Some are still in the dark on Obama

Let's recap.

Righties claim "Obama" caused massive unemployment, but can't/won't explain how; and they want Mittzie the multimillionaire to be president, even though as Mass governor his state scored 47th in job creation.....
 
Let's recap.

Righties claim "Obama" caused massive unemployment, but can't/won't explain how; and they want Mittzie the multimillionaire to be president, even though as Mass governor his state scored 47th in job creation.....

Don't forget, Dixie wants to replace Obama with Mitt, because Mitt's healthcare bill sucks.
 
Boy, I tell ya.... It gives my heart great joy to know I have so totally PWNED the left. Let's take a look at what is now being passed off as "debate" from the left.... these are the latest flurry of responses to my last post:

Apple: Republicans are BAAAAaaaad!
\\||//: Gayhaters!
Chicklet: Bush had 8 years to fuck it up!
\\||//: [meant to bash McCain but mistakenly said Cain]
Runed: bashed McCain properly for \\||//.
Chicklet: Bush is bad, Republicans are BAAaaad.
Apple: smart ass retort
\\||//: "recap" from pinhead: Republicans are BAAAaad!
Rune: Dixie likes Mitt who sucks.
Rana: liberal chuckles
poet: smarmy crack remark.

Notice what's missing? Any substantive response to the OP or any of my points. 5 Liberals and NOTHING!
They can't defend their policies.
They can't defend their record.
They can't defend Obama.
So they attack Republicans.
 
Dixie didn't seem to mind when Dubya was spending 1.5 trillion over budget between the wars and tarp and whatnot. The difference is merely that Obama is honest about the abhorrent spending thats going on, and Bush was not. So that makes enough sense for ol' Dix. Its not about who does what or who will do what for idealogues like Dix, who base their opinion solely on the party affiliation of the guy running. Its about APPEARING conservative, and selling lies. Shit, Bush and his Republican congress were the biggest spenders of all time when in power, and I called Dix out on it every step of the way, and the only thing he could do was call me a "pinhead" (Ouch). Now he's surprised that the Democrats get in there and fuck it up even worse? And he's calling the independents stupid? Typical of "conservatives" who only care when fiscal policy is fucked up by the other party.

Truth is, there's not really a dimes worth of difference between them. A vote for one is a vote for the other.

See you in a year.

Beefy, you need to post more. Damn you and your awesome life.
 
Dixie, what exactly are you looking for? You're claiming that Obama will somehow declare a dictatorship. You're clearly off your fucking rocker. Why do you feel the need to exaggerate all this Obama fear. Isn't the truth bad enough? And if not, don't you think that needing to resort of paranoia and lies makes your position the wrong one?
 
Dixie, what exactly are you looking for? You're claiming that Obama will somehow declare a dictatorship. You're clearly off your fucking rocker. Why do you feel the need to exaggerate all this Obama fear. Isn't the truth bad enough? And if not, don't you think that needing to resort of paranoia and lies makes your position the wrong one?

That's sort of the whole point of this thread. Some people (like you) are still "in the dark" when it comes to Obama. For whatever reason, you see him as just a regular run of the mill politician, who will serve his 4 or 8 years, and life goes on as usual... but the fact of the matter is, this man has changed so much about our government in just 3 short years, and has grand plans to change much more, if he is re-elected. Some of the executive precedents he has set as president, are chilling. They should literally shock ANY person who believes in individual liberty, which I assume you do because of your current moniker, Thomas.
 
That's sort of the whole point of this thread. Some people (like you) are still "in the dark" when it comes to Obama. For whatever reason, you see him as just a regular run of the mill politician, who will serve his 4 or 8 years, and life goes on as usual... but the fact of the matter is, this man has changed so much about our government in just 3 short years, and has grand plans to change much more, if he is re-elected. Some of the executive precedents he has set as president, are chilling. They should literally shock ANY person who believes in individual liberty, which I assume you do because of your current moniker, Thomas.

Maybe Billy & his posse should change their names to those of leading Confederates, to make Dix happy.
 
