Page 207 of 244 FirstFirst ... 107157197203204205206207208209210211217 ... LastLast
Results 2,061 to 2,070 of 2438

Thread: The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Sep 2007
    Location
    RIGHT NEXT TO ARROWHEAD!
    Posts
    18,752
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd


    0 Not allowed!
    Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary



    WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
    Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.
    Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. greets a familiar face. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Elise Amendola
    Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
    While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
    But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.






    http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/080108/w0108115A.html







    Crap.
    http://arrowheadjunkies.com/pictures/PhotoShop/sig_pics/NFL_Players/kansas_city_chiefs/tyson.jackson/062009/tyson.jackson.500.png

  2. #2061
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,123
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 27
    Given: 26

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by azchiefsfan View Post
    I have a simple political philosophy: Leave Me Alone! I don't want your welfare. I don't want your healthcare. I don't want your help in any way. I am firmly entrenched in the lower middle class. I am not rich and live pretty much paycheck to paycheck. Just because I can't afford the things that my neighbors have, doesn't mean I want the government to take from them to give to me. Just protect me from foreign invaders and after that, let me sink or swim. It's simple: LMA!
    You can feel free to "sink or swim", but never, for an instant, believe that you don't benefit greatly from this government.

    The USA has been made into the greatest nation for the working class, that has ever existed.

    If it weren't for government interference, those who worked what are now middle-class jobs, scraped just to keep a roof over their heads. They worked 100 hours a week every week, or went broke.

    Without this government protecting it's people from one another, we would have no society at all. We would have a truly ruling class, and everybody else would have to hope to be hired by them, to whip the rest into shape.

    While I agree that our government ventures into fat too many fields, and overspends in almost every program around, I have no delusions of thinking that I would be better off living in a tax-free nation like many of the middle-eastern nations.

    Societies are formed to benefit the entirety of the group. I don't see any of you running off to live completely free from society. Hunting, farming and gathering all of your food, hand-crafting your own defensive weaponry, riding horseback, instead of some car that society has come together to make.

    I agree with less government, in a lot of ways. But pretending that you don't want the government to anything but protect against foreign invaders is lunacy, when you are doing it on the internet.

  3. #2062
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,123
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 27
    Given: 26

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    On Monday, Obama 'threatened' the Supreme Court, that they 'better not' engage in judicial activism or 'legislate from the bench' by declaring that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. That is not judicial activism. It is the sole purpose of the Supreme Court. Judicial activism is the exact opposite; ignoring the Constitution, because you believe a law is for 'the greater good.' The Dread Scott case, which ruled that slaveholders were entitled to keep their 'property' even if they moved to free states; Roe vs. Wade, which found an 'implied' right to privacy, even though it wasn't expressly in the constitution; and Plessy vs. Ferguson, which upheld segregation under the guise of 'separate but equal'--these were judicial activist decisions.

    This is not the first time Obama has attacked the Supreme Court for doing it's job of defending the Constitution. In his State of the Union Address last year, Obama chastised the Supreme Court for ruling that limits on campaign contributions violated a persons right to free speech and were thus unconstitutional.

    When Obama was sworn in as President he took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but when the Constitution has gotten in the way of his personal agenda, he has attacked it. These are impeachable offenses!



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen
    I must have missed any threats. Perhaps it is just perception?

    As for impeachable offenses? If there were any chance to impeach President Obama, then Republicans would have been all over it. I have never seen so much personal hatred for a POTUS, and that includes Bush, who had previously held that distinction.

    And for what? Healthcare for Americans who need help?

    And, while it was done in such a way as to keep the system privatized, the accusations of a government takeover (which would be a good thing) are endless.

    And then you even place Citizens United as being Constitituional? Corporations are people?

    Yeah, like Soilent Green. Just because something is made up of creatures does not, in any way, make it a creature. And even if you want to buy that, it absolutely does not make them US citizens.

    Most corporations are publicly traded, not excluding foreign investors. And now, with that decision, we have welcomed foreign investors to influence US politics.

    ... Just like President Obama "attacked".

    For that matter, the deceased, whom every election loser accuses the winner of using for votes, are far more US citizens than corporations are.

    And everybody "attacks" The US Constitution when it doesn't say what they like. And, while The US Constitution is an amazing floor-plan for a society, it is not perfect.

    If it were, then there would have been no Civil War, nor the massive economic collapses that we have seen in the last century. If it were perfect, then this nation would have no problems at all, and no need for additional laws.

    It is not perfect. And that is why we argue over it. It did not even include women or blacks as voters.

    The US Constitution became marginalized by The Civil War anyway. It was intended for each state to be it's own little nation, with the federal government being an overseer, to make sure the states did not oppress it's own people.

    That failed.

    And yet we have all of these dinosaurs who prefer to crush the only USA that I have ever know, the greatest society on the planet, to go back to what guarantees endless civil wars.

    You have benefitted greatly from The USA as-is. If you are at the top of the economic food chain, the middle, or all the way at the bottom, the current USA is far better for you than than it was at the beginning.

  4. #2063
    Member Since
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Topeka< KS
    Posts
    2,368
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 218
    Given: 58

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    I must have missed any threats. Perhaps it is just perception?
    I put the word 'threatened' in quotes because it was a thinly veiled threat, but it was pretty clear what he was saying. "There's a human element to this and I hope that's not forgotten." If the SCOTUS rules that the individual mandate violates the Constitution, then the judges are being "inhumane."

