|
sirmoonie
|
Re: Obama elected President
Reply #2635 - Jan 26th, 2009 at 11:44am
Riffhard wrote on Jan 25 th, 2009 at 9:14pm: sirmoonie wrote on Jan 25 th, 2009 at 12:15pm: Riffhard wrote on Jan 25 th, 2009 at 10:53am: sirmoonie wrote on Jan 24 th, 2009 at 6:26pm: Riffhard wrote on Jan 24 th, 2009 at 11:47am: Surely I'm not the only one that has noticed that not one single liberal has managed to explain the position of Reich (Obama Administration) or the tax cheat Cadillac Charlie Rangal?
Come on guys. Let's hear it. How can this blatant attempt at wealth redistribution and social egineering be explained in the context of what the US Constitution allows? Anyone? 10th Amendment? Anyone?
Hello? Hello......?
Your silence on this issue is very telling.
chirp, chirp, chirp..........
Riffy
Agreed. You can read a boatload into what people don't respond to. Boat ass fucking load. I'm not a "liberal" under my vague understanding of the term, I don't know who those two people you mentioned are, and don't know what they said. But my guess is that the reason you have not received any responses is because the Constitutionality of laws aimed at tax rates or laws that disproportionally affect a particular class of citizens is a very complex issue, and whatever "liberals" there are here are probably as clueless as you are about the issue. Also, your earlier request for responses/arguments based on preamble language in the Declaration of Independence may have confused the fuck out of people, as it did me. If you can post a link to where you cribbed the 10th amendment or "inalienable rights" theories you referenced, that tries to explain them better, I can try to comment. Broad concepts/characterizations like "wealth re-distribution" or "social engineering" are not de facto un-Constitutional in any way that I am aware of, since every law ever written accomplishes that to some degree. Another reason the "liberals" might have failed to respond would be if the statements you are interested in were about progressive tax rates or affirmative action. That stuff got decided erroneously decades ago, and its hardly anything new. Ask George Walker Bush III, he didn't do jack about either one. So its hardly the issue de jour, and focusing on it now as if it were some unheard of colossal shift in government policy is goofy. Moreover, its hardly worth even noting that a president who is a product of affirmative action is going to be for it nor, as you constantly assert, would those who voted for Obama be unaware of such an obvious fact. They are either stupidly in favor of it, or more likely don't care because of its relative nonimportance in a day where former socialist presidents are fucked up enough to release captured terrorists. Those are just my guesses as to the silence of the liberals. You're a moron. There is nothing, absolulty nothing, conservative about you! You have managed to make frineds with so many liberals here big boy. How Mavericky of you! Be Proud! There is nothing difficult to understand about the 10th Amendment. The Framers wrote it so that even a moron like you could understand it. Yet you don't. You're a Maverick! The feed was lifted straight from C-Span. No amount of editing can change the words or the meaning of what they are saying. What they are talking about here is wealth redistributuion and social engineering. It can't be denied or defended. They are blatant about it, and the plan is in keeping with Barry's ideology via Sal Alinsky's socialist nirvana. This is why not one single liberal can defend it. But keep trying you "true" conservative! ROTFLMMFAO!!! Riffy HAHA! "Managed to have made friends with so many liberals," huh? I feel like I've been black listed and denounced at the same time. Shades of Trumbo. Shades of Lardner. Have you no sense of decency, sir? Have you no sense of decency, sir? Just who is scoring that one Riffy, because I've seen you fraternizing with these god-forsooked liberals too. And a homo too, btw. Dude, you completely missed everything I said, and I can't tell if you read what I posted and ignored it, or read it and didn't understand it, or didn't read it. You need to tell me which of 3, so I can attempt to bridge the quotient gap. I did point out to you, and I'll do it again, that the ship sailed on affirmative action and progressive tax rates that I think your trying to discuss (and again, I didn't read any of your links) long ago. So in that sense, "liberals" not only can defend it, but did succesfully at many years ago. But none of that is new, hidden, undisclosed, or any longer radical, which seem to be your main Obama prognosive themes. And, again, my guess as to why the liberals here didn't defend those programs (that I believe to be wrong), is because (1) they know its very old news, and/or (2) their knowledge of the Constitution is as empty as you have proven yours to be. Again. I asked for a link to where you got this inalienable rights/10th Amendment theory regarding the Constitutionality of those laws. You failed to provide even one, so I assume that there isn't one and I'll never get a decent explanation of whatever it is you are trying to say. Anyway, if it helps, I think you're talking about the 14th amendment. Riffy, what you SHOULD be jumping up and down about is what SHOULD be the last straw in your favorite