Boy, I tell ya.... It gives my heart great joy to know I have so totally PWNED the left. Let's take a look at what is now being passed off as "debate" from the left.... these are the latest flurry of responses to my last post:

Apple: Republicans are BAAAAaaaad!
\\||//: Gayhaters!
Chicklet: Bush had 8 years to fuck it up!
\\||//: [meant to bash McCain but mistakenly said Cain]
Runed: bashed McCain properly for \\||//.
Chicklet: Bush is bad, Republicans are BAAaaad.
Apple: smart ass retort
\\||//: "recap" from pinhead: Republicans are BAAAaad!
Rune: Dixie likes Mitt who sucks.
Rana: liberal chuckles
poet: smarmy crack remark.

Notice what's missing? Any substantive response to the OP or any of my points. 5 Liberals and NOTHING!
They can't defend their policies.
They can't defend their record.
They can't defend Obama.
So they attack Republicans.

What smart ass retort? You wrote in the OP, "After all, how stupid do you have to be to not see what Obama is doing and where he is taking the country?"

Yes, intelligemnt people do see where he is trying to take the country. He's trying to take the country to where the Founding Fathers intended the country to go.

How many times do I have to remind you about the Preamble?

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

That seems clear to me. The Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. The Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. The courts decided that is what the Preamble is. So, let's take a look at what the Founding Fathers intentions were and what did they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The very beginning tells us they hoped to form a more perfect union and believed it was necessary to establish justice and to be able to defend the citizens. Furthermore, the objective was to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. In other words the Federal Government wasn't a passive government simply establishing justice and defence. They had a job to promote certain things.

The definition of promote is to help or encourage to exist or flourish; to aid in organizing.

Medical care. Is the citizens receiving of medical care good or bad for the country? Is it better to have healthy citizens or dying citizens?

Financial aid. Is it better to help the unemployed or let them suffer?

The Preamble is clear. The purpose of the Constitution is clear. It was to form a country putting the citizen's interest first. If it is possible to help the ill is it better to offer the help or refuse to do so? If the resources are available to help the needy, and they are, is it beneficial to offer it or let the people suffer? Does promoting the general welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty mean we should let the ill die and the poor go hungry? Do you believe allowing the ill to die and the poor to go hungry is working towards a more perfect union?

Helping people obtain the blessings of liberty. Looking out for the welfare of the citizens which make up the country. Not only is that what the Preamble tells us was the Founding Father's objective but it's also a guide to how the Constitution is to be interpreted. Helping the needy results in a more perfect union.

As I mentioned before the articles of the Constitution are not unrelated rules. The purpose of each and every one is to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. That's the purpose of the Constitution and that's exactly what Obama is doing and where he is taking the country.

As I and others have noted just take a look at the typical Republican behavior. From giving a standing ovation to a twice verified two-timer accused of wanting an open marriage to booing a gay soldier and applauding death do you really believe that's the type of people the Founding Fathers wanted running the country?

You haven't pwned anyone. All you've succeeded in doing and continue to do is make a fool of yourself. You support a political party that wasted huge amonts of money on unnecessary wars, not to mention the death and destruction, and then object to a leader trying to ensure everyone has medical coverage.

Pwned the left? All you've done is exemplify the typical Republican and it's not a pretty sight.
 
What smart ass retort? You wrote in the OP, "After all, how stupid do you have to be to not see what Obama is doing and where he is taking the country?"

Yes, smart ass retort... go read what you wrote! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the thread topic, and is nothing more than you lashing out at the right, per usual.

Yes, intelligemnt people do see where he is trying to take the country. He's trying to take the country to where the Founding Fathers intended the country to go.

This is the biggest load of shit ever spewed on a message board. NO HE ISN'T! And for the record, the Founding Fathers NEVER intended for the president to be able to "take the country" any goddamn where! WE THE PEOPLE have that responsibility, NOT the president!

How many times do I have to remind you about the Preamble?

You can remind me as many times as you want, but don't you think it would help if you understood it first yourself?

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

That seems clear to me. The Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. The Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. The courts decided that is what the Preamble is. So, let's take a look at what the Founding Fathers intentions were and what did they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The very beginning tells us they hoped to form a more perfect union and believed it was necessary to establish justice and to be able to defend the citizens. Furthermore, the objective was to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. In other words the Federal Government wasn't a passive government simply establishing justice and defence. They had a job to promote certain things.

The definition of promote is to help or encourage to exist or flourish; to aid in organizing.

Medical care. Is the citizens receiving of medical care good or bad for the country? Is it better to have healthy citizens or dying citizens?

Financial aid. Is it better to help the unemployed or let them suffer?

The Preamble is clear. The purpose of the Constitution is clear. It was to form a country putting the citizen's interest first. If it is possible to help the ill is it better to offer the help or refuse to do so? If the resources are available to help the needy, and they are, is it beneficial to offer it or let the people suffer? Does promoting the general welfare and securing the Blessings of Liberty mean we should let the ill die and the poor go hungry? Do you believe allowing the ill to die and the poor to go hungry is working towards a more perfect union?

Helping people obtain the blessings of liberty. Looking out for the welfare of the citizens which make up the country. Not only is that what the Preamble tells us was the Founding Father's objective but it's also a guide to how the Constitution is to be interpreted. Helping the needy results in a more perfect union.

As I mentioned before the articles of the Constitution are not unrelated rules. The purpose of each and every one is to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. That's the purpose of the Constitution and that's exactly what Obama is doing and where he is taking the country.

You are completely perverting the meanings of terms used in the Constitution, and applying what you believe should be true. In the Federalist Papers, the argument you are presenting was made, by Alexander (I think), and it was countered by Madison. It's important that we look at the arguments made in the Federalist Papers, to discern what the Founding Fathers actually intended. You see, the Constitution had to be ratified, and the people didn't have the convenience of MSNBC to tell them what the Federalist Papers said, they had to read them on their own. One of the earliest concerns, oddly enough, was that we were giving Federal government too much power and control over our lives. Their point being, Hamilton's interpretations of "general welfare" which seems to mirror your interpretation. Madison reassured them, "general welfare" did not mean virtually anything that could be construed by government as being for our own good. It wasn't an open-ended invitation for government to continue to usurp more and more of our freedom and rights, in the name of "general welfare!"

As Madison explained, it would be insane to presume the government could provide for everyone's welfare in general or whatever Congress deems as "general welfare." So that's NOT what the statement means, and it CAN'T mean that, because that would be impossible and insane. He goes on to explain that "general welfare" like any other open-ended "general" statement, has specific meaning and intent, not subject to interpretative mangling, like you are trying to do. It is actually a statement of LIMITATION on government, not authorization of more power. If you purchased an insurance policy for your car which covered "general maintenance" would it mean that replacing the transmission is covered? Of course not, and we wouldn't 'interpret' it to mean that in most cases, but because our country is full of nit-wits like you, the policy covers every possible specific of coverage in detail, so there is no misinterpretation. The same was done with regard to the general welfare clause, except the specific details were not included in the constitution, rather in the Federalist Papers, which are the outline for what the constitution means. In essence, you are standing on the counter at the auto repair shop, waving around your "general maintenance" warranty, claiming it covers your transmission!

As I and others have noted just take a look at the typical Republican behavior. From giving a standing ovation to a twice verified two-timer accused of wanting an open marriage to booing a gay soldier and applauding death do you really believe that's the type of people the Founding Fathers wanted running the country?

As opposed to Marxist-Socialists... SURE!

You haven't pwned anyone. All you've succeeded in doing and continue to do is make a fool of yourself. You support a political party that wasted huge amonts of money on unnecessary wars, not to mention the death and destruction, and then object to a leader trying to ensure everyone has medical coverage.

Pwned the left? All you've done is exemplify the typical Republican and it's not a pretty sight.

PWNED.... totally and completely PWNED! That's what you are! Deal with it!
 
Excellent post apple. You have re-earned your laurels.

What? Did he somehow lose his pinhead laurels? I can't imagine that... maybe he just forgot where he left them? But heck, that's okay, he just needs to file for a new laurel with the government, it's their duty to provide for his general welfare, which includes replacing his misplaced laurels, I am sure. No, really.... I think that must be what "general welfare" means and is there for.... so government can replace pinhead laurels whenever they get lost or misplaced.

Laurels? LMAOoo... yeah, you all ARE a bunch of Little Caesars! Apropos!
 
Seems our Dixie dunce just wants attention.....typical of the frustrated neocon/teabagger who just can't accept that his lot in life has been stymied by people JUST LIKE HIM. I seriously would like Dixie to explain to us all just how the Obama administration has done all these alleged horrors to the country when willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest blowhards like Dixie:

1) Can purhase a firearm so long as he has no criminal record, is a resident of his state and adhere's to State laws.

2) Can purchase any type of health insurance plan he wants.

3) Can walk into any supermarket in America with reasonable assurance that the FDA approves the quality of the produce, meats, etc.

4) Can decide where and how to save and/or invest his money.

5) Can turn on his tap water with reasonable assurance that it won't kill him.

6) Has the right to petition his gov't.

7) Has a RIGHT to a fair trial, and is innocent until proven guilty by a court of his peers.

8) Has a social service net that can assist him in times of unemployment or retirement.

To date, folk like Dixie cannot logically or factually explain just how Obama has taken any or the forementioned away. And then, there's this http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...till-in-the-dark-on-Obama&p=986863#post986863

Dixie and his like minded cohorts REALLY need to just deal with the facts, and NOT treat their personal beliefs as such.
 
Seems our Dixie dunce just wants attention.....typical of the frustrated neocon/teabagger who just can't accept that his lot in life has been stymied by people JUST LIKE HIM. I seriously would like Dixie to explain to us all just how the Obama administration has done all these alleged horrors to the country when willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest blowhards like Dixie:

1) Can purhase a firearm so long as he has no criminal record, is a resident of his state and adhere's to State laws.

2) Can purchase any type of health insurance plan he wants.

3) Can walk into any supermarket in America with reasonable assurance that the FDA approves the quality of the produce, meats, etc.

4) Can decide where and how to save and/or invest his money.

5) Can turn on his tap water with reasonable assurance that it won't kill him.

6) Has the right to petition his gov't.

7) Has a RIGHT to a fair trial, and is innocent until proven guilty by a court of his peers.

8) Has a social service net that can assist him in times of unemployment or retirement.

To date, folk like Dixie cannot logically or factually explain just how Obama has taken any or the forementioned away. And then, there's this http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...till-in-the-dark-on-Obama&p=986863#post986863

Dixie and his like minded cohorts REALLY need to just deal with the facts, and NOT treat their personal beliefs as such.

Maybe Dixie longs for a return to the glory days of Southern Conservatism...pre-Emancipation?
 
Explain to us all just how the Obama administration has done all these alleged horrors to the country when willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest blowhards like Dixie:

1) Can purhase a firearm so long as he has no criminal record, is a resident of his state and adhere's to State laws.
[Liberals and Obama would strike this down in a heartbeat, if they could.]

2) Can purchase any type of health insurance plan he wants.
[For the time being you can, if you can afford it.]

3) Can walk into any supermarket in America with reasonable assurance that the FDA approves the quality of the produce, meats, etc.
[And pay twice as much for the products for something most morons can determine on their own.]

4) Can decide where and how to save and/or invest his money.
[As long as you are okay with giving the government half your earnings.]

5) Can turn on his tap water with reasonable assurance that it won't kill him.
[Reasonable but not absolute assurance, because while the fed can set standards, they can't ensure they will always be met. --best to boil your tap water before consuming.]

6) Has the right to petition his gov't.
[For now... again, liberals would end this if they could.]

7) Has a RIGHT to a fair trial, and is innocent until proven guilty by a court of his peers.
[Unless you happen to accidentally shoot a minority.]

8) Has a social service net that can assist him in times of unemployment or retirement.
[Which will cost my kids and grandkids $100 trillion.]

To date, folk like Dixie cannot logically or factually explain just how Obama has taken any or the forementioned away.


So pinhead's argument is, since Obama hasn't turned us into a complete Communist dictatorship, he must be okay, and I must be full of it.
 
