Mad McCain !!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   




It expanded the Federal government far beyond its original scope, much of the New Deal laws where never even enacted because they were ruled unconstitutional, and it caused the fed to begin taking actions its not authorised to take. Read soem history, every one of the New Deals arcitechtc was an open socialist who admired the russian revolution and wanted to duplicate it. Food for thought, every provision of the "New Deal" was predated by the Communists party's platform.




posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed

Originally posted by solo1

At a time when America is being bought up,when America is staggering
from the accumulative effect of 40 years of being rapped gutted and looted
their only answer is not the Constitution and a new deal like FDR but war with the saints .




Anyone who mentions the COnsitution and the "new deal" in the same breath, has obviously never read the damn cosntitution.



Could you explain? I've read the "beloved" constitution and know enough not to slander it's name by placing the word "Damn" in front of it all the while mis-spelling it.

So how was the New Deal unconstitutional?



It expanded the Federal government far beyond its original scope, much of the New Deal laws where never even enacted because they were ruled unconstitutional, and it caused the fed to begin taking actions its not authorised to take. Read soem history, every one of the New Deals arcitechtc was an open socialist who admired the russian revolution and wanted to duplicate it. Food for thought, every provision of the "New Deal" was predated by the Communists party's platform.



Well then let's go back to when this expansion first occurred. The following things also were the result of expanding the Federal Govs power beyond it's original scope. And you know who did it? The founding fathers... It happened under George Washingtons administration:

1. Having a National Debt
2. Having a Standing Federal Army


So when the Dems decrease the armed forces how come you aren't cheering that this is a return to the way the framers intended?


As for the socialist leanings. Keep in mind that socialism brought us better working conditions, a reduced work day (from 12 to 8) and outlawing child labor. How were these things wrong?

I'm guessing you are pro-Child Labor, wish to see the work-day increased to 12 hours and figure that the market will just take care of poor working conditions because people "choose" to work there eh?


[edit on 27-7-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga



Well then let's go back to when this expansion first occurred. The following things also were the result of expanding the Federal Govs power beyond it's original scope. And you know who did it? The founding fathers... It happened under George Washingtons administration:

1. Having a National Debt
2. Having a Standing Federal Army


What in the hell are you talking about? The US didnt have a standing army during Washingtons Admin. We raised an army to fight the british, which was disbanded after we won.


After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal. However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans, it was soon realized that it was necessary to field a trained standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791


And of course we had a debt, we had to buy weapons to fight the british.

Next time, think BEFORE you post.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I don't know what the op is trying to get away with here, he hasn't shown any proof to back up his claim. How did McCain unleash his anger at the reporter ? He didn't raise his voice, swear, threaten, or become abusive in any way. He simply refused to answer a question that he said was answered a long time ago.


Show me some evidence of this man having a dangerous anger problem, all i've seen so far is a video of him swearing, and that wasn't even from the op.


While i agree that anyone in a position of power should have their temper under control, i haven't seen McCain lose control yet. I've seen him frustrated and while he handles it differently than some people, iv'e seen no loss of control.


The man shows that he has emotions, i think i'd be more worried about someone that never got upset about anything. A person that never shows any emotion is keeping it all locked up inside, and that's the person you have to worry about, that's the person that will one day explode.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed

Originally posted by Quazga



Well then let's go back to when this expansion first occurred. The following things also were the result of expanding the Federal Govs power beyond it's original scope. And you know who did it? The founding fathers... It happened under George Washingtons administration:

1. Having a National Debt
2. Having a Standing Federal Army


What in the hell are you talking about? The US didnt have a standing army during Washingtons Admin. We raised an army to fight the british, which was disbanded after we won.


Uhm.... The army that fought the British in the Revolutionary war was the Continental Army. After the war, though, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded as part of the Americans' distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army, with the exception of one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal.

So no, there was not a standing National Army when GW took office, because Americans didn't trust them.

However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans and the threat of war with France, the Federalists began the process of creating a national standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791.

They also created a Federal Navy at this point.






And of course we had a debt, we had to buy weapons to fight the british.

Next time, think BEFORE you post.


Heh... You would be wise to take your own counsel.

In 1789 Alexander Hamilton, as the Secretary of State, wrote and communicated a paper titled the Report on Public Credit. Hamilton made this controversial proposal that would have the federal government assume state debts which were incurred during the Revolution. This would, in effect, give the federal government much more power by placing the country's most serious financial obligation in the hands of the federal, rather than the state governments.

In 1790, he expanded this further with a report explaining why we need a National Bank.

These were ratified in the Jay treaty. Also we find Hamilton starting the "Federalist Party" which was in direct opposition to the Jeffersonian Republicans who feared that this "expansion" of powers was a threat to States, and thus Individual, rights.

What were you saying again about FDR being the first to expand the powers of the Federal Gov? I would recommend you go back and re-read your American History.





[edit on 27-7-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga


So no, there was not a standing National Army when GW took office, because Americans didn't trust them.

Glad to see you can admit your full of it.



However, because of continuing conflict with Native Americans and the threat of war with France, the Federalists began the process of creating a national standing army. The first of these, the Legion of the United States, was established in 1791.

Yes, which again, wasnt even close to GW's administration.