    The mandate requires young healthy people who have little need for healthcare to purchase a product (or service) from a private company in order to subsidize the costs for people with preexisting conditions and the elderly, for whom it would otherwise be unprofitable for insurance companies to cover. Obama wants the Court to ignore the fact that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to force people to buy stuff just because it would help other people out.

    He says he is confident that the court will not take "what would be and unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority (219-212!) ..." The Court overturns laws all the time. That is their job--to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. They are supposed to rule on the law and not take in to account whether or not it's a good law, or it means well; only whether or not it is allowed by the Constitution. To do otherwise would be 'legislating from the bench,' or engaging in 'judicial activism' which is the very thing he warns them not to do.

    He calls the SCOTUS "an unelected group of people" implying that Congress's decision should have more weight than theirs and thereby undermining the authority of the Court.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    As for impeachable offenses? If there were any chance to impeach President Obama, then Republicans would have been all over it.
    He swore to defend the Constitution and he has been attacking it. Republicans have not called for his impeachment (yet), because they are waiting for the ruling, and it's also very close to an election. We can vote him out of office without impeaching him.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    I have never seen so much personal hatred for a POTUS, and that includes Bush, who had previously held that distinction.
    First of all, it's not 'personal hatred.' It's hate for his policies and the decisions he has made/is making that we feel are detrimental to the economy, the Country, personal liberties, domestic safety, etc. I personally think Obama is a nice guy; a bit smug, arrogant and condescending, perhaps, but I think he means well and his heart is in the right place. I just feel that his priorities are skewed and his methods of bringing about what he feels are positive things are not effective. Maybe this is due in part to his long-time associations with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright, I don't know.

    And second, the media relentlessly attacked Bush for the entire 8 years he was in office. Every time he even misspoke, they jumped on it in an effort to make him look dumb. (I guess graduating from Yale is nothing compared to graduating from Harvard.) They blamed him for everything that went wrong with the economy (even though the congress that passed all those laws had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, and they are still blaming him for the policies that have just made things worse under the Obama administration. The media is just now starting to hold him accountable, a little bit, over 3 years into his term!

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    And for what? Healthcare for Americans who need help?
    You're missing the point. Nobody wants the the poor and disabled to go without quality healthcare. In fact it is already illegal for publicly funded hospitals to deny care to people who can't afford to pay. The Government and private insurance providers are already subsidizing these costs. We just don't feel that it is necessary to violate our basic constitutional rights in order to bring down the costs and bring about more universal coverage.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    And, while it was done in such a way as to keep the system privatized, the accusations of a government takeover (which would be a good thing) are endless.
    How would that be a good thing? Other than the military and a national highway system, name one thing that has improved under government control.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    And then you even place Citizens United as being Constitituional? Corporations are people?

    Yeah, like Soilent Green. Just because something is made up of creatures does not, in any way, make it a creature. And even if you want to buy that, it absolutely does not make them US citizens.
    the courts had previously ruled that stations could advertise Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 which called for Bush's defeat, but couldn't run adds for Citizens United's Hillary: the Movie which is why the case made it's way to the Supreme Court. Corporations are absolutely made up of people, not buildings or products, and people have a constitutional right to do what they want with their money, provided they aren't using it for illegal activities like gambling or drug trafficking. Limiting how much they can give to support politicians violates freedom of speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Most corporations are publicly traded, not excluding foreign investors. And now, with that decision, we have welcomed foreign investors to influence US politics.

    ... Just like President Obama "attacked".
    It is still illegal for foreign investors to contribute directly to political campaigns, although that didn't stop Al Gore from accepting contributions from Tibetan monks (Vow of poverty?).

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    For that matter, the deceased, whom every election loser accuses the winner of using for votes, are far more US citizens than corporations are.
    non sequitur? I'm not sure how this relates to Obama attacking the court for upholding the constitution ...
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    And everybody "attacks" The US Constitution when it doesn't say what they like. And, while The US Constitution is an amazing floor-plan for a society, it is not perfect.

    If it were, then there would have been no Civil War, nor the massive economic collapses that we have seen in the last century. If it were perfect, then this nation would have no problems at all, and no need for additional laws.

    It is not perfect. And that is why we argue over it. It did not even include women or blacks as voters.
    Of course the Constitution isn't perfect. That's why a system was put in place to amend it where appropriate, and it has been these amendments (starting with the 'Bill of Rights') that have corrected the problems you mention since it's inception; not the courts bypassing the Constitution and legislating from the bench. If the People want to expand the role of the Federal Government to include providing health care to all of it's citizens, then there is already in place a method for amending the Constitution to allow for that. You don't just ignore the Constitution to pass a law that you feel provides for the common good. (Well, apparently Congress does when it has a Democrat majority!)

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    The US Constitution became marginalized by The Civil War anyway. It was intended for each state to be it's own little nation, with the federal government being an overseer, to make sure the states did not oppress it's own people.

    That failed.
    And therein lies the problem that brings us to where we are today. Initially the Federal Government was too weak and unable to keep the Country from splintering. Since the Civil War, it has slowly but steadily seized increasingly more power to the point where States rights have been diminished, and taken control of things that are far more effectively and efficiently handled on a local or state level (like education and healthcare).