That's sort of the whole point of this thread. Some people (like you) are still "in the dark" when it comes to Obama. For whatever reason, you see him as just a regular run of the mill politician, who will serve his 4 or 8 years, and life goes on as usual... but the fact of the matter is, this man has changed so much about our government in just 3 short years, and has grand plans to change much more, if he is re-elected. Some of the executive precedents he has set as president, are chilling. They should literally shock ANY person who believes in individual liberty, which I assume you do because of your current moniker, Thomas.
And your "solution" to this is Romney? Please Dixie, if you honestly believe all this, voting for Romney will assuredly NOT fix these problems. You paraded up and down the street in support when Bush was paving the way for Obama. What makes you think Romney will abdicate any sort of power precedent?
 
Yes, smart ass retort... go read what you wrote! It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the thread topic, and is nothing more than you lashing out at the right, per usual.

Considering you don't mention any specifics a reply isn't warranted.

This is the biggest load of shit ever spewed on a message board. NO HE ISN'T! And for the record, the Founding Fathers NEVER intended for the president to be able to "take the country" any goddamn where! WE THE PEOPLE have that responsibility, NOT the president!

The President is elected to do a job. When you take a taxi do you drive or does the cab owner/driver drive? Obama is driving and he's driving to where the majority of the population wants to go which isn't in the ditch where the Repubs took the folks.

You can remind me as many times as you want, but don't you think it would help if you understood it first yourself?

It is you who lacks understanding.

You are completely perverting the meanings of terms used in the Constitution, and applying what you believe should be true. In the Federalist Papers, the argument you are presenting was made, by Alexander (I think), and it was countered by Madison. It's important that we look at the arguments made in the Federalist Papers, to discern what the Founding Fathers actually intended. You see, the Constitution had to be ratified, and the people didn't have the convenience of MSNBC to tell them what the Federalist Papers said, they had to read them on their own. One of the earliest concerns, oddly enough, was that we were giving Federal government too much power and control over our lives. Their point being, Hamilton's interpretations of "general welfare" which seems to mirror your interpretation. Madison reassured them, "general welfare" did not mean virtually anything that could be construed by government as being for our own good. It wasn't an open-ended invitation for government to continue to usurp more and more of our freedom and rights, in the name of "general welfare!"

As Madison explained, it would be insane to presume the government could provide for everyone's welfare in general or whatever Congress deems as "general welfare." So that's NOT what the statement means, and it CAN'T mean that, because that would be impossible and insane. He goes on to explain that "general welfare" like any other open-ended "general" statement, has specific meaning and intent, not subject to interpretative mangling, like you are trying to do. It is actually a statement of LIMITATION on government, not authorization of more power. If you purchased an insurance policy for your car which covered "general maintenance" would it mean that replacing the transmission is covered? Of course not, and we wouldn't 'interpret' it to mean that in most cases, but because our country is full of nit-wits like you, the policy covers every possible specific of coverage in detail, so there is no misinterpretation. The same was done with regard to the general welfare clause, except the specific details were not included in the constitution, rather in the Federalist Papers, which are the outline for what the constitution means. In essence, you are standing on the counter at the auto repair shop, waving around your "general maintenance" warranty, claiming it covers your transmission!

Dixie, you're one strange dude. Preventing the unnecessary deaths of citizens is not "virtually anything". What is the point of the government providing defence and promoting the blessings of liberty if it does nothing while thousands of citizens die every year from illnesses that can be prevented/controlled? Are you arguing the government's obligations to the citizens are to form the perfect union, provide for defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty but do nothing when 45,000 of those citizens are dying, every year, from a preventable cause? Why would the government help the citizens secure the blessings of liberty but let them die needlessly? What is your definition of "general welfare"? Obviously it's not life so I'd like to know what you think it is.

As opposed to Marxist-Socialists... SURE!

Somewhere along the way someone offered you a twisted idea of Marxist-Socialists.

PWNED.... totally and completely PWNED! That's what you are! Deal with it!

Do try to answer my above questions. Together, we may be able to discover the cause of your irrational paranoia regarding Obama and normal, social policies. When you write things like, "And for the record, the Founding Fathers NEVER intended for the president to be able to "take the country" any goddamn where! WE THE PEOPLE have that responsibility, NOT the president!" it's displaying a delusional fear.

Maybe during your formative years someone did a number on you. We're here to help you, Dix. :)
 
Back
Top