Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/17/2009 11:36:15 AM EST
Asked someone in certain motorcycle (seems liberal leaning) forum what they thought of the president and how well he is upholding the constitution, this is the response I get;

I don't think he can tuprn the economy around, but I don't think that's a realistic possibility anyways. I think he's doing a great job of upholding the Constitution in many other ways as is by helping to give more equality and by actually understanding people's issues bsefore trying to blindly solve them. I'm curious as to why you think he is not upholding the Constitution? I've often seen conservatives make the argument that's he's trying to socialize the country but I hardly see any evidence of that. If trying to keep American's from poverty and unfair treatment based on broken systems is considered socialism, than I think their definition is uneducated. But I honestly don't know much about economics, so I'm legitimately asking you why you say this? I think he believes in the words of the Constitution as much as any good American does. But not the aggrandized and hyperbolic version many reference.
__________________


Link Posted: 6/17/2009 11:37:31 AM EST
Goodbye country.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 11:41:08 AM EST
Unfortunately that disconnect seems all too common. I am afraid government class was a long time ago for a lot of people, and they probably slept through most of it then.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 11:41:19 AM EST
Ooooh he used to big words (that mean the same thing) in his last sentence!
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 11:43:27 AM EST
Originally Posted By peekay:
Ooooh he used to big words (that mean the same thing) in his last sentence!





Uhhhhh. Whut?
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 11:47:23 AM EST
Seems like the perfect time to educate this person.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 11:54:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By smokycity:
Seems like the perfect time to educate this person.


I tried, I think he is from San Francisco or Berkly. Anything I say does not compute, and I will only try so hard when having a "discussion" with someone on the net.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 11:55:09 AM EST
That logic sickitates me.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 11:55:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By peekay:
Ooooh he used to big words (that mean the same thing) in his last sentence!


He used to big but now he doesn't big anymore?
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 11:57:08 AM EST
He is president because the majority wanted it so
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 12:01:16 PM EST
My peeve is most people who rant on about Fascist Obama destroying the Constitution and such probably never read the Constitution.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 12:05:02 PM EST



you should send him a quote from that speech obama made a few years back where he talks about the constitution being flawed because it limits what the government can do.

honestly though, if this person doesn't think the government taking over the auto industry and/or banking is "socialist", he or she either does not know what socialism is or doesn't care. in either case it's not worth your time trying to inform them.


Link Posted: 6/17/2009 12:05:05 PM EST
Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
My peeve is most people who rant on about Fascist Obama destroying the Constitution and such probably never read the Constitution.


I would think this would be your pet peeve if you were CERTAIN they were not reading the constitution. You can't just let something get to you based off an assumption.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 12:08:33 PM EST
But not the aggrandized and hyperbolic version many reference


It's like he thinks the Constitution is some sort of nebulous, disembodied idea rather than an actual document that you can read. But I guess that's just hyperbole.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 12:08:43 PM EST
Originally Posted By bullyforyou:



you should send him a quote from that speech obama made a few years back where he talks about the constitution being flawed because it limits what the government can do.

honestly though, if this person doesn't think the government taking over the auto industry and/or banking is "socialist", he or she either does not know what socialism is or doesn't care. in either case it's not worth your time trying to inform them.




Exactly, I already made those points and this person does not wish to listen. My theory is the far left do not want what's in the constitution in the first place, nor do they want whats right for America, rather how their country is going to just give to them and do what's "right" based on feeling and emotion. What if the constitution was being written today, word for word of the old one, how many on the left would vote for it should it be presented to them? Probably close to none.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 12:10:19 PM EST
Just another shit-for-brains moron.

HH
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 12:10:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/17/2009 12:10:48 PM EST by AssaultRifler]

Originally Posted By tactmaster:
Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
My peeve is most people who rant on about Fascist Obama destroying the Constitution and such probably never read the Constitution.


I would think this would be your pet peeve if you were CERTAIN they were not reading the constitution. You can't just let something get to you based off an assumption.

I can peeve whatever I want. I can also flip it around, because I can't be CERTAIN most were reading the Constitution, I have to assume most weren't, right?



Link Posted: 6/17/2009 12:11:05 PM EST
You know what I always wonder is when Bush was in office the constant refrain from the left was OMG Bush is violating the constitution, he should be arrested by the world court for Iraq etc etc. Now Obama is violating the constitution.

