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.
What are your plans, now? Have you filed any briefs with the
supreme court to get your viewpoint sustained by them?
... 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
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
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.
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".
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.