Heh... You would be wise to take your own counsel.

Based on your pitiful "rebuttals" I have, you havent.


In 1789 Alexander Hamilton, as the Secretary of State, wrote and communicated a paper titled the Report on Public Credit. Hamilton made this controversial proposal that would have the federal government assume state debts which were incurred during the Revolution. This would, in effect, give the federal government much more power by placing the country's most serious financial obligation in the hands of the federal, rather than the state governments.

In 1790, he expanded this further with a report explaining why we need a National Bank.

These were ratified in the Jay treaty. Also we find Hamilton starting the "Federalist Party" which was in direct opposition to the Jeffersonian Republicans who feared that this "expansion" of powers was a threat to States, and thus Individual, rights.



And this has what to do with your previous erroneous statements other than to show how wrong thety were?


What were you saying again about FDR being the first to expand the powers of the Federal Gov? I would recommend you go back and re-read your American History.

I never said he was the FIRStT. Perhaps actually reading what I wrote would help?
Nahh, that would be too much work, its much easier to argue agaisnt a strawman.
Keep trying skippy, one of these days you'll type something intelligent, even if only by acident.


[edit on 7/27/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


Look. MY point is this, and supported by my evidence.

GW expanded the powers of federal gov by creating the Departments of the Army and Navy.

He also presided over the creation of a National Debt.

Keep in mind we were talking about the fact that the actual founding fathers were the first to expand the powers of the federal gov.

And yes Both of these occurred during GW's admin 1789-1797.

My whole point here, is that simply saying the New Deal is rubbish because it expanded the powers of the federal gov is a fallacy, unless you also believe the expansion of powers that occured under GW's watch were also at issue.

I believe the issue you have is the socialist tendencies, NOT the expansion of the federal powers.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


Ok you must be confused.

You stated that we had a national debt before George Washington took office.

Yes, we did. The US incurred its first national debt prior to the Revolutionary war.

The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the debt grew, briefly contracted to zero on January 8, 1835 under President Andrew Jackson but then quickly grew into the millions again.[16][17]





You stated we had a standing army before GW took office.

We didn't.

Yes we raised the contitental army. Which was in fact a standing army.
Please stop embarrasing yourself. I find it amusing, but then I always find it amusing when people dont have the sense to stay quiet and merely allow people to think they are ignorant.



So how are you right again?

See above skippy.



Keep in mind we were talking about the fact that the actual founding fathers were the first to expand the powers of the federal gov.


No, thats what you now claim you were talking about. I was talking about how the New Deal expanded the federal government beyond its constitutional duties.

Again, reading what I actually wrote might help.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed

Originally posted by Quazga
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


Ok you must be confused.

You stated that we had a national debt before George Washington took office.

Yes, we did. The US incurred its first national debt prior to the Revolutionary war.

The United States has had public debt since its inception. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation led to the first yearly reported value of $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. Over the following 45 years, the debt grew, briefly contracted to zero on January 8, 1835 under President Andrew Jackson but then quickly grew into the millions again.[16][17]


I'm not sure where you got your data, but the states held the debt for the Revolutionary war until 1790 when Hamilton proposed that the Federal Gov assume it.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quazga


I'm not sure where you got your data, but the states held the debt for the Revolutionary war until 1790 when Hamilton proposed that the Federal Gov assume it.





Semantics.

[edit on 7/27/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
This thread purtty much went off topic quit a bit,good topics mind you but off,where is your rants Wiggens.
On topic,if this is all the obama followers have ,you are sad.There is no one out there,with a PAIR, when pushed enough that won't react in anger,its human nature folks.On the other hand you hear news almost everyday about obama and his bonehead moves.
Also the military people that were quoted on McCain's anger were
all on a news show endorsing obama,what else are they going to say.
The obama sheep really need some new material and even worse some new supporters,this is the same BS from the same tired people.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Maybe McCain misses "sessions" with King Georgie Jr?

i34.tinypic.com...




Bob...



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed
 


You want a bully as president, ok. Go %/# end your life.
"Just a suggestion, just planting seeds here"

Quote Lightmare:
"Do you know what I'm worried about? I'm worried about fuel prices."
UNBELIEVABLE

I feel sorry for you America, all your great ideas, music, movies and culture in general being raped by absolute morons. I have a picture in mind. It`s George Bush and his inbred bunch of retarded jerks pissing on Bruce Springsteens face. McCain will keep this up.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I hope someone can help....because I FINALLY found an anti-McCain thread here on ATS!! Woo Hoo!

Anyway, what I found on UTube is titled 'McCain's YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare'

I don't know how to link UTube properly (I only know ho to embed, a no-no). But, if you wanna see the truth about McCrazy, go check out this vid.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I have also found another anti-McCain YouTube video, ironically from a Christian Evangelical source!! Can someone look at it, and maybe post it on a thread, so we can get a discussion started and deflect from all of this anti-Obama baloney?

Title, on YouTube, is "Why Nobody Should Vote For John McCain - The Shocking Truth" YT user is 'MandMEvangelist'

Perhaps it's an inflammatory bunch of garbage, but I'd sure like to see what others have to say about it.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Thanks for the info. on the video ..www.youtube.com... This man scares the hell out of me , it seems hes is lost and guided through every media coverage.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join