How is it they they knew bush was breaking the law but they never did anything about it. And now we know Obama is violating the Constitution yet we do nothing. That leads me to believe that:

1. We don't care
2. Violating the constitution is overstating the issue
3. We have an entirely corrupt system where every single politician is in on it and refuses to bring charges
4. We like it when our Presidents violate the Constitution
5. When people say violating the constitution they don't mean it in a criminal way

We supposedly have all these mavericks (John McCain) shit stirrers (Kucinich), righteous men (Ron Paul) on and on. None of them are bringing charges of violating the constitution which last time I checked was a criminal thing. So what gives? why is everyone standing around saying they are violating the Constitution but are doing nothing about it.

I know the answer will be "because there is nothing we can do about it" my reply to that is bullshit. so let's skip over that excuse.

Why are the liberals letting bush do it and why are we letting Obama do it? what gives? Is it just an empty political barb or are they really doing it and we just like it and keep asking for more?

Link Posted: 6/17/2009 12:47:27 PM EST
Oh its getting better, this is what his partner in crime had to say when I brought up that a czar is unconstitutional.

The term czar has been used in many administrations, it is not new. Bush had "czars" its just the term they have adopted recently for the head of a department. I do not know about the ABC thing, so I cannot comment on that. Obama has not taken over any corporations. If you are a student of economics you will see the reasoning (as the article points out) for pumping money into the financial and manufacturing industries. The reason he (and the government) is so involved with what is happening in these corporations are for your sake. In that I mean that it is yours as well as my tax dollars that have been invested to prop-up and push the economy out of recession. In this sense, I think he is doing the responsible thing, by making sure that the taxpayers are not being taken advantage of, and will indeed see a return on their investment. In my opinion, this is a welcome break from the first big financial bailout, where hundreds of billions were given to the banks and it was never accounted for. You remember that dont you...when they were giving out huge bonuses and throwing lavish parties? Obama is making sure this sort of thing is not happening, which is a protection of the taxpayers interests, which is what ought to be happening.
We do live in a capitalist society, but it has been shown time and again that without regulation (see the banking collapse and subsequent recession) the system will not work. If you read the article, you noticed that the United States still have room to gain revenue through taxes, when in contrast, most European countries do not have this option because their taxes are already over 10% higher than ours. I am not saying taxes are the answer, I am just pointing out that I think you are misguided in your observation about companies are movie for the reasons you mentioned.
I do not regret that he is in office. Like 812 mentioned, I think he is the most logical politician I have seen in a long time. Times are rough right now, and I think they will get worse before they get better. I think had McCain won the election we would be in a much worse position than we are now.
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:25:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By TC6969:
Originally Posted By peekay:
Ooooh he used two big words (that mean the same thing) in his last sentence!


He used to big but now he doesn't big anymore?

Doh, i was typing "t", someone said something to me from another cube, i skipped the "w" and typed "o" and finished the sentence.

Link Posted: 6/17/2009 2:27:35 PM EST
my IQ dropped 5 points after reading that
Link Posted: 6/17/2009 3:10:14 PM EST
Originally Posted By tactmaster:
Oh its getting better, this is what his partner in crime had to say when I brought up that a czar is unconstitutional.

The term czar has been used in many administrations, it is not new. Bush had "czars" its just the term they have adopted recently for the head of a department. I do not know about the ABC thing, so I cannot comment on that. Obama has not taken over any corporations. If you are a student of economics you will see the reasoning (as the article points out) for pumping money into the financial and manufacturing industries. The reason he (and the government) is so involved with what is happening in these corporations are for your sake. In that I mean that it is yours as well as my tax dollars that have been invested to prop-up and push the economy out of recession. In this sense, I think he is doing the responsible thing, by making sure that the taxpayers are not being taken advantage of, and will indeed see a return on their investment. In my opinion, this is a welcome break from the first big financial bailout, where hundreds of billions were given to the banks and it was never accounted for. You remember that dont you...when they were giving out huge bonuses and throwing lavish parties? Obama is making sure this sort of thing is not happening, which is a protection of the taxpayers interests, which is what ought to be happening.
We do live in a capitalist society, but it has been shown time and again that without regulation (see the banking collapse and subsequent recession) the system will not work. If you read the article, you noticed that the United States still have room to gain revenue through taxes, when in contrast, most European countries do not have this option because their taxes are already over 10% higher than ours. I am not saying taxes are the answer, I am just pointing out that I think you are misguided in your observation about companies are movie for the reasons you mentioned.
I do not regret that he is in office. Like 812 mentioned, I think he is the most logical politician I have seen in a long time. Times are rough right now, and I think they will get worse before they get better. I think had McCain won the election we would be in a much worse position than we are now.




You can't fix stupid..

Maybe you should blow his brain up, and say Greenspan engineered the housing boom and collapse to cover his ass for the dot-com bubble. I have no idea if that's true, I just think it's hilarious to fuck with libs.
Top Top