OT: r - I thought you should see this

Page 5 of 11  
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

So, if we passed a constitutional amendment giving congress the power to enact these, you would be fine with them?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

It would at least be legal. I would oppose such a change on ideological grounds, but at the very least, I think it is not wrong to demand that our government obey its own laws.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

So you are one of those who claim to have special knowledge about the intent of the framers of the constitution. You live in opposition to the corruption of our government by the federalists that managed to overcome even the well thought out and reasoned Constitution by enabling the government to pass laws that provide for the general welfare.
How quaint.
What are your plans, now? Have you filed any briefs with the supreme court to get your viewpoint sustained by them?
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

... snip

... and you are one who apparently believes that if Congress passes it, and the Supreme court agrees, it is right. How do you feel about Dred Scott? After all, it met all your criteria.

How arrogant and condescending. Just because the current mad rush toward a nanny state seems to be the current rage doesn't mean people should just roll over and accept it as inevitable. Just because an activist supreme court has abrogated rights where they exist and read rights into the constitution where they don't doesn't mean we should not oppose those. The intent and rationale of the founders is not hard to find, they left plenty of documentation behind. You claim to have read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, yet you still claim that the Constitution grants the federal government pretty much any power it cares to claim as long as it wraps that power in the penumbra of the general welfare clause. The founders had just emerged from a tyranny and were determined to establish a government that minimized the possibility of the recurrence of such a tyranny. Seems to me that making the top 5% of wage earners pay 55% of all taxes, the majority of which go to wealth redistribution would not exactly meet the limited government that the founders had in mind. ... and yes, I think based upon my readings of their writings, I am pretty well valid in making that claim.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

A terrible decision, but not unexpected for the times. Kind of like a lot of those old beliefs held by people of that time. Like the idea that the government had no power to act under the general welfare clause. Quaint old harmful ideas. Thank heavens that we have ways to correct those early mistakes, huh?

How arrogant and condescending.
You think that you have a better grasp of the law and the constitution than the Supreme Court? They are the ones that determined that the constitution is indeed a living document that is subject to change with the times. That the founders in no way wanted to shackle the government in such a way as to deny it the power to promote the general welfare. The words are right in the document, TWICE. That is how important the founders thought that concept was.
Yet, you accuse the supreme court judges of being activist when they interpret the constituion. That is their job. What would you have them do? The constitution set our government up so that that is ALL that they do. How can you call them activists when they do what they are called to do by the constitution? Not getting your way does not make them activists. It just makes you wrong. If they should decide to overturn their previous decisions and find for your position, are they still activists? Or do they become good men doing their job? Will you rail against their activism then?
It baffles me how people like you choose such a way to fight against things that you don't like. Can't you argue on the merits of the programs themselves without having to resort to alarmist tactics such as activist judges, illegal government and socialism? Are those terms designed to inspire an emotion or reason?
This is an example where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You read a few papers from the founding fathers, listen to some arguments from those with an agenda, and a movement to right the wrongs of an illegal regime begins.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Makes one suspect that he/she probably thought the court was A-OK when they ruled in favor of Bush during the 2000 Florida vote re-count BS.
Dave in Houston
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave in Houston wrote:

And if they had decided in favor of Gore then we'd be getting the same whingeing from the Bush partisans.
Will you people give it a rest--it's going to be like the Civil War--150 years from now the descendants of Gore partisans are still going to be whining about how "Bush stole the election".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I feel for you Dave in Houston. You had to deal with this man as 1. President 2. Governor 3. Baseball team owner
I know he failed miserably in at least two of those efforts...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The "sweetheart" deal he was handed [getting into the Texas Rangers baseball organization] paid off handsomely in the end, the only "business" deal he was involved with that didn't crater. I've been feeling sorry for myself for the last seven plus years.
- Dave in Houston
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like many if not most sports franchises the Rangers received an enormous government subsidy in the form of a stadium built at taxpayer expense. Nothing unusual about that, the point merely is that it would take really, really bad management to lose money with a deal a like that.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote: <SNIP>

I wish you all the activist judges, socialism, and raping of your wallet you clearly desire...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Well, since I do not want, nor do I advocate, nor do I desire any of those things, then I wish the same for myself.
Thank you, Tim!
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Limp Arbor wrote:

And provide for the general welfare.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Allison wrote:

Which is different from proving for the general Welfare.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

And different from proofing from the general welfare.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Thank god, another voice of reason. I was beginning to feel very alone.
I happen to think that angry old man sig is despicable, by the way.
--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You guys take this election much to seriously.
I don't see much difference between any of the candidates regardless of the party or their affiliations.
It is odd to see the Democrats turn against Hillary, and the same machine that made the Clinton duo media darlings practically ignore her and her husband. Somehow they fell out of fashion with the press and now it appears that the fourth estate has anointed Obama the heir apparent.
After realizing how ineffective, lazy, self serving and sanctimonious The House and The Senate are, I quit worrying as much as I used to. It was just a year ago that my conservative friends were in tears because the Dems were declaring that they "took back America" and the first 100 days of their control would see sweeping changes to our laws and country.
To date, the report of their changes is nil. Even with the most unpopular president in history, they can't muster enough votes in their own party faithful to pass significant legislation.
As for Bush, he is no conservative. I don't know what he aspires to, or how he decided party affiliation. Even without the war budget, I read that he has vetoed any piece of legislation that has spending attached to it if it doesn't have unrelated crap attached. Money flows from his hands like water.
McCain used to be considered a moderate Democrat. Now he is a Republican lefty. And take a look at Schwarzenegger; now fully embraced by Dems, but increasingly rejected by Republicans because he is driving up the debt of the state beyond the capability of paying off even part of it by championing his own social programs, while taking away from those he doesn't like.
I too have noticed the winds of change blowing around Hillary. I don't know why, as the Republicans haven't had much to do with it at all. They aren't sure who they are fighting for the Pres job, and with the Dems starting to hammer on each other, they don't have to do much at this time. I can't see where Hillary's message or politics have changed, so I am left to guess that Obama became the favorite of the press behind closed doors somewhere, for some reason.
In the end though, I don't know that any of it matters. I will go to work, pay my taxes, and get up the next day and do it again. The politicians don't, and have not represented me in so long I don't remember.
For those that can't sleep at night because of the political climate (from which ever way the wind blows- left to right, right to left), I feel bad for you. I was like you once... no more.
I sure did think if Rob though when I saw that pic. I though it was funny.
Some of the folks around here are just as old, cranky and mean as any of the denizens here, you just don't see it because you are on the other side of the fence.
Lighten up.
Robert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well said.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Where the presidential election stands now, I would tend to agree. The key is going to be the House and Senate. A socialist-leaning statist in the White House coupled with a legislature controlled by similar leaning socialist statists is going to lead to bad things happening, and those bad things are going to trickle down.

Unfortunate, but true. The Republicans let the media pick their candidate this time and the early primaries with significant cross-over voting by dems and independents have pretty well set up a candidate who could hardly be considered conservative.

It's a wonder to behold. The media is now starting to treat Hillary like a Republican and the Clinton machine is stunned.

You better be grateful for that because the ideas they have in mind are going to have some significant effects upon how you live your life.

Huh? He has vetoed maybe two or three pieces of legislation, max. That's one of the problems, he has been way to willing to go along with whatever gets sent to him. You are right, he is no conservative.

That's one of the problems with the current leadership in the Republican party, it is lacking the fortitude to actually take a stand for something. Instead, it is lettingthe left frame the debate, set the debate premises, and then just apply "left light" to the problem.

Seems like a number things have affected this. Hillary herself is just plain not likeable as born out by various polling numbers. She comes across as manipulative and opportunistic. She really hasn't *done* anything (besides making a great deal of money in some shady deals) upon which she could be thought to have the qualifications for the office she seeks. She is not credible, you can't tell at any time whether she is telling a lie or the truth; she has been caught in so many lies (out and out lies, not the kinds of things that the left flings at Bush and calls lies -- hers are real lies). What is amazing is that the media used to look at Bill and marvel at how well he was able to tell lies -- the media adored him. Hillary isn't getting the same free pass.

No, but they can certainly affect your life. They can deem you one of the "rich" and raise your taxes or take away your deductions. They can deem that the materials with which you work are carcinogenic or not "carbon-neutral" and ban those materials, making you use something that costs more, is less readily available, and will in the end reduce the number of total units you will be able to produce or sell because you can't get enough material, assemble it efficiently, or raise your prices to the point some of your customers won't be able to afford your products -- driving down your total business. Don't underestimate the power of statists to affect your quality of life. These are real impacts, not some silly thing about being worried about your phone calls to Afghanistan or Pakistan being monitored.

Not losing sleep over things I can't do anything about. But I'm not becoming apathetic either.

It was. Not just the picture, but the fact the press printed it. The bloom has definitely gone off the rose.

One certainly has to approach this with good humor.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:05:19 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

We should never let some "silly" thing like freedom interfere with the making of money.
See? I said that whole paragraph of yours in just one sentence :-).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.