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    And yet we have all of these dinosaurs who prefer to crush the only USA that I have ever know[n], the greatest society on the planet, to go back to what guarantees endless civil wars.
    No we don't. That's a gross exaggeration. Very few conservatives want to roll back the clock to the 1850s, but the 1950s weren't so bad, if we could couple that level of Federal involvement with the gains we have made in civil rights and fair labor laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    You have benefitted greatly from The USA as-is. If you are at the top of the economic food chain, the middle, or all the way at the bottom, the current USA is far better for you than than it was at the beginning.
    Now on that, we can agree. This is still the greatest nation on earth, but in recent years, it has been on the decline, relative to other developed nations. The war on poverty has lead to increased poverty. On the conservative side, the war on drugs has lead to more drug use. In the bipartisan arena, 'no child left behind' has lead to declining test scores and literacy. There is much that both conservatives and liberals can do better and neither side is blameless in the problems our country faces. But throwing out the Constitution, or intimidating the SCOTUS into ignoring it will not solve our problems. Congress needs to stop 'playing politics' and start working together to come up with middle-ground solutions that will get this country moving back in the right direction. We can make a real good start on that in November.
    Last edited by TopekaRoy; 04-06-2012 at 10:24 PM.
    ***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***

    Originally Posted by Name Withheld
    I don't think anything that's what wrong is nearly Smiths Falls we have no offense of line I think the coaches are free to call certain place I think he would absolutely do better with a different office of coordinator

  5. #2064
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,044
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 246
    Given: 436

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by kcvet View Post


    since im not gonna get re elected you Russians are on your own
    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post


    What he really said is even worse!

    it was something along the lines of "After the election is over, I'll have a lot more flexibility to work with you guys"

    That's scary!

    Make no mistake gentlemen, regardless of who wins, we will be no better off than we are now. Personally I think Obama will take it in a land slide.


  6. #2065
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,123
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 27
    Given: 26

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    I put the word 'threatened' in quotes because it was a thinly veiled threat, but it was pretty clear what he was saying. "There's a human element to this and I hope that's not forgotten." If the SCOTUS rules that the individual mandate violates the Constitution, then the judges are being "inhumane."
    I don't see any threat. Not even heavily veiled. I see a criticism, without even the slightest hint of a threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    The mandate requires young healthy people who have little need for healthcare to purchase a product (or service) from a private company in order to subsidize the costs for people with preexisting conditions and the elderly, for whom it would otherwise be unprofitable for insurance companies to cover. Obama wants the Court to ignore the fact that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to force people to buy stuff just because it would help other people out.

    He says he is confident that the court will not take "what would be and unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority (219-212!) ..." The Court overturns laws all the time. That is their job--to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. They are supposed to rule on the law and not take in to account whether or not it's a good law, or it means well; only whether or not it is allowed by the Constitution. To do otherwise would be 'legislating from the bench,' or engaging in 'judicial activism' which is the very thing he warns them not to do.

    He calls the SCOTUS "an unelected group of people" implying that Congress's decision should have more weight than theirs and thereby undermining the authority of the Court.
    A veiled insult? Maybe. Still no form of a threat there.

    And I think everybody has a preference for their decision-makers to be democratically elected. I have little trust for any of them. But I have slightly more for those who have to answer to voters every couple of years.



    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    He swore to defend the Constitution and he has been attacking it. Republicans have not called for his impeachment (yet), because they are waiting for the ruling, and it's also very close to an election. We can vote him out of office without impeaching him.
    Attacking it, like he threatened the SCOTUS.

    Alright, admittedly, I am not an expert on The US Constitution. So where does it say that congress can not mandate something like this.

    I have asked this on forums a few times, and have yet to get a response.

    Where does the healthcare mandate violate our rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    First of all, it's not 'personal hatred.' It's hate for his policies and the decisions he has made/is making that we feel are detrimental to the economy, the Country, personal liberties, domestic safety, etc. I personally think Obama is a nice guy; a bit smug, arrogant and condescending, perhaps, but I think he means well and his heart is in the right place. I just feel that his priorities are skewed and his methods of bringing about what he feels are positive things are not effective. Maybe this is due in part to his long-time associations with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright, I don't know.
    The economy that was circling the drain when he took office? The same economy that is in a full-on rebound?

    Let the banks fail, or the auto industry, and see how long it takes for the economy to rebound.

    I agree that all we have done is delay the inevitible. But no government is going to sit and watch that kind of crash happen.

    Personal liberties? You want to name a few of those?

    Domestic safeties? He has seen many of our biggest threat meet their ends, and there has yet to be a foreign terrorist attack on US soil since he took over.

    I hear those complaints frequently. And aside for the sacred right to not buy health insurance, I can not find any civil liberties that have been lost... I see a US economy that is rebounding very nicely from a major catastrophe.... And I see the most foreign policy success since Reagan got to tell Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall".



    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    And second, the media relentlessly attacked Bush for the entire 8 years he was in office. Every time he even misspoke, they jumped on it in an effort to make him look dumb. (I guess graduating from Yale is nothing compared to graduating from Harvard.) They blamed him for everything that went wrong with the economy (even though the congress that passed all those laws had a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, and they are still blaming him for the policies that have just made things worse under the Obama administration. The media is just now starting to hold him accountable, a little bit, over 3 years into his term!
    A.) Just like The Great Depression, the current recession followed a decade of Republican power over Washington. (Power going to whichever party controls two, or all, of the three ...HoR; Senate; Presidency).

