Appotus Dominus

[IowaGnome]

You do realize that all of those things need people to build them and work on upkeep? That creates jobs.
_________________

[dnief]

[Mandaar]

Nothing here.

[Teklan]

I think some of the issue is thinking Obama controls 100% of government, which, in reality, he controls a mere 33%. Balance of power was made on purpose. Obama didn't write this bill himself - he influenced it, told the senate and house to write it up and contribute, but with a bill SO LARGE it makes it hard to veto it and get his desired changes. The fact of the matter is, like you and I disagree, there will be people in the senate and house that do not want 100% of what Obama wants, and will lobby for "pork" or really dumb things that Righteous listed, such as tax credits omg! In all seriousness though, I don't think any president would make you happy if he were faced with the same bill.

The only alternative solution is to let more people lose their jobs, have the government turn their backs on them, and let the global economy fall even further due to the US falling further. (And how do you think that would work for foreign diplomacy, especially against "terrorist" countries?).




I do have to add a question though, as I don't hear the words said during these things but read about them afterwards. Was this bill supposed to be stimulus only? Or is it *supposed* to be a combination of stimulus + public works and other things?

[Righteous]

[Xorne]

You guys miss the point of the "bailouts". It has nothing to do with spending money here or there and how much. That is just an excuse they use to sucker you into beliving that's what they are doing but in reality the only purpose of the bailouts is to give more powers to the bankers. They bury the important stuff in the stack of pages knowing congress or the senate won't have time to read it throughly and find the little nugget inside. For example in the first bailouts they gave the federal reserve (private company) total power over the money supply and immunity regarding audit or any form of questioning. (They don't have to tell you what they are doing with those trillions)

[dnief]

[Teklan]

[Mandaar]

It's fucking scary stuff

[Drauger]

Yes this is scary stuff and we might not ever really find out were most of the money will end up.

[dnief]

Glenn Beck actually covered the states movement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdjLXfsDyFw

[IoneMonk]

The so-called “state’s rights” or state sovereignty movement traces its lineage back to the Articles of Confederation, and presents a fundamental paradox of federalism which, obviously enough, was discussed at length in the Federalist Papers, as well as a long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases discussing the Tenth Amended (most recently, the “unfunded federal mandate” cases). In the end, in order for any federate of political subdivisions to remain so, some form of the Supremacy Clause is absolutely necessary. SCOTUS cases discussing the Tenth Amended rarely, if ever, have had to tread this territory, since the presumption is so fundamental.

With this in mind, I cannot speak to all of the proposed “state sovereignty” legislation to which Dnief refers. Beyond the point that it is unnecessary to reclaim rights which either exist or do not, the legislation which I’m familiar with is addressed to specific hot button issues such as gun rights or abortion. For example, the Missouri proposed bill, HB 424 (previously 412), although making a broad declaration of sovereignty, was aimed squarely at (and was written for the sole purpose of) protesting any version of a possible federal “Freedom of Choice” act, i.e., the bill was intended to “preserve” Missouri’s ability to restrict abortion rights. That bill is not scheduled for hearing and appears DOA.


http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/bills091/bills/hr212.htm

Likewise, similar legislation in other states seems preoccupied with preserving Second Amendment rights—something that even the NRA should rest easier about in the wake of
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) (actually, the first SCOTUS case since the early 20th century to address the Second Amendment, and the first to find the Amendment extends to an individual’s rights to bear arms). At least for the foregoing states, I see no broader ideological agenda and, certainly, no practical one.
_________________

[xereau]

Lol @ the left vs right bickering. This is the mental prison that you are supposed to be stuck in. Arguing with each other while the bankers loot the country. Both parties are essentially the same. There is no left or right. It is a controlled paradigm.

[dunnodoncare]

In the future, once you see the post starts with a link to WorldNetDaily you can pretty much toss it in the trash. Do a little research on that website and the man who runs it. He is the same guy who had his employees alter his wikipedia page and lied about it on Fox. The man is completely unreliable.

Paranoid nutjobs make horrible sources, don't they Dnief?

Medding.

[dnief]

The problem with quoting places like CNN is that they slant it in the favor of the administration.

Take this article for example:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/06/states.fed/index.html

What the article fails to mention is that the sovereignty movement is bipartisan. Mainstream media tries to slant slant things left or right. Left vs. right is for simple minds that can't see beyond it. In addition, the article completely leaves out several reasons that the states are moving for sovereignty. Gun Control, martial law, and the North American Union are all things addressed in several of the sovereignty bills that have been drafted.

[dunnodoncare]

My point was about the insane paranoia of your sources, Dnief. That is the same point I made countless times when you talked about your many paranoid delusions.

WorldNetDaily is the site that says things like "President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks."

I tend to find crazy paranoid racists poor sources. Don't you?

Medding.

[dnief]

I find attacking the source immature. Were talking about serious things here. If you can't get your head around them then I can't help you. I may not change the world but I sure as hell can wake up the person who does.

[dunnodoncare]

You find attacking paranoid racist douchebags for being paranoid racist douchebags immature? Now you are just lying. I understand that you want a way to respond to what I have said, but this is an utterly ridiculous way to do it. In fact I will go so far as to say that you are being a fucking dipshit. I suggest you stop being a dipshit. Life is better that way.

Do you read that website regularly? Their paranoia and racism is readily apparent to me and I only see that site when it comes up on Stumbleupon. I notice you don't deny they are racist. That is interesting, isn't it? Would you like to take a stand against their racism? It wouldn't cost you a thing to simply say that WorldNetDaily says racist things, would it?

You don't wake anyone up at all Dnief. You just blather about how 9/11 was an inside job, no matter how easily I refuted the crap that you brought to the table. Was it you that believed in the face on Mars?


You are a paranoid nutjob who relies on paranoid nutjob sources, Dnief. I am very glad to not be associated with people like you anymore.


Medding.

[Xorne]

[Stryffe]

Perhaps I missed something but how is what you quoted immoral or racist?