former president's dunce cap - sending captured, high level, Islamic Al Quada terrorists back home to commit further acts of terrorism against Americans. WTF???? Seriously, WTF???? Where is the outrage? That's something Sal ALinsky would do, Magoo! Before I lay waste to your ridiculous argument and make everyone on this board question your standing as a lawyer. Allow to make one amendment of my own concerning my last post. I never meant to claim that I wasn't friends with any liberals on this board. When I said that you've made friends with the liberals here I should have prefaced the word "friends" with the word "political". You have, indeed, made many political friends with many of the liberals on this board. Now getting back to the crux of the issues here. You ask for a link to the 10th Amendment to support my claim. Then you go out of your way to suggest that I have my Constitutional Amendments confused. Well, you're clueless. The 14th Amendment addresses questions of citizenship, and was originally drafted as a protection for former slaves' rights. It has zero to do with the rights of the states or the individual as pertaining to the intrusion of Federal powers on taxation. No, that would be the 10th Amendment. Hell, I even quoted the most pertinent line from the 10th for you! If you need a link to that I'd suggest you Google US Constitution/10th Amendment. While you're at it you might try brushing up on the definition of socialism. You seem to have a difficult time recognizing "wealth redistribution" and "social engineering"when they're staring you in the face. Perhaps I can help you there. When the federal government taxes hard working people and then launders that money through the federal bureaucracy and redistributes it to people that do not work, or haven't earned said monies, then that is wealth redistribution. Furthermore, when the government directs that same money towards certain segments of the citizenry like, oh I don't know, say "minorities, the long term unemployed, and women" , but avoids granting any of it to, hmmm...let's say "highly skilled professionals and white male construction workers" then they are attempting to engineer the society, or they are said to be engaging in what we would refer to as "social engineering". Got it? It ain't that difficult. What kind of law do you practice Moonie? It sure as hell isn't Constitutional Law! Hell son I'm not even a lawyer and I knew your argument was crap before I finished reading your last post! So as to help you better understand the difference between the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment I have taken the trouble to give you a couple of links to the website FindLaw.com. I suggest that you check the site out. I mean as a lawyer and all it might help you in your line of work. Here's the link to the 10th- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/And here's the link to the 14th- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/Riffy Do you even read? I didn't make any argument, you fucking half-wit. I was trying to figure out your argument that the preamble of the Declaration of Independence and the Tenth Amendment somehow bans "social engineering" and "wealth re-distribution." Citing to the amendment, as you did, and then saying "See!!!" is how small children and/or mongoloids think and act, and advances virtually nothing. You asked for a Constitutional defense of the statements in that video link of yours. Its a superficial exercise without an actual law, but AGAIN, I'm telling you for a fact that the Constitutional validity of affirmative action programs of the type you appear to be complaining about, where money for government projects goes from whitey to women and negroes, were up and down the federal Court system decades ago. Most of it was upheld by the Supreme Court, and my guess is that the failed challenges were all under the 14th Amendment. None of it is new, none of that was hidden under some secret Marxist agenda, and none of it is the brainchild of Obama. You are absolutely deluded if you think there is a federal Court or a judge anywhere in this country that is going to tell the federal government it can't direct its economic stimulus $$$$$ to high unemployment areas, low income areas, or in support of federal affirmative action programs. And under the 10th Amendment, no less. Absolutely deluded. You know what you sound like? Similarly situated types that called the Patriot Act monitoring provisions unconstitutional merely because words like 'wiretap" make little bells go off in their head. You really believe you can characterize something as "social engineering" or "wealth redistribution," pick an amendment, stomp your feet and declare it un-Constitutional because it looks like it fits? Is that how you think this stuff works? Anyway, what you SHOULD be doing is explaining to your "political friends" why its okay for brain-damaged presidents to released captured Al Quada terrorists that were involved in 9/11, so they can attack the U.S. again. Because no one has explained that, and that would appear to be a signficant National Security issue, biffed up by George Walker Bush III once again. And that's where the rubber meets the road, Riffy. Rubber on the road. The road and the rubber.
|
Pages: 
Obama elected President (Read 620,029 times)