    B.) I know that Obama said 57, instead of 47 states. I have seen it, and heard it endlessly since it happened. Just like the brilliant tele-prompter complaint.

    But "W" made more speaking errors during his presidency than I have ever seen a leader make. Educated? Yes. But a terrible speaker. He had his moments, for sure. But he was just terrible far more often than he was good.

    And he sent a whole lot of Americans to their demise in Iraq, over fictitious WMDs, which certainly won him a very long line of justified hatred.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    You're missing the point. Nobody wants the the poor and disabled to go without quality healthcare. In fact it is already illegal for publicly funded hospitals to deny care to people who can't afford to pay. The Government and private insurance providers are already subsidizing these costs. We just don't feel that it is necessary to violate our basic constitutional rights in order to bring down the costs and bring about more universal coverage.
    I am pretty sure you know that there are plenty of people who do not want to be paying for the healthcare of the needy.

    And it is legal to deny healthcare for those who do have insurance, but their HMO does not approve specific DRs, or hospitals.

    And, while I do not like the HC law, I think that are far too many problems with the current system to allow it to continue.

    Something had to be done. And this extremely right-wing law, was the Dems' attempt to compromise with Reps, and get something done, instead of the continual failure to do anything that we have had for far too long.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    How would that be a good thing? Other than the military and a national highway system, name one thing that has improved under government control.
    Libraries. Schools. Postal service. You name it.

    Prior to public schooling, education was only for the rich. In fact, without government interference, everything is only for the rich.

    And the postal service is dying because the service is becoming obsolete.

    That doesn't mean I am some Communist who wants the government to take everything over.

    But certain things are required to even live. Medical care is just too vital to leave to the rich to dictate.

    More people would die from lack of medical care than a war here. It is, by far, the biggest threat to American lives that there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    the courts had previously ruled that stations could advertise Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 which called for Bush's defeat, but couldn't run adds for Citizens United's Hillary: the Movie which is why the case made it's way to the Supreme Court. Corporations are absolutely made up of people, not buildings or products, and people have a constitutional right to do what they want with their money, provided they aren't using it for illegal activities like gambling or drug trafficking. Limiting how much they can give to support politicians violates freedom of speech.
    A.) spending money is not a voice. It is a proverbial voice.

    B.) Speech from the shadows, in the forum of our nation's politics should not be allowed. Elections should not be paid for by.... Who knows. Especially when "Who Knows" may well be foreign citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    It is still illegal for foreign investors to contribute directly to political campaigns, although that didn't stop Al Gore from accepting contributions from Tibetan monks (Vow of poverty?).
    It is perfectly legal now. Foreign investors can simply pour money into whatever corporation supports their cause. And there is no law against it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    non sequitur? I'm not sure how this relates to Obama attacking the court for upholding the constitution ...
    It was statement about the lack of US citizenship a corporation has. It has none. It does not have the rights that are granted to US citizens. Well, it does now. But the US Constitution did not give it to them. Five Republican SC justices did.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    Of course the Constitution isn't perfect. That's why a system was put in place to amend it where appropriate, and it has been these amendments (starting with the 'Bill of Rights') that have corrected the problems you mention since it's inception; not the courts bypassing the Constitution and legislating from the bench. If the People want to expand the role of the Federal Government to include providing health care to all of it's citizens, then there is already in place a method for amending the Constitution to allow for that. You don't just ignore the Constitution to pass a law that you feel provides for the common good. (Well, apparently Congress does when it has a Democrat majority!)
    Again, you will have to show me where the Constitution has been violated.

    But even so, The US Constitution, including the method for ammendment, is imperfect. And every time somebody disagrees with it is not an attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    And therein lies the problem that brings us to where we are today. Initially the Federal Government was too weak and unable to keep the Country from splintering. Since the Civil War, it has slowly but steadily seized increasingly more power to the point where States rights have been diminished, and taken control of things that are far more effectively and efficiently handled on a local or state level (like education and healthcare).
    There is a reason for it. The Civil War was only the first, of an endless number of hostile conflicts that would occur, if each state were to handle those things. It would be an endless competition, which would always cause US citizens to lose.

    It is The UNITED States of America. And I prefer it that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    No we don't. That's a gross exaggeration. Very few conservatives want to roll back the clock to the 1850s, but the 1950s weren't so bad, if we could couple that level of Federal involvement with the gains we have made in civil rights and fair labor laws.
    Why would you put yourself in that group, only to exclude yourself? We have plenty of people who want to go back to the 1850s. If you aren't one of them, then fine. But there is a whole lot of talk that leans that direction, coming from the current GOP.

    As for 1950's, it was hardly the dreamworld that it made out to be, for the majority of Americans.

    Women were punished by society for not being a good wife. You either were w a good wife, and servant to your husband, or you would be an outcast. And minorities certainly don't look to head back to that era.

    But that's probably not what you like about the 50's. It's probably more about the success of FDR's "New Deal" and how well The USA was doing having had Democrats in power for eight of the ten years.

