It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congressman: "I don't worry about the Constitution "

page: 2
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Please do not think me out of place, I must however say this.

The USA is not ruled by a constitution, nor has it been for a long time.
Massive multinational companies and their agendas control the USA.

The USA is broke and still spending. The only way forward is a war.

God help us.




posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
The "interviewer" was rude, disrespectful, and clearly baiting the guy to set him up. This was not a conversation or rational discussion. It was all staged to present an agenda. The interviewer brought up the word "constitution" in an effort to distract the conversation and get Hare to respond to the word, which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The interviewer then took charge to present his twisted agenda, which is what he was there for in the first place.

It is a poorly contrived piece of propaganda.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Well the response video is apparently uploaded from Phils own account.

So I made a comment which I hope he'll see:


One last thing, HEY Phil, this isn't about you! It's about all of us. Hey, Phil, this isn't about what YOU think, it's about us!

You expect majority vote to stay in office? Then you better **** well please the majority! Your a face! Not an expert!
So stop pretending you know how to *fix* problems all on your own...

oh wait, no you don't care about that. Right, you don't even think about it, you just get paid to sit in your cushy seat!


Oops... honestly.. Was I too harsh?

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Scarcer]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
It should be illegal for elected representatives to vote on laws they haven't read. Especially when the bill is something like 1,000 pages long and full of unintelligible legal words.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alethea
The "interviewer" was rude, disrespectful, and clearly baiting the guy to set him up. This was not a conversation or rational discussion. It was all staged to present an agenda. The interviewer brought up the word "constitution" in an effort to distract the conversation and get Hare to respond to the word, which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The interviewer then took charge to present his twisted agenda, which is what he was there for in the first place.

It is a poorly contrived piece of propaganda.


Nice attempt at trolling, yet it failed miserably.

Hare more than likely couldnt spell Constitutution, let alone know what its actually about.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


This forum is a classic example of interpretation of the General Welfare clause of the constitution. I think 'General' was a poor choice of words by the authors but that's for another forum :-) The definition of Welfare is also vague as that could be minimum standards of life for US Citizens. One side interprets this as mandating health care insurance for every US Citizen. One side interprets this as NOT doing so. Like it or not, the majority of Congress and our sitting President happen to interpret the GW clause as mandating access to Health Care of all US Citizens. The majority of Congress and the President were elected with Health Care reform as a major part of of their platform. I'm not of either party and my post is not to say whether I agree with health care insurance or not, but I do feel the will of the majority is being fulfilled.

Another fun point to the discussion is to ask the question: Why is there a government-funded Fire Department responsible for putting out fires of people's homes? Fire protection used to be a private enterprise but I think we can all agree that it didn't goo to well.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek

Originally posted by Alethea
The "interviewer" was rude, disrespectful, and clearly baiting the guy to set him up. This was not a conversation or rational discussion. It was all staged to present an agenda. The interviewer brought up the word "constitution" in an effort to distract the conversation and get Hare to respond to the word, which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The interviewer then took charge to present his twisted agenda, which is what he was there for in the first place.

It is a poorly contrived piece of propaganda.


Nice attempt at trolling, yet it failed miserably.

Hare more than likely couldnt spell Constitutution, let alone know what its actually about.


Please can we stay on topic?

Trolling and personal attacks is not a good method to address your distaste for another persons opinion.

Their post was either personal opinion or derailment, but not a trolling post.

Lets keep this fair please.



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Never fear the Great Deceiver is here and everyday when you wake up another of your freedoms are taken away. Constitution what Constitution?

The Great Deceiver abide by the Constitution? The Constitution is in the way and is old hat and there is no stopping this machine that is on a roll or is there a way at the ballot box. ^Y^



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
Nice attempt at trolling, yet it failed miserably.

Hare more than likely couldnt spell Constitutution, let alone know what its actually about.


Emphasis the Major. The Major has the occasion to simply present the efforts of a particular recruit, and their efforts on the training field for the troops assembled to revel in a teachable moment. The Major would like to remind the troops that if you are going to assert that one of your squad mates is incapable of spelling a word that you better damn well make sure you can. Lest you erase all doubt and have the ignominy of having the Major point out a glaring discrepancy.

Dismissed.



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




If the right to life includes healthcare, that must mean I have a right to put a gun to your head and make you work for my dental work.

Sorry buddy, but rights don't revolve around forcing other people to work for you.

They revolve around being free.


Wow! Where does the right to threaten the life of another come into "the right to health care? Why would you threaten the life of another? There are so many people in health care work because it's what makes them feel good, it is a thing they feel they need to do in life. Why would you put your life in the hands of someone you had just threatened?? How foolish that would be indeed!

Just saying...



posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


While I can't view the video I did read the article and the accompanying responses. The actual article gives mixed signals, but I was singularly struck by this response.



Jaika K.: "I'm truly sorry Congressman Hare had to endure heckling from the Party-of-NO. They pushed him and twisted his words until they got a statement they could run with. He doesn't spend time worrying about the Constitution because he knows it protects the rights of Congress, one of which is to pass and uphold laws for the benefit of Americans. Democrats will fight hard to re-elect their courageous leaders! We are full of Hope not Hate."


(bold added for highlight)
The "rights of Congress" are to never override the rights of the people.

***The duty of Congress is the Will of the People.***

And that is the Constitution's stand on the matter.




top topics



 
26
<< 1   >>

log in

join