemptions. He hiked Medicare payroll taxes. He raised excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, beer, wine, and other common goods. He famously added a 10 percent “luxury tax” on yachts, which had to be repealed three years later since all it served to do was put boat makers out of business, causing layoffs.

These tax hikes became a setup for the 1993 Clinton tax hikes, the cornerstone of which was raising the top individual rate to 39.6 percent, the level President Obama wants to return to after the 2012 elections. In many ways, the conservative movement is still paying the price for Papa Bush’s stupid mistake.

Surely, though, all those spending cuts must have done some good; after all, the deal promised twice as much in spending cuts as it delivered in tax increases. Think again. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected before the deal that 1991–1995 spending would total $7.07 trillion. In fact, total spending for this period was $7.09 trillion. In other words, in return for agreeing to tax hikes, Republicans got $22 billion in extra spending rather than the promised $274 billion in cuts. This was despite the fact that there was another “spending cut” deal in 1993 — the Clinton tax-increase budget.

Read My Lips Won t Happen Again National Review Online

Dumb2three is a computer virus, it has no memory per se at all.