    Quote Originally Posted by TopekaRoy View Post
    Now on that, we can agree. This is still the greatest nation on earth, but in recent years, it has been on the decline, relative to other developed nations. The war on poverty has lead to increased poverty. On the conservative side, the war on drugs has lead to more drug use. In the bipartisan arena, 'no child left behind' has lead to declining test scores and literacy. There is much that both conservatives and liberals can do better and neither side is blameless in the problems our country faces. But throwing out the Constitution, or intimidating the SCOTUS into ignoring it will not solve our problems. Congress needs to stop 'playing politics' and start working together to come up with middle-ground solutions that will get this country moving back in the right direction. We can make a real good start on that in November.
    Surely you, as well as anybody, know that the primary goal of The GOP has been to make President Obama look bad, since the day he won the election.

    I have yet to see Republicans offer any form of compromise since that day. And I have watched President Obama, and Democrats, reach out, and even bend over backwards at times, to compromise.

    Obama has a very good record as POTUS. He inherited a full-on economic disaster. And anybody who knows anything about government and nation economics knows that you do not recover quickly. The vast majority of the dirt that gets flung at Obama is about things that he couldn't do anything about, but has managed to improve very well.

    I have plenty of issues with Obama. But most of the real problems with him are never even addressed.

  7. #2066
    Member Since
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SE Kansas
    Posts
    28,044
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 246
    Given: 436

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    I love this thread!


  8. #2067
    Member Since
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Topeka< KS
    Posts
    2,368
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 218
    Given: 58

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    I don't see any threat. Not even heavily veiled. I see a criticism, without even the slightest hint of a threat.



    A veiled insult? Maybe. Still no form of a threat there.
    Semantics I guess. You see criticism and insult (begrudgingly, it seems). I see him threatening that if SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandate then they will be perceived as inhumane and uncaring for the poor, elderly and people with preexisting conditions. I see that as a threat: "Don't do this, or that will happen." At the very least, his comments were inappropriate for a sitting President and undermined the authority of the Supreme Court.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    And I think everybody has a preference for their decision-makers to be democratically elected. I have little trust for any of them. But I have slightly more for those who have to answer to voters every couple of years.
    That's why SC justices are appointed for life. I want my elected officials to write and pass legislation so I can hold them accountable when they go astray. But I don't want the people who determine if those laws are constitutional or not to be worried about political fallout for making a correct, but unpopular decision. Isn't that a great system?

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Attacking it, like he threatened the SCOTUS.

    Alright, admittedly, I am not an expert on The US Constitution. So where does it say that congress can not mandate something like this.

    I have asked this on forums a few times, and have yet to get a response.
    Article X in the Bill of Rights which says that any power not specifically delegated to the Federal Govt is reserved for the States. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government power to force everyone to bu y a specific product (healthcare insurance) from a private company, or be fined and held criminally liable for not doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Where does the healthcare mandate violate our rights?
    It forces the wealthy who can afford to pay for their healthcare as they go along to buy a product that they have no use for and it forces the healthy who can pay for checkups and preventative healthcare 'out-of-pocket' to purchase a product that they have no need for.

    The money you earn (minus the part that the government skims off the top in the form of taxes at all levels) belongs to you and in a free country, you have the legal right to buy whatever you want with it, even if you spend it foolishly or irresponsibly.

    They can't tell you that you have to buy a car because it helps the economy and they can't tell you what food you have to buy because "everybody has to eat whether they want to or not, and are therefore part of that commerce," which is precisely the argument they are making before the SC with regards to healthcare. "Everyone will need it at some point in their lives." Not relevant and not even true. What if you get hit by a bus or shot and die instantly at age 25? Or never have any health problems but die in your sleep at age 60 from a massive heart attack? Then the govt. has forced you to pay for a product you never needed or used.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    The economy that was circling the drain when he took office? The same economy that is in a full-on rebound?
    Full rebound? Where are you getting your numbers from? Unemployment is still 8.2% which is higher then it was when Obama took office, and it has only gone down because they quit counting people whose unemployment coverage has run out. The real unemployment rate is 14.6%, which is what would be reported if they still used the same method they used in the late 70s/early 80s. (source)

    In March only 120,000 jobs were created which is fewer than the previous 2 months and fewer than the number of people who are entering the job market in the same time period. The number of long term unemployed (more than 6 months) has risen from 1 million in 2007 to 7 million today (43% of all unemployed). That's far higher than it was in in 1981 when the overall (real) unemployment rate was 10.8%.

    Average weekly earnings fell per capita in March as well, with the average workweek falling from 34.6 hrs to 34.5.

    Gas prices are soaring and could soon hit $5 per gallon. That means higher food prices and less disposable income, so people with the same amount of money they had when Obama took office are now poorer and this will stall even the very weak growth that is occurring now.

    Mortgage foreclosures are still high and the average home value continues to drop. Manufacturing productivity also dropped in March.

    "Full-on recovery?" Hardly.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Let the banks fail, or the auto industry, and see how long it takes for the economy to rebound.
    Okay ... The banks were bailed out before Obama took office, so he hardly gets any credit for that. The second stimulus package (the one that Obama said we would have to pass to keep unemployment under 8%, LOL) has done almost nothing. Oh, we did loan Solyndra $535 million to make solar panels! That's money down the drain.

    We didn't need a "government take over" to bail out GM. Ford didn't take any bailout money and they are doing better than ever. Chrysler accepted bailout money (without a government take over) and they have paid it all back. GM continues to shove the Volt down our throats (which I really like the car, by the way) even though hardly anyone wants one--despite a $7500 tax credit, they are still too expensive. And production of the Volt has been temporarily halted because, apparently, they have a tendency to spontaneously catch on fire!

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    I agree that all we have done is delay the inevitible. But no government is going to sit and watch that kind of crash happen.
    Agreed. I just think we did the wrong things. you can't stimulate the economy by taking money from the consumer and using it for the government to spend. it does nothing to increase demand or put more money into the economy to 'stimulate' it. All it does is change where that money is coming from.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Personal liberties? You want to name a few of those?
    Let's start with free speech. The Supreme Court helped us out with that one, against Obama's wishes, but the current administration continues to push the "fairness doctrine" which is aimed directly at limiting the speech of conservative talk radio.

    How about freedom of religion? His administration tried to force religious institution to provide birth control and abortion coverage, violating their religious rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Domestic safeties? He has seen many of our biggest threat[s] meet their ends, and there has yet to be a foreign terrorist attack on US soil since he took over.
    Tell that to the people who live along the Arizona and Texas/ Mexico border who constantly have to deal with Mexican drug gangs coming onto their property because the Obama Administration refuses to secure our Border. Then their is the "fast and furious" gun running fiasco, and the refusal of Obama to allow Arizona to check to see if people they stop for other crimes are illegal aliens and to enforce their deportation.

    As far as the lack of terrorist attacks goes, you can thank Homeland Security for that, which was started under the Bush administration.

    I give him credit for giving the okay to take out Bin Laden after our heroic troops located him. Any President would have done the same though. And I thought he handled the Somali Pirates incident well, but that's about it.

    All the while he continues to bow to foreign leaders (literally) and apologize for America abroad.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    I hear those complaints frequently. And aside for the sacred right to not buy health insurance, I can not find any civil liberties that have been lost... I see a US economy that is rebounding very nicely from a major catastrophe.... And I see the most foreign policy success since Reagan got to tell Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall".
    You and I see things differently my friend. Things are going well in Iraq, but badly in Afghanistan. Iran is defiantly developing a nuclear arsenal, there is increasing unrest in Syria, and North Korea continues to be a threat. Worldwide, terrorism is worse than it ever has been.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    A.) Just like The Great Depression, the current recession followed a decade of Republican power over Washington. (Power going to whichever party controls two, or all, of the three ...HoR; Senate; Presidency).
    Actually, you are rewriting history again (like you did with the bank bailout). Democrats controlled both the House and Senate for most of Bush's second term, well before the housing bubble (in part) caused the economy to crash. Coincidentally, Republicans took control of the House at just about the same time that the economy (very slightly) started to recover.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    B.) I know that Obama said 57, instead of 47 states. I have seen it, and heard it endlessly since it happened. Just like the brilliant tele-prompter complaint.

    But "W" made more speaking errors during his presidency than I have ever seen a leader make. Educated? Yes. But a terrible speaker. He had his moments, for sure. But he was just terrible far more often than he was good.
    Bush was a horrible public speaker when he didn't have a well written script. That doesn't mean he was 'dumb' or a bad President. (I'm know you're not saying that it does.) But you can't possibly tell me that Obama has been attacked by the media more than Bush was, and it's just because he is 'well-spoken."

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    And he sent a whole lot of Americans to their demise in Iraq, over fictitious WMDs, which certainly won him a very long line of justified hatred.
    Iraq has benefited immensely from US involvement since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (who actually used chemical WMDs for genocide against his own citizens to exterminate Kurds in northern Iraq). But the ends don't justify our going in there in the first place.

    Bush had every reason to believe that Iraq had WMDs, given the fact I just mentioned and the fact that we had satellite surveillance of what appeared to be weapons manufacturing plants in the country. He had no way of knowing at the time that the information he received was inaccurate. He made the right decision based on the information he had. He just had the wrong information.

    By the way, just because we never found WMDs does not mean they were never there or even aren't still there. They could have been buried or moved (probably into Syria). or they could just be well hidden. Iraq is a very large, mostly desert country and we haven't searched every inch of it.

    Also, by the way, Obama was "for the war before he was against it."

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    I am pretty sure you know that there are plenty of people who do not want to be paying for the healthcare of the needy.
    Really? Who?

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    And it is legal to deny healthcare for those who do have insurance, but their HMO does not approve specific DRs, or hospitals.
    That is not the same thing. That is not the healthcare provider denying treatment. It is the insurance provider restricting who they will pay for that treatment. The treatment is still available.

    And forcing everybody to buy insurance will result in the poor (who can't afford it anyway and can now go anywhere for treatment) to be restricted to specific providers by the very same HMOs.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    And, while I do not like the HC law, I think that are far too many problems with the current system to allow it to continue.

    Something had to be done. And this extremely right-wing law, was the Dems' attempt to compromise with Reps, and get something done, instead of the continual failure to do anything that we have had for far too long.
    I agree that something had to be done, but this isn't it. I remember several Republican proposals (like allowing interstate competition, and tort reform to eliminate the dozens of unnecessary tests that Doctors perform to protect them from Malpractice lawsuits, for example) that the Democrats, who controlled the house and Senate at the time, refused to even consider. They made very few compromises. They didn't have to because they had enough votes to pass the bill without bipartisan support. It passed the house without a single republican vote and even 35 democrats voted against it. They wouldn't even allow enough time for congressmen to read the 1000+ page monstrosity, before they rammed it through. Maybe they feared they would lose too many democrat votes if they actually knew what was in it?

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Libraries. Schools. Postal service. You name it.

    Prior to public schooling, education was only for the rich. In fact, without government interference, everything is only for the rich.

    And the postal service is dying because the service is becoming obsolete.
    libraries aren't controlled by the Federal government. Although they receive a small percentage of their funds form the Fed govt, for things like increased broadband access, libraries are mostly funded at the county and local level.

    Test scores have been steadily declining in public schools, especially in math and the sciences, despite steady increases in federal funds. And Private school students almost always outperform public school students despite the fact that per-student spending is much lower in private schools.

    The use of "snail mail" is in steady decline but private mail carriers like UPS and Fed-Ex are very profitable, even though they are at a competitive disadvantage because of higher prices. People are obviously willing to pay more for the far superior service a private company provides whether that be mail delivery or education.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    That doesn't mean I am some Communist who wants the government to take everything over.

    But certain things are required to even live. Medical care is just too vital to leave to the rich to dictate.

    More people would die from lack of medical care than a war here. It is, by far, the biggest threat to American lives that there is.
    I know, but this isn't the right bill. You seem to be of the mind that we have to do something even if it is something bad.

    Continued in next post!
    ***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***

    Originally Posted by Name Withheld
    I don't think anything that's what wrong is nearly Smiths Falls we have no offense of line I think the coaches are free to call certain place I think he would absolutely do better with a different office of coordinator

  9. #2068
    Member Since
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Topeka< KS
    Posts
    2,368
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 218
    Given: 58

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    ... continued from previous post!

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    A.) spending money is not a voice. It is a proverbial voice.

    B.) Speech from the shadows, in the forum of our nation's politics should not be allowed. Elections should not be paid for by.... Who knows. Especially when "Who Knows" may well be foreign citizens.

    It is perfectly legal now. Foreign investors can simply pour money into whatever corporation supports their cause. And there is no law against it.
    The majority argued that the First Amendment must protect speakers with equal vigor. The majority argued that the First Amendment does not tolerate prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Because corporations are groups of individuals, the corporate form must receive the same free speech privileges as individual citizens. Likewise, the majority argued that independent expenditures are a form of speech, and limiting a corporation's ability to spend money also limits its ability to speak.

    The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity. Additionally, the majority argued that Austin was based on an "equality" rationale - trying to equalize speech between different speakers - that the Court had previously rejected as illegitimate under the First Amendment in Buckley v. Valeo. The Michigan statute at issue in "Austin" had distinguished between corporate and union spending, prohibiting the former while allowing the latter. The "Austin" Court, over vigorous dissent by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Sandra Day O'Connor, had held that such distinctions were within the legislature's prerogative. In Citizens United, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.

    The majority also criticized Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction. According to the majority, "there is no such thing as too much speech." The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny. (source: Wikipedia)
    You many disagree with the Court's decision, but it is consistent with constitutional law. You may feel that the government has a role in deciding who can and who can't say what (unions, good; non-profit corporations, bad) and how much they can spend on saying it, but the Constitution does not say it is the job of the government to insure that both parties are heard equally or to protect the people from being exposed to the speech of a foreign investor. Are you afraid that the foreign investors will favor one party over the other? Even if they do, are you afraid that the American people are too stupid to make up their minds based on the issues and will automatically vote for whatever candidate advertises the most? It is not the role of government to make sure that people don't vote for the "wrong" candidate.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    It was statement about the lack of US citizenship a corporation has. It has none. It does not have the rights that are granted to US citizens. Well, it does now. But the US Constitution did not give it to them. Five Republican SC justices did.
    So US citizens who form a corporation do not have the same free speech rights as other US citizens? Why? Because you say so? These citizens can individually spend their money to support any candidate they choose, but if they take that same money and pool it together to speak collectively with a common voice, they forfeit that right? Show your work!

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Again, you will have to show me where the Constitution has been violated.

    But even so, The US Constitution, including the method for amendment, is imperfect. And every time somebody disagrees with it is not an attack.
    I agree. Disagreeing with the Constitution is not attacking it. Discouraging the Supreme Court from following the Constitution and chastising them when they do is, however.

    So what then, is the purpose of having a Constitution if it can be circumvented or ignored whenever a majority of Pols disagree with it? That kind of defeats it's purpose doesn't it? The whole reason we have a Constitution in the first place is to protect basic individual rights from being trampled on whenever congress feels it is politically expedient to do so. Remember that King George guy?

    If you could wave a magic wand, how would you improve the amendment process? Do you think we should make it much easier and quicker to amend so politicians can change it 'willy-nilly' whenever it "gets in the way" of any law they want to pass? That also defeats the purpose, doesn't it? If we are just going to change the rules as we go along, let's just throw it out altogether. While were at it, let's just get rid of the whole "representative republic' thing. We have the internet now. Let's just let the people vote directly on all legislation. We don't need to protect the rights of the few against the will of the many, anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    There is a reason for it. The Civil War was only the first, of an endless number of hostile conflicts that would occur, if each state were to handle those things. It would be an endless competition, which would always cause US citizens to lose.

    It is The UNITED States of America. And I prefer it that way.
    I've already conceded in an earlier post that we went from not nearly enough federal govt. to way to much and I'm getting really tired! so I will concede this point. (or maybe I'll take it up at another time )

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Why would you put yourself in that group, only to exclude yourself? We have plenty of people who want to go back to the 1850s. If you aren't one of them, then fine. But there is a whole lot of talk that leans that direction, coming from the current GOP.
    Who? I don't know of any. You can't just say "lots of people" without backing up your argument. Well, you can, but it's not very effective.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    As for 1950's, it was hardly the dreamworld that it made out to be, for the majority of Americans.

    Women were punished by society for not being a good wife. You either were w a good wife, and servant to your husband, or you would be an outcast. And minorities certainly don't look to head back to that era.
    Did you just skip over the part where I mentioned "if we could couple that level of Federal involvement with the gains we have made in civil rights and fair labor laws? I countered that argument before you even made it!

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    But that's probably not what you like about the 50's. It's probably more about the success of FDR's "New Deal" and how well The USA was doing having had Democrats in power for eight of the ten years.
    The "New Deal" was the 30s and FDR died in 1945! Maybe you are thinking of LBJ and the "Great Society?" No, that was the 60's.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Surely you, as well as anybody, know that the primary goal of The GOP has been to make President Obama look bad, since the day he won the election.
    There is always some of that from the opposition party, but mostly Republicans just want to block his policies because they feel they are bad for the country. I would expect Democrats to do the same thing. Oh, wait ... They did with Bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    I have yet to see Republicans offer any form of compromise since that day. And I have watched President Obama, and Democrats, reach out, and even bend over backwards at times, to compromise.
    Republicans were in no position to compromise because they had no power until November 2010. Now they can't even produce a budget, because they can't get enough democrats to compromise for enough votes to override a presidential veto.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Obama has a very good record as POTUS. He inherited a full-on economic disaster. And anybody who knows anything about government and nation economics knows that you do not recover quickly. The vast majority of the dirt that gets flung at Obama is about things that he couldn't do anything about, but has managed to improve very well.
    Yeah, he can't do much to solve the problems, but he continues to blame Bush for creating them. I guess Bush was just far more powerful than he is.

    I disagree that he has a very good record for the reasons I mentioned. Reagan inherited a much worse economy than Obama (higher unemployment, runaway inflation and sky high interest rates) and he had to take his case directly to the American people on TV, constantly, because he was fighting against a Democrat majority in Congress. But he didn't waste his time blaming Jimmy Carter. He got to work and by the end of his term, the economy was well on the way to recovery. He was reelected in a landslide (won 49 states IIRC). Obama is doing everything the opposite of what got us out of the last recession. Don't tell me he can't do anything about the economy, because his hands are tied.

    It's been done before.

    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    I have plenty of issues with Obama. But most of the real problems with him are never even addressed.
    I'll be glad to address them, I'm not shy!
    ***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***

    Originally Posted by Name Withheld
    I don't think anything that's what wrong is nearly Smiths Falls we have no offense of line I think the coaches are free to call certain place I think he would absolutely do better with a different office of coordinator

  10. #2069
    Member Since
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Miracle Valley, Az
    Posts
    902
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 8
    Given: 3

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    So because the government has done things that protect us, those in government then have the right to tell us what to do, what to buy, who to buy it from, how much of our own money we get to keep and what we should think? There has to be a firm line in the sand. Basically there has to be a place where we the people say, "You cannot cross this line". If the Constitution and the people cannot say the Federal government can go no further in taking a person's right to self-determination, then we will become a fascist/socialist nation with an all-powerful government. I am sick to death of liberals saying, "It's for the children" or "it's for the crippled" or "it's for the gays" every time they want the government to have more power over my life and my mind. The Constitution does not state the government can do anything thing it wants, except for what's banned in here. The only power the government has is written in there. That is the difference between conservatives and liberals-liberals want the government to have all the power not specifically banned by the Constitution, conservatives say the government can't do anything not specifically allowed in the Constitution. The problem is there is no limit to what's not specifically barred by the Constitution, so the government has no limits if the people don't stand up and say enough is enough. I am at that place. Enough is enough. Don't tell me what to buy, in insurance or the grocery store. Don't tell me what I should think about marriage and morality. Don't try to take my God-given right to self-defense and firearms. But liberals want to take and take and take and grow the government and grow the government. Well, it's time to stop it. It's time to draw the line in the sand and let socialists like Obummer know, you've crossed that line and it's time to put an end to this government power-grab. I'm not a republican, tea party, libertarian or any other party. I am a member of the Federal government has got to be stopped from this power grab party-left or right.

  11. #2070
    Member Since
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Topeka< KS
    Posts
    2,368
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 218
    Given: 58

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by azchiefsfan View Post
    So because the government has done things that protect us, those in government then have the right to tell us what to do, what to buy, who to buy it from, how much of our own money we get to keep and what we should think? ... The problem is there is no limit to what's not specifically barred by the Constitution, so the government has no limits if the people don't stand up and say enough is enough.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEuiI2PbSWQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEuiI2PbSWQ[/ame]
    ***Official Chiefs Crowd Game Thread Starter***

    Originally Posted by Name Withheld
    I don't think anything that's what wrong is nearly Smiths Falls we have no offense of line I think the coaches are free to call certain place I think he would absolutely do better with a different office of coordinator

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •