The United States Of America 1776 - 2010 RIP!

Good riddance doesnt scratch the surface.....

Second line.

The US that we kicked the British out to have died in the 1790's.

If more of these assholes would have said "no" all along or even simply respected our right to say "no" we wouldn't be in any of this trouble we've been in for the past 220 years.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by bekod

Rebirth of the PA? So what was that thing Obama renewed and expanded?

I must have missed it when he vetoed its renewal and restored privacy.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1



I'm not a particular fan of either political Party, but a lot of your accusations are incorrect.

Ever heard of the "YouCut" program? Everyday people like you and me go vote on what spending we'd like to see cut and the winning selection is put up for a vote. It happens every week

The link is here: republicanwhip.house.gov... and toward the bottom you can see all the different issues that have been brought up for a vote to trim the budget and cut the spending. You can click on each one to see who voted for or against.

Care to guess how many of those savings measures have been passed? None. And which Party has held the majority? Which Party has actually had the power to make sure that money could be saved?

Looks to me like the 'Party of "No"' can be a shared title.

To see to what percentage the various members of the House agree with the American people, you can click here: republicanwhip.house.gov...

Now, please note that i am not defending the Republicans ~ i saw what they did the last time they held the majority; however, for purposes of showing that it is not just ONE Party that excels at saying 'no,' please note that so far the Democrats have said NO to about $155 Billion in savings; they've said NO to:

Week One: Cut the New Non-Reformed Welfare Program ($25 Billion Savings)

Week Two: Eliminate Federal Employee Pay Raise ($30 Billion Savings)

Week Three: Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($30 Billion Savings)

Week Four: Sell Excess Federal Property ($15 Billion Savings)

Week Five: Prohibit Hiring New IRS Agents to Enforce Health Care Law ($15 Billion Savings)

Week Six: Taxpayer Subsidized Union Activities ($1.2 Billion Savings)

Week Seven: Prohibit Stimulus Funding for Promotional Signage (Tens of Millions)

Week Eight: Prohibit Sleeper Car Subsidies on Amtrak ($1.2 billion Savings)

Week Nine: Bipartisan Proposal to Terminate AEITC ($1.1 billion Savings)

Week Ten: Require Collection of Unpaid Taxes From Federal Employees ($1 billion Savings)

Week Eleven: Reduce Government Employment to 2008 Levels ($35 billion Savings)

Originally posted by Myendica
can we skip the eulogy and go straight to the resurection? i dont like funerals, everyones all sad...

good riddance

Resurrection? I'm sorry I don't believe in Government.

Originally posted by Procession101

Originally posted by BobbinHood
Do you guys smell that? Ahh yes, it's the sweet smell of the "party of no" taking back the house.

That is:

-NO to spending us into oblivion
-NO to the insane regulations imposed by the healthcare bill
-NO to the bailouts that help only Wall Street, and not the people
-NO to the systematic destruction of America

Yep, my guess is that you are correct, OP. You're going to be hearing a lot more "no's".

edit on 11/3/2010 by BobbinHood because: (no reason given)

You do realize that the bolded above were happening all the while "conservatives" had power/control of our government right?

I love this. "Bush started the bailouts!!" "Bush was spending us into the hole!!" "It's all the fault of Bush!!"

Hmmmm....the Dems had control of Congress in 2006. You mean to tell me that they couldn't stop any of this? They were completely helpless to check the crazy spending? "Bush started it, and we can't stop!!"

Obama in the Oval Office, someone twisting his arm behind his back. "Better keep spending that money, Obama! Bush told you to!"

Give me a break.

reply to post by BobbinHood


And the Best Smell of all is .........NO MORE SOCIALISM .........

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I dislike most from both parties...but....

Repubs did offer ideas... and were not listened to. Which I believe was offered in H.R. 3400

Dems refusing compromise on unemployment benefits...link

Both sides play the game.

reply to post by PuterMan


The GOP STARTED the bailouts when Bush was in office. That's who made the 780 billion bailout of wall street and the banks. The right worked hard to make everyone think it was Obama but it was Bush. Obama bailed out the auto industry and that has been paid back with profit to boot. I'm not gonna argue with them but I am concerned about what they will do with their power. More corporatism, more outsourcing, more arrogance and hubris and more for the rich and less for the middle class. I sure hope you right supporters are rich. If you aren't then it's probably Pelosi's fault huh.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Interesting you bring up 1776 and mention social programs and other entitlements in the same breath.

Healthcare, social programs, and all the other entitlements are completely unconstitutional.

They are not so quit saying that. It's adherent to the Preamble's clause of "To form a more perfect union". The first ever social program implemented in the nation was a decree from Gen. Washington that if you served in the Army for the Americans during The Revolutionary War that you were granted citizenship.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

I dislike most from both parties...but....

Repubs did offer ideas... and were not listened to. Which I believe was offered in H.R. 3400

Dems refusing compromise on unemployment benefits...link

Both sides play the game.

No they did not, all to see the BLACK MAN FAIL! If they did we'd be much further along then we are now so that is bullcrud.

The party of 'no'?...Please don't make me laugh.

The tea party and the GOP of Bush/Cheney are one in the same.

They are the party of 'no' when it comes to civil liberties.

They are the party of 'yes' when it comes to going to war and spending billions of tax dollars a day to keep the war machine in operation.


If you think our economy is a priority on their agenda...think again. And if you think our economy couldn't get worse, you will soon see that it can.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

They are not so quit saying that. It's adherent to the Preamble's clause of "To form a more perfect union". The first ever social program implemented in the nation was a decree from Gen. Washington that if you served in the Army for the Americans during The Revolutionary War that you were granted citizenship.

Uh, the Preamble doesnt confer any powers to the government.

Care to try again since you failed miserably on that attempt?

Originally posted by BobbinHood
Do you guys smell that? Ahh yes, it's the sweet smell of the "party of no" taking back the house.

That is:

-NO to spending us into oblivion
-NO to the insane regulations imposed by the healthcare bill
-NO to the bailouts that help only Wall Street, and not the people
-NO to the systematic destruction of America

Yep, my guess is that you are correct, OP. You're going to be hearing a lot more "no's".

edit on 11/3/2010 by BobbinHood because: (no reason given)

hahah it is amazing to me how people have such short memories.

Spending us into Oblivion was done by BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats.

Insane regulations imposed by the Healthcare Bill which was voted in by BOTH Republicans and Democrats

Bailouts that only help Wallstreet and not the people? You mean bailouts that had began under the Bush Administration and continued under the Obama Administration? Those bailouts? The same ones that were voted on and passed by BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats?

The systematic destruction of America by whom? Both Partys have been doing that for as long as I can remember.

When will we as a people learn. We vote in the Democrats to save us from the Republicans. We vote BACK in the Republicans to save us from the Democrats. Meanwhile, no one is saving us at all. We need to save ourselves and it starts with stopping the insanity or our two party system.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Either you are playing ignorant and stupid or coy and obtuse.

First, let us define preamble since you like to throw things out of context.

Preamble, as defined is a noun and states: : an introductory statement; especially : the introductory part of a constitution or statute that usually states the reasons for and intent of the law
Not that you would even bother to click the link, but here is the SOURCE

Now, it is generally recognized that the preamble holds no legal means except to introduce why the People are presenting a certain document; in this case, the Constitution.

usconstitution.net describes it as such:

The Framers were dissatisfied with the United States under the Articles of Confederation, but they felt that what they had was the best they could have, up to now. They were striving for something better. The Articles of Confederation had been a grand experiment that had worked well up to a point, but now, less than ten years into that experiment, cracks were showing. The new United States, under this new Constitution, would be more perfect. Not perfect, but more perfect.

Now, looking at the whole of the preamble, understanding it is an introductory statement of the Constitution as a whole, we can see that it was to set the tone for the entire legal document.

If you notice, it gives a brief overview of the intent of the document, not the guidelines of how they will exactly will be accomplished. Words such as 'promote', 'provide', 'intent' and 'secure' only give a vague idea. These ideas were later spelled out through the Articles on how to obtain those goals.

But, since you brought it up and believe that the country is dead because of who was elected, let us dissect the Preamble and see how no matter what side of the aisle is in power, they fail at all the intent put forth within the preamble.

'establish Justice'. Well, the Government sure has done a fine job of making sure there is no such thing as a level playing field. From social issues (separating the People based on color and then categorizing them as such) to business (some business is favored and thus have the advantage on the playing field). On a more serious note, one must really read The Republic to gain an understanding of what Justice actually is. Even then, you will not know fully.

'insure Domestic Tranquility'. Again, the Government has done little to ensure such tranquility. Providing certain classes of people with preferred treatment and benefits over another does exactly the opposite. Both sides engage in this.

'provide for the common defense'. Here, as long as the People and the States retain their ability to allow the citizens to arm themselves, a large part of the common defense is covered. The last part is to show unity between the numerous states that each state would be there in case of an outside attack. Context is needed there because that was what they were worried about at the time. Carry it forward to today, it just means that each state will protect each other in order to remain a union of states.

'promote the General Welfare'. Ah, my favorite. My favorite because this is what the politicians use for their catchall legislation whenever they are questioned on the Constitutionality of said legislation. But clearly look at the wording. The wording throughout the Constitution was very specific, it is none less here. The word used was promote, not provide. This is key to understanding that this statement was never intended to be used as a blank check to Congress. What it is saying is that the Government, given the strict foundation via the Constitution was to promote the General Welfare. Give the People and the States the opportunity to thrive how they see fit. Instead it has been manipulated to cover everything from Social Security to Food Stamps to now Health Care.

'and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity'. The Constitution was put forward to help secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves, not Government. It was put forward by a small group of men at the behest of the larger population through delegations. Posterity is what I would consider to be the most important part of the preamble.

This was a call to establish a sustainable government of the People. The fact that the Framers included the notion that we wanted to secure that posterity meant that we wanted it to last. We wanted it to grow and prosper. Too bad under all the unsustainable programs today, that posterity is severely more threatening than what you think the majority currently sitting in Congress could do.

The above along with your reply that

No they did not, all to see the BLACK MAN FAIL! If they did we'd be much further along then we are now so that is bullcrud.

was your response to me showing you that ideas were presented shows you either don't want to have rational discourse or are just here to spout ignorance and stupidity.

Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by BobbinHood
Do you guys smell that? Ahh yes, it's the sweet smell of the "party of no" taking back the house.

No, it's the sweet smell of somebody's simple mind.

-NO to spending us into oblivion

= no money for public works that would kick-start the economy

-NO to the insane regulations imposed by the healthcare bill

=continued barbaric status of healthcare in this country which is laughing stock for the world

-NO to the bailouts that help only Wall Street, and not the people

=no support to the actual capitalistic system when it falters, and good bye to insurance etc

-NO to the systematic destruction of America

=pure ideological bull

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
'promote the General Welfare'. Ah, my favorite. My favorite because this is what the politicians use for their catchall legislation whenever they are questioned on the Constitutionality of said legislation. But clearly look at the wording. The wording throughout the Constitution was very specific, it is none less here. The word used was promote, not provide. This is key to understanding that this statement was never intended to be used as a blank check to Congress. What it is saying is that the Government, given the strict foundation via the Constitution was to promote the General Welfare. Give the People and the States the opportunity to thrive how they see fit. Instead it has been manipulated to cover everything from Social Security to Food Stamps to now Health Care.

What better way to PROMOTE the welfare of a hungry and sick person than to feed them and give doctor's help?

Sorry but the way pure capitalism works is entirely un-human. You lose job, you die of starvation. Thanks but no thanks.

reply to post by buddhasystem


When the heck did I mention capitalism? Promoting an environment that enables the People to take care of such business at more local levels and individual levels is proven more efficient and better equipped than the blanket attempts by the National Government.

But again, when in that whole post did I mention anything about the economic system employed by the People? I was specifically talking about the political environment that was being established and idealized.

Don't mince words and ideas or project your subjective musings.

Post Script~

I make no qualms in my belief that people, through their individual desires and their commutative desires, are a much better conduit to provide for the needy and down trodden. But the part that I take away from my views is that those who oppose such a notion do not like it because of the degree of accountability and personal responsibility that must follow such a society. Instead, its much easier to pay out 5% of your taxes to a Government that will in turn ask for no accountability from the receiving end. This leaves this type of person feeling they are doing something to change the world because they are allowing themselves to be taxed extra in the name of [insert whatever you like here in terms of social programs] and then generally not even have to think about it.

Again, it is a generalization not pointed at any one person, but I believe Family Guy said it best when Quagmire went off on Brian. Not sure how to link it, but its right here

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by BobbinHood
Do you guys smell that? Ahh yes, it's the sweet smell of the "party of no" taking back the house.

That is:

-NO to spending us into oblivion - The entire GOP put a whopping $13.5 Trillion on the card no one else!
-NO to the insane regulations imposed by the healthcare bill - Mandated by the people!
-NO to the bailouts that help only Wall Street, and not the people - Under the GOP's watch is when these occured.
-NO to the systematic destruction of America - The GOP's plan of sending more jobs overseas caused this more then any single event in history.

Yep, my guess is that you are correct, OP. You're going to be hearing a lot more "no's".

edit on 11/3/2010 by BobbinHood because: (no reason given)

Remember whose watch it was that approved the blind bailouts for the banks? Expect more and when we dare to ask what's good we are going to be told we don't have the authourity to know.


The bailout for the auto industry was needed especially Chrysler's bailout package as it was it's Jeep Willys that protected, preserved and ensured the survival of democracy during WWII. They call that a Quid Pro Quo, something else the entire GOP has never heard of.

WWII???

UHHmmm Chrysler bought American motors co.( amc jeep) in 1987!!!.
The" willy's jeep" of ww II fame was produced by "Willy's overland".
he U.s. military utility vehicle has been the GM "humvee"since 1985

reply to post by buddhasystem


You conveniently left out a word, which would render your sad argument useless.

General welfare, not individual.

General = nation

The entire nation doesnt benefit from using public funds to provide a meal for an individual

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson