Obama and Hillary haven't seen TOUGH questions yet

[Little-Acorn]

The two Dem candidates keep whining that the other (or the media) isn't being very nice to them, asking all those difficult questions about their associates, their experience, etc.

They seem to have forgotten that practically the only people asking them questions, have been fellow liberals. None has ever asked fundamental questions about their agendas.

Instead of whining, they should enjoy the hiatus while it lasts. Because pretty soon, it won't any longer.

While it has been only liberals asking "tough" questions of liberals, nobody has even started to ask the Dem candidates questions about the biggest single issue. It's the 500-lb gorilla in the room that both candidates and their media cohorts would rather avoid dealing with, and so act as though it wasn't there:

"Senator, you have proposed a high degree of Federal involvement in our nation's health care system, with the government essentially being the one who takes payment, doles out compensation, controls what conditions will be treated and who will treat them, etc. You outline what seem to be good reasons for much of this. But isn't it true that since such Federal participation in a health care scheme is not authorized by the Constitution, your entire agenda in this regard is unconstitutional and illegal on its face?"

The question can be asked about a number of subjects - just replace the words "health care" with "mortgage protection" or "retirement insurance" or other such Democrat boondoggle, proposed or established.

The Dem candidates are screaming over how rough and "unfair" it is that they have been questioned about their association with bigots, terrorists, and foreign influence buyers; false accounts of sniper fire, and other such weighty issues.

They haven't seen weighty issues yet. But they're coming.

 

[Onceler]

Obama hasn't really "whined" about "unfair" questions. He just thinks questions about lapel pins are trivial BS.

And he's right.

 

[Damocles]

Obama hasn't really "whined" about "unfair" questions. He just thinks questions about lapel pins are trivial BS.

And he's right.

Here is where I am supposed to step in and give the standard response...

"Why do you hate America?"

And since you have repeatedly declared your lack of humor.... This is a joke, based on an admin we all know....

 

[uscitizen]

Yep the really tough questions are coming. About the girl he dated in HS now being a madam

 

[uscitizen]

Isn't Obamas Mother White ?

Was she a member of the KKK ladies auxiliary ?

 

[ib1yysguy]

The constitution isn't there to AUTHORIZE shit, dumbfuck.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The constitution isn't there to AUTHORIZE shit,

That's exactly what it's there for. It created the Federal government it described, and gave it its powers. Any power it didn't give the Fed, the Fed didn't have.

Basic Constitutional history, known to all but profanity-laced namecalling liberal losers.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The two Dem candidates keep whining that the other (or the media) isn't being very nice to them, asking all those difficult questions about their associates, their experience, etc.

They seem to have forgotten that practically the only people asking them questions, have been fellow liberals. None has ever asked fundamental questions about their agendas.

Instead of whining, they should enjoy the hiatus while it lasts. Because pretty soon, it won't any longer.

While it has been only liberals asking "tough" questions of liberals, nobody has even started to ask the Dem candidates questions about the biggest single issue. It's the 500-lb gorilla in the room that both candidates and their media cohorts would rather avoid dealing with, and so act as though it wasn't there:

"Senator, you have proposed a high degree of Federal involvement in our nation's health care system, with the government essentially being the one who takes payment, doles out compensation, controls what conditions will be treated and who will treat them, etc. You outline what seem to be good reasons for much of this. But isn't it true that since such Federal participation in a health care scheme is not authorized by the Constitution, your entire agenda in this regard is unconstitutional and illegal on its face?"

The question can be asked about a number of subjects - just replace the words "health care" with "mortgage protection" or "retirement insurance" or other such Democrat boondoggle, proposed or established.

The Dem candidates are screaming over how rough and "unfair" it is that they have been questioned about their association with bigots, terrorists, and foreign influence buyers; false accounts of sniper fire, and other such weighty issues.

They haven't seen weighty issues yet. But they're coming.

A window into the mind of Scalia. Scary, is it not?

The constitution does not authorize defense research. All defense research programs are illegal and we must take up arms to tear them down.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That's exactly what it's there for. It created the Federal government it described, and gave it its powers. Any power it didn't give the Fed, the Fed didn't have.

Basic Constitutional history, known to all but profanity-laced namecalling liberal losers.

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



Sections bolded for emphasis.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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



Sections bolded for emphasis.

And correctly so.

Congress can use tax money to support programs that benefit the United States uniformly across all states or groups... as opposed to programs that benefit only isolated groups, states, etc. That's what the term "general welfare" meant back then.

In fact, the "General Welfare" clause isn't a permission for govt to do anythng and everything it thinks will help someone... which would mean basically anything it wants. If it were, you could throw out half the Constitution, since it would be redundant - the parts that actually name specific powers the Fed govt can exercise. But in fact, the "Welfare Clause" is a restriction on government power: Anything the Fed does, has to benefit everybody equally, or else it can't do it.

Notice also the 10th amendment, which nailed the lid on the coffin of big-government extreme leftist persons such as ib1. It declared that any power of government not explicitly listed in the Constitution, was forbidden to the Federal government, though states and lower governments could still have it if they wanted.

Needless to say, these two sections are the most-violated parts of the Constitution by our southpaw friends... in both parties.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Notice also the 10th amendment, which nailed the lid on the coffin of big-government extreme leftist persons such as ib1. It declared that any power of government not explicitly listed in the Constitution, was forbidden to the Federal government, though states and lower governments could still have it if they wanted.

Needless to say, these two sections are the most-violated parts of the Constitution by our southpaw friends... in both parties.

The 9th and 10th amendments are the "bookend amendments". The 10th deals with the powers of government, and the 9th deals with the rights of the people.

Basically the 10th says that the powers of the Federal govt are limited to those explicitly listed in the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't say it, the Fed govt can't do it.

But the 9th says that the rights of the people are NOT limited to those listed in the Constitution (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, etc.). Even if a right is not listed (the right to own property, for example), the people might still have that right.

Some big-government types have tried to twist the 9th amendment, as they twist every other part of the Constitution to pretend their agenda is legal. Some come up with off-the-wall privileges and try to call them "rights", and then say that the 9th means that people have that "right". Medical care is one example, the "right" to have a job is another. But these so-called "rights" are things that others must work hard to give to you. Unlike the right to freedom of speech - others don't have to do anything for you to exercise that right. They merely have to not take it away from you.

A few rights listed in the Const DO require people to do something for you to exercise the right, such as the right to trial by jury when accused of a crime. But that "right" simply modifies something the government was legally going to do anyway: prosecute you, because you may hav violated someone else's rights.

In general, a "right" is something you had naturally, merely by being human and being here. Every time someone announces a new "right", check to see if it's something people have to work to give you. If it is, that's a red flag. Only a very few such "rights" exist, and most schemes to create new "rights" don't qualify.