Republicans continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Bush readied the funds of 700 billion half was withheld for his successor to determine the distribution of it (i.e. the other 350 billion). The other half was distributed by Obama i.e. he continued the TARP program.

reply to post by anakark


IE, continuing the template that 43 and Co. wrote! Which means it all starts and ends at 43's feet!

reply to post by dbarnhart


You are exactly correct. There is nothing about health care, privacy at work, or any right to not be offended. It astounds me how many people claim "constitutional rights" that simply do not exist.

You are also correct that the OP needs to review our founding documents.

reply to post by Dilligaf28



Freedom of Speech extends to all business contracts, as well as the U.S. government, and corporations can not violate your right to freedom of speech any more than government. Once again, your claim that the U.S. government is only supposed to protect peoples rights from the U.S. government is not only false, but patently ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to demand that I prove that the U.S. Constitution was not intended to only apply to protection of our rights against government, you want me to prove a negative. You must prove that the U.S. Constitution was written only to protected rights from government abuse.

But there is the 9th amendment.

www.archives.gov...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clearly the people who wrote the Bill of Rights recognized that there would be additional areas where people would need to make sure that government protected their rights, and against corporate abuse clearly falls into this category.

Lets start with and easy example.

Do you believe in child labor?

U.S. law prevents businesses from hiring children and putting them to work, except in special circumstances. The Department of Labor that Republicans want to eliminate oversees protecting abuse of child labor.

This is one very obvious reason why we need the Department of Labor.

reply to post by anakark


The difference being that Obama put restrictions on getting the funds that eliminated huge bonuses for Corporate execs in companies that required a bail out from the government to survive.

Republicans opposed putting restrictions on corporate bonuses of failed mega corps. It doesn't get any more obvious that Republicans support white collar crime at every opportunity.

reply to post by poet1b


The people defined in the 9th here are the American public and does not extend to corporations and that is that! This is merely a preventative to prevent the Federal from running over the States but in matters of infrastructure or other securital matters nullifies the 9th!

reply to post by neo96


How can anybody be sooo completely disillusioned.

You people can not even begin to play the blame game of the current state of the union on the right 70 years of social engineering government regulation has led us here.

Yeah, except back in the nineties when Clinton was running the country, enforcing regulations on giant corporations after bumping up taxes on the super rich lead to the longest period of economic growth in our nations history. Lets pretend the economic success of the decades after WW II never happened, when the U.S. produced the greatest economic growth the world had ever seen.

Then disillusioned people like you got GW into office, white collar crime ran amuck, and destroyed the U.S. economy. This latest collapse is like a rerun of the 1920ties, last time Corporate Bankers where handed the keys to run our country by corrupt republican politicians.

Sadly, people actually believe the lunatic rantings you posted.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

does not extend to corporations and that is that!

And "that is that"

And where does this special opt out of Constitutional protection of individual rights for corporations exist?

Did you ever figure out that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy doesn't really exist? Then you need to apply that life lesson to the reality that Corporations do not have any specially opt out privileges when it comes to individual rights.

reply to post by BO XIAN

When, in the recorded history of the world as we are aware of it,

has LARGE GOVERNMENT

EVER

NOT

INCREASED TYRANNY

I guess that depends on your definition of Large Government, but in general.

ALL FIRST WORLD GOVERNMENTS have strong regulation of business, and laws in place to protect people from fraud, and corporate abuse.

Can you name a first world nation that does not regulate business?

Can you name one successful country that does not regulate business and prevent fraud and corruption?

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Now how is that going to happen, when that very entity you, and so many others apparently, are depending upon to be that broadsword are owned lock, stock, and barrel by that very thing?

That would seem to leave you, me, and the rest of us to do the dirty work. ...and the sooner we all come to that realization, the better off we'll be.

No, the only one's that we can depend upon to do the job, are us. Those wretched masses that are held in contempt by the would be masters of all they survey.

Us.

reply to post by poet1b


Corporate Personhood is effectively dead because like 15 people in 08 declared the US as their corporation which made the citizens of The US the corporations employees and thus exempting us from participation in Codex Aluminatrius hence why you don't hear of Codex anymore.

reply to post by seagull


Russia and China are not under the thumb of the SCUM which means that they are freer then us in that regard.

At times you must do what you do not want to in order to get done what you want. Protocols and policies are already in place to ensure that this be the way forward!

You forgot to add in your title, "while they paint the US as a Jesus state and compare Obama to Hitler."

Like you, that is all I see as well. There is absolutely zero initiative to help the majority of the American ppl within the GOP. Only to replace Obama regardless of the repercussions. They wrap the package in a Jesus box so it's ok I suppose. If Jesus thinks it's ok to cut all programs, get rid of health regulations and increase taxes on middle class while the rich create zero jobs and slip through loopholes in the code, then I guess it's ok. Jesus is good so the GOP must be good too

While both parties share in the disgustingness that is the two party system, I find the GOP to be absolutely deplorable at times. I still cannot figure out why middle class Americans vote that way. I really think the Jesus end has an awful lot to do with it . If Tim Tebow was on the Republican ticket ppl would vote for him. That's very sad.

reply to post by e11888

Guess what? This isnt about my party vs yours. This isnt a football game. Stop voting for democrat or republican and start voting for who can actually fix this country. Stop being blinded by a primitive my team vs yours mentality. All it does is divide and conquer.

I hear your logic, but the current situation is a two party system, and the Republicans are playing for keeps, and while Democrats have their problems, republicans are by far the greater evil of the two parties, so that leaves us with the Democrats.

From tax breaks for the middle class to putting place the budgeting and people to go after the vast amount of white collar crime committed over the last decade, Republicans in congress consistently demonstrate that they are completely and totally in the pockets of the ICBs, and in my opinion, would rather that U.S. was ran by Corporations rather than representative government.

We need to get out of these illegal and undeclared wars. We need to abolish the federal reserve and put the money back in the hands of the people. We need to secure our borders. Be friends with all ally with none. We need to only go to war when we are attacked and avoid war at all cost in any other situation. We need to deal with our world's largest prison population and look at the cause of it: prohibition. We need to go back to putting education and industry at the top of our list of things to excell at.

All very true, and all problems created exclusively by the unrealistic pursuit of free market ideology. All these problems are a direct result of Republican efforts to do just the opposite of these things you identify as needing to be done.

And Ron Paul is a free market guy, so he is not the person who is going to fix these problems. We need another Bill Clinton, or maybe a modern day Andrew Jackson. Maybe Petraeus might fit the bill.

reply to post by spinalremain

While both parties share in the disgustingness that is the two party system, I find the GOP to be absolutely deplorable at times. I still cannot figure out why middle class Americans vote that way. I really think the Jesus end has an awful lot to do with it . If Tim Tebow was on the Republican ticket ppl would vote for him. That's very sad.

Well put, There is a lot I don't care about in the Democratic party, lack of respect for all working people, way too much investment in political correctness, and all too willing to go along with stripping people of individual rights, and both parties work hand in hand on this last portion. Still, the republicans are like rabid dogs these days.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Dilligaf28

 

Freedom of Speech extends to all business contracts, as well as the U.S. government, and corporations can not violate your right to freedom of speech any more than government. Once again, your claim that the U.S. government is only supposed to protect peoples rights from the U.S. government is not only false, but patently ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to demand that I prove that the U.S. Constitution was not intended to only apply to protection of our rights against government, you want me to prove a negative. You must prove that the U.S. Constitution was written only to protected rights from government abuse.

But there is the 9th amendment.

www.archives.gov...

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clearly the people who wrote the Bill of Rights recognized that there would be additional areas where people would need to make sure that government protected their rights, and against corporate abuse clearly falls into this category.

Lets start with and easy example.

Do you believe in child labor?

U.S. law prevents businesses from hiring children and putting them to work, except in special circumstances. The Department of Labor that Republicans want to eliminate oversees protecting abuse of child labor.

This is one very obvious reason why we need the Department of Labor.

Freedom of speech does not extend to contract law nor does it extend into the workplace. My employer can tell me to say "happy holidays instead of merry christmas" and I have to do so. If I choose to say Merry Christmas I will be fired. There is nothing illegal about a corporation firing me for saying things that the corporation does not want said. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise but your feelings cannot change the truth.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. I, along with most of the free world, recognize that the Constitution was written to provide for a limited government and to protect the rights of the people from that government. You have asserted that I am wrong about this and its because your assertion is so outside the scope of the truth about the Constitution that you must prove your assertion to be true.

You quoted the ninth amendment. You do realize this amendment is a shining example of how the framework of the Constitution is set in place to limit the Federal Government and protect the people's rights!

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.[5

This was what James Madison submitted to congress as a precursor to the ninth amendment. Read that carefully. This is James Madison, one of the Founders, saying that the Bill of Rights does not enlarge the power of the Constitution; rather the BOR limits the government and is in place also as a means of caution against the expansion of Government powers.

It is incredibly intellectually dishonest of you to take my statements of fact, dispute them, and then tell me to prove my viewpoints. I have repeatedly asked you to, rather than continually insist that I am supposed to prove the truth to you, to please provide some sort of statement that defends your supposition that the Constitution is somehow not written to protect We The People from our Government nor is it written to provide a limited framework of government. Your position is contrary to what is accepted fact and legal interpretation so it truly is up to you to support your position with more than just "this is what I say and its true because I say it".

If you cannot engage in a proper discussion, following accepted rules of debate, then I feel there is no point in continually going in circles with you.

reply to post by poet1b


What we need is definitely not these mainstays who are more concerned with image then substance. We need a return to sanity in this nation whereas facts and common sense dictated the policy and not chasing phantoms and perceived threats like what's been going on as of late.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by dbarnhart

 

You are exactly correct. There is nothing about health care, privacy at work, or any right to not be offended. It astounds me how many people claim "constitutional rights" that simply do not exist.

You are also correct that the OP needs to review our founding documents.

None of these concerns existed 235 years ago. We do not recognize human enslavement
and we do not give lead or arsenic to sick people anymore either...

The Constitution did create a vehicle and a method for addressing the future.

Are you saying that the founding fathers were too stupid to recognize that the future
is characterized by dramatic change?

reply to post by seagull


The ICBs do not have a lock on power, and their situation is a lot more fragile than people realize.

Money is nothing but a instrument of debt, and the wealth of the super rich is based soley on huge numbers of promises to pay, and this day and age, one huge pyramid scheme.

The end game is that people who do not have money can not pay, so all that wealth collapses. Property titles are only as good as the ability of the people holding those titles to defend that property. Over the history of humanity, the wealthy hav fairly consistently lost these battles and wars, and recent history has been a long string of victories for the 99%.

reply to post by mastahunta


Typically I'm at odds with you but agree with you fully here as evidenced by that Slavery was not definitively ordered nor banned in the 1789 version as they had enough knowledge and foresight that we'd eventually outlaw it and did not put any policy in to play that could hinder or obstruct this. Corporations taking advantage of people weren't a problem 222 yrs ago, unsafe tools were not conceivable, unsafe meds were not on anyone's radar, unsafe living conditions were not on anyone's radar yet they in their infinite knowledge never restricted nor held Govt back from protecting the people.

They however did not ever give nor issue a blind license for any company to take advantage of the people via poisoning, manipulation, degradation, false advertising, to manipulate the law to benefit them. This is just fact!