Obama's Speech to the Nation

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:10 pm

Ah yes, he reads the prompter well and his delivery was perfect. He looks and acts very presidential. And this impresses many that view the speech. It's not what he said, but what he didn't say. Despite all that, compared to the very weak field running against him I may just be compelled to vote for him again. MAYBE!!!

Editorial: What he didn’t say - WWW.THEDAILY.COM

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:25 pm

More tax breaks for corporations and Centralized Washington big gov't programs.

Status quo.

The only way I'm voting Republocrat this time is if Ron Paul gets the nomination. Otherwise, the Libertarian nominee gets my protest vote.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:55 pm

If only Paul was as tall as Romney, had a voice like Santorum and dressed like 0bama he might have a chance.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:24 pm

Sadly, I think you're right.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:13 am

And, perhaps, if only he hadn't given a speech in front of the Confederate flag about how the South was right.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:34 am

Just read the linked article and think it would be entirely more useful to link to the transcript of what was actually said. I watched a shortened version on Democracy Now and it led to very different conclusions.

He did address the deficit. He said he was going to tax millionaires and corporations more fairly by eliminating tax loopholes. That's a pretty big step. And not very Republican.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:51 am

Ah yes, he reads the prompter well and his delivery was perfect. He looks and acts very presidential. And this impresses many that view the speech. It's not what he said, but what he didn't say. Despite all that, compared to the very weak field running against him I may just be compelled to vote for him again. MAYBE!!!

Lon, I really hope you do vote Obama again. Did George W. deserve 2 terms? It only added more years to the insult. Give Obama the same chance as George W. He's on a better track. He's a great commander-in-chief. He has done very well with that. When the Republicans were in the White House, that was the most important issue, yet now it means nothing? How did that happen?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:55 am

You're right that Obama is acting just like Bush. :yh_wink Yes I know you didn't say that.

Bush didn't deserve two terms and neither does Obama. But if it's a choice between Obama and either Gingrich or Romney, it's really irrelevant who wins. We all lose.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:11 pm

Ok. If it's irrelevant, no harm voting for Obama & give him 4 more years so we don't have to say "what if?" We will know & maybe learn something, though we never seem to learn much from history hence our doom to repetition. Let's get it over with. Four more. There's someone in my family who swore "allegiance" to the one who gets bin Ladin. Ok, he got got. Remember that when you vote Obama. He did it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:32 am

I'm usually pretty hot with predictions.

A little over two years ago pre election, Spot was posting here that he thought Obama was the best thing since Kennedy and sliced bread.

I posted two years ago that I thought he'd be the biggest dissapointment the USA had ever seen and the world.

I'm scared now.... I also predicted Sarah Palin would be the 45th President of the USA

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:18 am

Why are you scared Oscar? SP will not be president.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:50 pm

Lon;1382394 wrote: Despite all that, compared to the very weak field running against him I may just be compelled to vote for him again.

Hmmm...crooked millionaire that is so detached from people like me he makes ten thousand dollar bets and pays less taxes than I do, skunk of a man who has cheated on every girl he's ever married, raked in millions from Freddy mac over the coals of foreclosed Americans, and has been indicted for corruption, or charismatic African American who is a dedicated family man, a good person, eloquent speaker and a good leader...

It's OBAMA for ME!!!!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:26 pm

nicely said Saint_ : )

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:35 pm

Not to mention Gingrich looks like Tweety.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:45 pm

Not to mention Gingrich looks like Tweety.

Isn't that a good thing? Maybe don't dwell on the positive.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:09 pm

David Cameron Is a good speaker...... Look at the misery he's causing.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:15 pm

AnneBoleyn;1382557 wrote: Isn't that a good thing? Maybe don't dwell on the positive.

You want a president that looks like a cartoon canary?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:22 pm

I just want a president who honors the constitution for a change.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:29 pm

Accountable;1382571 wrote: I just want a president who honors the constitution for a change.

Lets not get crazy here...

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:47 pm

You want a president that looks like a cartoon canary?

What I meant is Tweety is cute so I don't want anyone to think of a resluglican as something positive. I definitely don't want that man as president. I should have said LOL afterwards. Tough crowd.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:35 pm

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:53 pm

Accountable;1382576 wrote:

spot!

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:42 pm

What really mystifies me is whom the republicans are trying to get in office. Mitt Romney? He's essentially a corporate raider who made his money by destroying jobs in this country. I can't back that. Gingrich? Not a chance, he wasted 44 million investigating Clinton and Monika Lewinski. Unforgivable. It looks to me that Obamas challengers are going to be DOA. I could be wrong. Ron Paul would have been my choice

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:36 am

I only watch the Republican race for entertainment. They're being defeated by their own Super PAC inventions.

It's too bad Stephen Colbert isn't running in more than S Carolina though.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:13 am

SnoozeAgain;1382556 wrote: Not to mention Gingrich looks like Tweety.

That still cracks me up.

If Romney's Super PAC works that in somehow, Gingrich is doomed.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:08 am

Scrat;1382583 wrote: What really mystifies me is whom the republicans are trying to get in office. Mitt Romney? He's essentially a corporate raider who made his money by destroying jobs in this country. I can't back that. Gingrich? Not a chance, he wasted 44 million investigating Clinton and Monika Lewinski. Unforgivable. It looks to me that Obamas challengers are going to be DOA. I could be wrong. Ron Paul would have been my choice:yh_clap Agreed, except that I heard a report that Romney netted an increase in jobs created/saved. Such numbers are easy to produce, since Romney's actions directly ended, created, and saved actual people's jobs, unlike the current admin's wild fictional claims.

Regardless, Paul's the best of the group and should be President.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 1:28 pm

Accountable;1382467 wrote: You're right that Obama is acting just like Bush. :yh_wink Yes I know you didn't say that.

Bush didn't deserve two terms and neither does Obama. But if it's a choice between Obama and either Gingrich or Romney, it's really irrelevant who wins. We all lose.

The only advantage we gain by keeping him is we don't have to pay for a new guy to move in and redecorate the White house for another four years.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:34 pm

The only advantage we gain by keeping him is we don't have to pay for a new guy to move in and redecorate the White house for another four years.
Sounds Great LarsMac! Advantage, Gain, good words. Like the way you think. ; - )

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:53 am

Accountable;1382599 wrote: :yh_clap Agreed, except that I heard a report that Romney netted an increase in jobs created/saved. Such numbers are easy to produce, since Romney's actions directly ended, created, and saved actual people's jobs, unlike the current admin's wild fictional claims.

Regardless, Paul's the best of the group and should be President.

Are you sure these are American jobs? From the numbers I've seen, Wall Street is one of the biggest factors driving labor outside the U.S. They've eliminated millions of U.S. jobs. They call themselves "job creators" but the jobs are not U.S.

Paul seems like an honest guy, though he's a horrible sales man. If he wants to sell a minimal fed govt, he should point to the EU as a working model, not to colonial times.

The rest of the GOP has gone off the deep end. For example with Mitch Daniel's response to the SOTU, he failed to mention he had a pretty large hand in the deficit of the last decade as Bush's budget director. His calculations for the Iraq war were off by several trillion dollars. These policies along with tax cuts, medicare "reform," and bailouts have actually cost more money than what democrats have spent domestically. Personally I think if some politician makes a multi-trillion dollar calculation "error", they should probably be in jail. Not on TV lecturing the current president on how to run a budget.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:20 pm

yaaarrrgg;1382890 wrote: Are you sure these are American jobs? Nope, but I am sure that whatever they were they're verifiable. Doesn't matter, anyway. It's status quo without Dr Paul. There's no important difference between Gingrich, Obama, & Romney.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:54 pm

I heard something that gave me pause today:

If Romney were elected he would be one of the top three richest Presidents ever. How rich? Well he couldn't top Washington's 60,000 acres, but he will be richer that the last EIGHT Presidents combined. Add up everyone since Reagan and there you go.

As a matter of fact, he makes $50,000 a day for not working. He has offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, and Switzerland. How can a guy like that relate to someone like me?

BTW...the Republican mantra is that taxing the rich would kill jobs. How many jobs did Romney create with his 42 Million dollars in the last two years?

So much for that theory.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 7:12 pm

[QUOTE.l=Saint_;1382984]

As a matter of fact, he makes $50,000 a day for not working. He has offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, and Switzerland. How can a guy like that relate to someone like me?

Lon says

I can't relate to someone like you either and I'm not running for any office. :wah:

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 8:51 pm

At least we can presume he is not wanting the job for the money.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:54 am

Accountable;1382970 wrote: Nope, but I am sure that whatever they were they're verifiable. Doesn't matter, anyway. It's status quo without Dr Paul. There's no important difference between Gingrich, Obama, & Romney.

There's some truth to that, but it depends on what differences you are looking for. There's a pretty sizable gap even between Romney and Gingrich. Romney has run a state, whereas Gingrich has only run his mouth, and has had trouble controlling it. Most or all of Gingrich's ex-wives, co-workers, and subordinates are endorsing Romney. That says a lot.

Compare and contrast Bush and Obama on the jobs record:

Job Numbers 2008 – Dec 2011 « Talk & Politics

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:28 am

Sometimes I wonder if Gingrich is a distraction in the race to prevent Romney and Paul from going face to face. Paul would cause either Romney or Gingrich to appear pretty stupid one-on-one. And then with the media doing the fact-checking, Paul might begin to look pretty darn good to many republicans. Nah, forget it, that last part isn't possible. Rank and file voters don't really understand the issues anyway, they'd rather be in a race than a discussion. And that's the consequences of the American education system.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Ahso!;1383177 wrote: Sometimes I wonder if Gingrich is a distraction in the race to prevent Romney and Paul from going face to face. Paul would cause either Romney or Gingrich to appear pretty stupid one-on-one. And then with the media doing the fact-checking, Paul might begin to look pretty darn good to many republicans. Nah, forget it, that last part isn't possible. Rank and file voters don't really understand the issues anyway, they'd rather be in a race than a discussion. And that's the consequences of the American education system.

Hey Ahso

I agree, Paul is about the only credible candidate I see in the GOP.

I wondered if the GOP is really serious about winning this election, given the sorry state of their candidates and extremist rhetoric.

Winning an election at this point would be the worst thing that could happen to the GOP, since their inability to govern and manage a budget would be on full public display again.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:19 pm

yaaarrrgg;1383159 wrote: There's some truth to that, but it depends on what differences you are looking for.I'd like to see a difference in the indifference they show for the Constitution. It would be nice to have a President that understood that the Constitution is more than one of the words he has to memorize for the swearing in ceremony.

yaaarrrgg;1383159 wrote: There's a pretty sizable gap even between Romney and Gingrich.Not regarding actual issues.

yaaarrrgg;1383159 wrote: Romney has run a state, whereas Gingrich has only run his mouth, and has had trouble controlling it. Most or all of Gingrich's ex-wives, co-workers, and subordinates are endorsing Romney. That says a lot. Only if it's a pro wrestling match. The two agree on every major issue, and so does Obama.

All three support unconstitutional federal takeover of domestic affairs. Healthcare is only one example.

All three support pre-emptive attacks on militarily inferior sovereign nations.

All three support passing federal legislation and gov't intervention to manipulate the economy in favor of their global corporate sponsors.

yaaarrrgg;1383159 wrote: Compare and contrast Bush and Obama on the jobs record:

Job Numbers 2008 – Dec 2011 « Talk & Politics

Why??

Bush isn't running for president, and the federal gov't is not an employment agency.

Why not compare Castro's and Reagan's eating habits? It would serve the same purpose.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:47 pm

Accountable;1383240 wrote: I'd like to see a difference in the indifference they show for the Constitution. It would be nice to have a President that understood that the Constitution is more than one of the words he has to memorize for the swearing in ceremony.

Not regarding actual issues.

Only if it's a pro wrestling match. The two agree on every major issue, and so does Obama.

All three support unconstitutional federal takeover of domestic affairs. Healthcare is only one example.

All three support pre-emptive attacks on militarily inferior sovereign nations.

All three support passing federal legislation and gov't intervention to manipulate the economy in favor of their global corporate sponsors.

In my understanding all those things are actually consistent with the Constitution. Half the people wanted a strong central government like Britain, half did not. They settled on a compromise, or a hybrid model where power was shared between both state and fed. The problem with the the Constitution is it's too open. It doesn't put a wall of separation between financial and political power. It doesn't prevent debt from being passed to future generations. It didn't even say black people were actually people (only 3/5 human?!) On one hand I think.... what kind of corrupt racist sociopaths wrote this POS document? It's no wonder this document led to the near complete meltdown of the U.S. more than once.

I'm curious though about your overheated rhetoric of "defending" the Constitution. If these presidents are really violating the Constitution, why haven't they been impeached? That's their primary job, to defend and uphold the constitution, is it not? However, the closest thing we've gotten to impeachment in the last couple years was when Newt helped spend 44 million tax payer dollars investigating Clinton's wiener. While, of course, being the great man of integrity he was, Newt of course was cheating on his own wife. It's not like he's actually got principles...if he had real ammunition to throw at Clinton, such as violating the oath he took, why would he not use it?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:10 am

LarsMac;1382989 wrote: At least we can presume he is not wanting the job for the money.
Money is just a symbol for power and respect.

What it says to me is that the amount of money they have doesn't meet their power hunger. Of course you need to be rich to get close to office so we'll never know what to compare it to... unless the system changes.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:27 am

yaaarrrgg;1383250 wrote: In my understanding all those things are actually consistent with the Constitution. Yes, more and more people display such ignorance of our foundational document. The rest of your first paragraph is really dismaying in its inaccuracies, and it would derail the thread to address it completely. Please go back and study US history, I beg you.

yaaarrrgg;1383250 wrote: I'm curious though about your overheated rhetoric of "defending" the Constitution.It's not overheated, and it's certainly not rhetoric.

yaaarrrgg;1383250 wrote: If these presidents are really violating the Constitution, why haven't they been impeached?Because their actions benefit the ones that are supposed to impeach them.

yaaarrrgg;1383250 wrote: That's their primary job, to defend and uphold the constitution, is it not?Yes, that is their job, but that certainly isn't what they do, and hasn't been, by and large, for over a century.

yaaarrrgg;1383250 wrote: However, the closest thing we've gotten to impeachment in the last couple years was when Newt helped spend 44 million tax payer dollars investigating Clinton's wiener. While, of course, being the great man of integrity he was, Newt of course was cheating on his own wife. It's not like he's actually got principles...if he had real ammunition to throw at Clinton, such as violating the oath he took, why would he not use it? :)Don't let the political kabuki distract you from the real harm they do. Read the US Constitution and ask yourself where it allows Washington to usurp such domestic issues as retirement, healthcare, or education. Find constitutional justification for maintaining a military presence over most of the globe. See if you can figure out how a corporation can fit the definition of 'person' with rights separate and additional to those of the people that own it.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 7:37 am

Accountable;1383260 wrote:

Because their actions benefit the ones that are supposed to impeach them.

Yes, that is their job, but that certainly isn't what they do, and hasn't been, by and large, for over a century.

Don't let the political kabuki distract you from the real harm they do. Read the US Constitution and ask yourself where it allows Washington to usurp such domestic issues as retirement, healthcare, or education. Find constitutional justification for maintaining a military presence over most of the globe. See if you can figure out how a corporation can fit the definition of 'person' with rights separate and additional to those of the people that own it.

The people that founded the country were no less sociopathic than politicians today. kabuki theater is an ancient art...not a recent invention.

Your complaints are valid, my point is I don't see the Constitution helping you out. It becomes a debate over the meaning of "common defense," and "promoting the general welfare." We already discussed healthcare. It falls under both. Similarly for education and other things. Unless you want throngs of uneducated seniors raiding your medicine cabinet every night?

As for bombing countries at will, we can note that "a good offense is the best defense." See how that works? Law is largely an exercise in lunacy.

The point about corporations is interesting. I personally agree they are not people, but don't see the Constitution helping your case. Do you really think that the people who framed it really held human life as being more important than the economic interests shaping the document? Re-read the 3/5 compromise again, on valuing the life of slaves. Back in the good old days the U.S. government screwed over females, blacks, native americans, etc. If your complaint is that you feel you've been included in the sub-class, this is a valid complaint but the Constitution isn't going to help you here, any more than the Bible prohibited slavery.

Even the federal reserve is supported, since the u.s. government is given the power to regulate the value of the dollar ('regulate' which is a euphemism for 'manipulate').

The wording of the Constitution is too broad, vague. As a legal document, it's really not great.

These discussions remind me a bit of interactions with religious folks: if only we returned to the teachings of then all our problems would be solved. If only things were that easy... half the problems are typically a direct result of the religious text being followed more than not being followed. IMO we need fewer followers, not more.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:47 am

LSometimes we forget that the authors of the constitution were mere mortal men burdened with prejudice and bigotry and a hard life that influenced their thinking too.

Condoning slavery appears to be an economic decision more so than anything else. 3/5's! what cold- hearted bastards.

Hey there, Yaaarrrgg, good to see you.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:06 pm

yaaarrrgg;1383268 wrote: Your complaints are valid, my point is I don't see the Constitution helping you out. It becomes a debate over the meaning of "common defense," and "promoting the general welfare." We already discussed healthcare. It falls under both. It falls under neither. The 17 clauses following the opening sentence in Article 1, Section 8 define what is allowed Congress in providing for the common defense and general welfare. If those clauses were not meant to define common defense and general welfare, the (1) they have no purpose and (2) Congress has no limits at all and the Constitution is pointless.

yaaarrrgg;1383268 wrote: Similarly for education and other things. Unless you want throngs of uneducated seniors raiding your medicine cabinet every night?Another one that thinks that if Washington doesn't do it then it doesn't get done. *shakes head*

Education, healthcare, retirement, welfare, and countless other issues are not delegated to Washington in the Constitution, and are thus reserved to the people, or to the States.

yaaarrrgg;1383268 wrote: As for bombing countries at will, we can note that "a good offense is the best defense." See how that works? Law is largely an exercise in lunacy.Do you just feel compelled to write something, anything, or do you really support such tripe?

yaaarrrgg;1383268 wrote: The point about corporations is interesting. I personally agree they are not people, but don't see the Constitution helping your case. Do you really think that the people who framed it really held human life as being more important than the economic interests shaping the document?That's not relevant. If it's not in the Constitution then it's not constitutional, by definition. The fact that from Day One the authors violated the very constitution they agreed to support changes nothing.

yaaarrrgg;1383268 wrote: Even the federal reserve is supported, since the u.s. government is given the power to regulate the value of the dollar ('regulate' which is a euphemism for 'manipulate'). You are sorely mistaken. The federal reserve is not a government agency. The Constitution REQUIRES Congress To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;Congress has (arguably) Illegally delegated their constitutional responsibility to this quasi-private entity without any oversight.

yaaarrrgg;1383268 wrote: The wording of the Constitution is too broad, vague. As a legal document, it's really not great. You haven't read it, have you?

yaaarrrgg;1383268 wrote: These discussions remind me a bit of interactions with religious folks: if only we returned to the teachings of then all our problems would be solved. If only things were that easy... half the problems are typically a direct result of the religious text being followed more than not being followed. IMO we need fewer followers, not more.If it makes you rest easier to ridicule & reject the rule of law, that's certainly your right. Don't expect me to support your fantasy of having some kind of knowledge or wisdom on the matter. It's pretty typical for the majority of any population to be willfully ignorant of the, um, unpleasantness of the people they place in charge of their lives. The truth is too stressful. It might distract from enjoying the day.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:02 am

Accountable;1383388 wrote: It falls under neither. The 17 clauses following the opening sentence in Article 1, Section 8 define what is allowed Congress in providing for the common defense and general welfare. If those clauses were not meant to define common defense and general welfare, the (1) they have no purpose and (2) Congress has no limits at all and the Constitution is pointless.

Where does it say the list is exhaustive? Your reasoning here reminds me why some people opposed adding the Bill of Rights. The fear was that people would come along later and think these were the *only* rights we had.

The list settles basic disputes over which branch does what.

In general you can't read that kind of exclusive restriction into a contract, unless it explicitly says something like "if a case doesn't fall in the following list, the rule does not apply." Talk to a lawyer on this one if you don't believe me.

Accountable;1383388 wrote:

Another one that thinks that if Washington doesn't do it then it doesn't get done. *shakes head*

Education, healthcare, retirement, welfare, and countless other issues are not delegated to Washington in the Constitution, and are thus reserved to the people, or to the States.

Do you just feel compelled to write something, anything, or do you really support such tripe?

Sorry that was meant more as a joke, but seriously healthcare is a case where it wasn't getting done in the free market. In general the people that defend the current system are those that don't use it, such as government workers, vets with VA benefits, and retired people on Medicare. Or those making an obscene amount of money from it.

Likewise with retirement, it just wasn't getting done with the free market. What you had was a lot of elderly people living in poverty. The market value of life is not much, unless it can extract something from a person. Maybe on your system the elderly can sell blood or organs. Accountable;1383388 wrote:

That's not relevant. If it's not in the Constitution then it's not constitutional, by definition. The fact that from Day One the authors violated the very constitution they agreed to support changes nothing.

You are sorely mistaken. The federal reserve is not a government agency. The Constitution REQUIRES Congress Congress has (arguably) Illegally delegated their constitutional responsibility to this quasi-private entity without any oversight.

You haven't read it, have you?

I had read it, and think it's crap. The fact that we can't even agree on the basic meaning of it is proof enough. The nice thing about oversight is you can hire someone to do the job, and walk off. Which is exactly what happened. The line gives the U.S. congress unchecked power to print and manipulate the value of currency. There's nothing watching them to verify they do the job *well*, other than voters who likewise hire someone and walk off the job.

Though these guys weren't "violating the Constitution" from day one. What they did, was value the almighty dollar more than human life. Now you don't like it because the shoe is one the other foot.

Accountable;1383388 wrote:

If it makes you rest easier to ridicule & reject the rule of law, that's certainly your right. Don't expect me to support your fantasy of having some kind of knowledge or wisdom on the matter. It's pretty typical for the majority of any population to be willfully ignorant of the, um, unpleasantness of the people they place in charge of their lives. The truth is too stressful. It might distract from enjoying the day.

I'm a bit puzzled by your two conflicting attitudes regarding politicians. I know a lot of these guys are crooks. That's why I don't see law as seriously as you might. I think half the people that contribute to writing these laws are insane and/or purchased by the highest bidder.

Yet you see the original politicians in some saintly glow that can do no wrong. Back in the good old days, the smartest guy in the bunch kept a woman locked up in his basement. Now, it's illegal. Back then it was legal.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:15 am

Just for reference, we are discussing the same document right?

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2-17 specific examples ...

18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers [which includes 1], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Pretty opened ended. Also note that it's about "Powers." If you want "Limits on Congress," that's the next section. If you make a wild and open claim in a contract, followed by specifics, they do not limit the wild and open claim, but merely add to it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:25 pm

yaaarrrgg;1383405 wrote: Where does it say the list is exhaustive? Your reasoning here reminds me why some people opposed adding the Bill of Rights. The fear was that people would come along later and think these were the *only* rights we had.

The list settles basic disputes over which branch does what.

In general you can't read that kind of exclusive restriction into a contract, unless it explicitly says something like "if a case doesn't fall in the following list, the rule does not apply." Talk to a lawyer on this one if you don't believe me. :)You're right. They should've put something in that says something like "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I can't make someone value the rule of law, so you can count yourself the winner if you like.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:03 pm

Accountable;1383440 wrote: You're right. They should've put something in that says something like "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Let's actually think about what that is saying. If the Federal govt can't make a law about X, and it doesn't prevent the states from making a law about X, then the states can make a law about X, or the people can resolve it some other way.

What it does not say what you'd like it to say: "the points 2 thru 17 of section 8 enumerate a complete list of powers granted to Congress. Anything outside of this list must be decided by the states or people".

See the difference there? Two completely different concepts.

And what powers does the Constitution grant Congress?

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for ...provid[ing] for the common Defense and general Welfare [health, happiness, prosperity, well-being] of the United States"

They wrote a gigantic blank check with their name on it.

What you believe the Constitution says and what it actually is saying are worlds apart. The text you cite doesn't actually limit the power of the federal govt, but the state govt.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:50 pm

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution - meaning those 17 clauses enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 - nor prohibited by it to the States - meaning anything the Constitution says the States can't do - are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - meaning is the purview of the States or the people. Anything beyond that is creative interpretation which, while the fashionable thing to do by those like (apparently) you who can't be arsed to follow the rule of law, is what is destroying liberty and driving my beloved country into fascism.

And no, that isn't overheated, and it isn't rhetoric.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:16 pm

Accountable;1383449 wrote: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution - meaning those 17 clauses enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 - nor prohibited by it to the States - meaning anything the Constitution says the States can't do - are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - meaning is the purview of the States or the people. Anything beyond that is creative interpretation which, while the fashionable thing to do by those like (apparently) you who can't be arsed to follow the rule of law, is what is destroying liberty and driving my beloved country into fascism.

And no, that isn't overheated, and it isn't rhetoric.

If that's what they meant they should have stated that. At best the text is ambiguous.

If your reading is correct, it's apparently not just me that can't understand how you read the text that way, but also most of the country, Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, and executive branch (including probably all the guys you voted into office).

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:14 pm

yaaarrrgg;1383450 wrote: If that's what they meant they should have stated that. At best the text is ambiguous.

If your reading is correct, it's apparently not just me that can't understand how you read the text that way, but also most of the country, Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, and executive branch (including probably all the guys you voted into office).You seem to think creative interpretations of plain English are simply innocent mistakes. I don't buy that for a second. Most politicians are lawyers. Lawyers are trained to view the law as an obstacle to be circumvented in order to get what you want. That's what they've done. Plain vernacular has been stretched and twisted to the point that people assume without reading that the text is ambiguous, and so (if they ever read it at all) they give it at most a cursory scan, already convinced they're not going to understand it anyway.

People have applied spin, creative interpretation, and outright violation to the Constitution in order to get what they want, rather than respecting the rule of law. You can pretend it isn't true, but what's the point?