• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Reid apologizes for 'no Negro dialect' comment

to me it's not a matter of "shots" as you say. it is in my opinion, living up to the rhetoric that is hurled at those on the right in the first place. If what is good for the goose....and so on. But I think that it shows the true thin skinned nature of liberals that are crying so loudly here Cap......;)


j-mac

Nah, it just demonstrates what I said. Some are more interesting in attacking the other side then either presenting their own or doing what's right. For some, winning is irrelevant. The fight is what counts.
 
How did he violate the constitution about health care? Did Eisenhower violate the constitution when he proposed the US Interstate system?

Just because it doesn't say we can provide socialized health care in the constitution means nothing. What's important is that it is not forbidden by the Constitution.;)

In fact, there are no laws against being a socialist and or communist for that matter.

There's no law against it but that doesn't mean that it's not stupid - even the Russians had the sense to drop it.

Anyway...........

What Obama and the Dems violate is the law of common sense - they have this country in the worst mess it's been in in who knows how long - they doubled the deficit since taking control of the house and senate in 2007, and they doubled the unemployment rate. It's over 10%, and we all know that is fuzzy math.

Bush inherited a 5,769.9 billion dollar debt from Clinton, we had 2 major economic disasters, 9/11 and Katrina, and the deficit was at 8,451.4 billion when the Dems took control of the house and senate - it's now at 14, 456.3 billion. The Dems are still spending like retards and Obama is rubberstamping everything they put in front of him.

The Bureau of Labor Statistcs has the unemployment rate at 17.4% - that is not counting the millions upon millions who are collecting welfare for Democrat votes, and the millions upon millions of illegal aliens the Dems let in for future votes who are now also out of work, and the Dems are going to work it so they become citizens so they can be on welfare and free (taxpayer) health care so they will vote for the democrats who gave it to them.

The ones who caused it still have their jobs and perks, but not for long - come 2010 - Democrats in the house and senate - TIMBER - come 2012 - Obama - TIMBER.
 
Last edited:
How did he violate the constitution about health care? Did Eisenhower violate the constitution when he proposed the US Interstate system?
We can continue when you show where constitutionally he can mandate healthcare against the will of the majority. As far as Eisenhower he was within confines of the constitution to build roads.
Just because it doesn't say we can provide socialized health care in the constitution means nothing. What's important is that it is not forbidden by the Constitution.;)
The president can not force any citizen to accept a mandate under penalty of law, unless it within the realm of the constitution. There is a process for this, it called a amendment and there is a process to go about this, which this administration has failed to do. Not to mention he has violated the tenth amendment.

In fact, there are no laws against being a socialist and or communist for that matter
Your right there isn't but, it is unconstitutional to put upon a citizen socialist or communistic laws through a perceived mandate against there will.
 
We can continue when you show where constitutionally he can mandate healthcare against the will of the majority. As far as Eisenhower he was within confines of the constitution to build roads.
The president can not force any citizen to accept a mandate under penalty of law, unless it within the realm of the constitution. There is a process for this, it called a amendment and there is a process to go about this, which this administration has failed to do. Not to mention he has violated the tenth amendment.

Your right there isn't but, it is unconstitutional to put upon a citizen socialist or communistic laws through a perceived mandate against there will.

Obama is not mandating anything. In fact his "proposal" needs a two thirds majority in the senate to pass..

Nothing in the constitution allows the president to mandate anything. He may issue executive orders. An example is when George H Bush gave an executive order forbidding assassination. Any sitting president can change an executive order with one of his own.

The tenth amendment has never really been tested in the court. It is still considered an ambiguous amendment because there is so much disagreement about it between states and the federal government.

I believe that Bush's election by the supreme court violated states rights. The Supremes overruled the Florida Courts who had ruled in Gore's favor.;)
 
Obama is not mandating anything. In fact his "proposal" needs a two thirds majority in the senate to pass..

Nothing in the constitution allows the president to mandate anything. He may issue executive orders. An example is when George H Bush gave an executive order forbidding assassination. Any sitting president can change an executive order with one of his own.

The tenth amendment has never really been tested in the court. It is still considered an ambiguous amendment because there is so much disagreement about it between states and the federal government.

I believe that Bush's election by the supreme court violated states rights. The Supremes overruled the Florida Courts who had ruled in Gore's favor.;)
The Enumerated Powers Act.. is a proposed law that would require all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress to include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted. In every Congress since the 104th Congress, U.S. Congressman John Shadegg has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, although it has not been passed into law. At the beginning of the 105th Congress, the House of Representatives incorporated the substantive requirement of the Enumerated Powers Act into the House rules
Now this wasn't done according to house rules...why because it's unconstitutional. Pelosi couldn't even site the article in which this would fall to a CNS news reported when asked.
When lawsuits are presented if or when this bill is passes, this bill will be defeated because of the lack on constitutionality. Now if this bill passes muster with SCOTUS, then you will witness a revolt in one form or another.
 
And I will take this solid advice and not stretch it, I'm not calling for Reid to step down or apologize, it was a poor choice of words we all make them.

I will remain justified.

And you will remain consistent when the next Republican has the race card played on him, you'll likewise be asking people not to stretch it. Right?:cool:

Thank you. I'll make sure not to strecth anything anyone says.
 
The HP is a liberal rag.................

So what? That does not make it untrue. What would you prefer? A cartoon of on a bubble gum wrapper because it would be easier to understand?:roll:

Can you come up with something better than a red herring?:doh
 
Last edited:
So what?


It simply means, it's not a credible source of information. Well, I guess to those who continually drink the partisan kool-aid for liberals, but that's about it. That's so what.

BTW - you know you're in trouble in a debate, when you have to say "So what?"
 
So what?


It simply means, it's not a credible source of information. Well, I guess to those who continually drink the partisan kool-aid for liberals, but that's about it. That's so what.

BTW - you know you're in trouble in a debate, when you have to say "So what?"

Can't you come up with something better than an ad hominem attack?

Show me an example of why it is not credible, besides "Because I said so".
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am saying exactly that. I think that lobbying is nothing but legalized bribery.

I am not Borg.
Well legalize bribery your correct but we the people are silent, therefor it will continue. In short let me tell you this, I am all for revamp amping health care but, we don't need to destroy the whole system for this along with sinking our economy and taking away our freedom to choose. There are those who can't get healthcare no matter what, about 12 million,, This we can fix, give them free healthcare with the same quality as a cadillac plan, this would cost far less than 12 Trillion dollars after all said and done. Allow insurance companies to cross state lines and reform tort law.
Btw we are so far off topic i suspect we will be chastised very soon for being so.
 
So what? That does not make it untrue. What would you prefer? A cartoon of on a bubble gum wrapper because it would be easier to understand?:roll:

Can you come up with something better than a red herring?:doh

The HP has publishd more lies then moveon.org.........
 
Well legalize bribery your correct but we the people are silent, therefor it will continue. In short let me tell you this, I am all for revamp amping health care but, we don't need to destroy the whole system for this along with sinking our economy and taking away our freedom to choose. There are those who can't get healthcare no matter what, about 12 million,, This we can fix, give them free healthcare with the same quality as a cadillac plan, this would cost far less than 12 Trillion dollars after all said and done. Allow insurance companies to cross state lines and reform tort law.
Btw we are so far off topic i suspect we will be chastised very soon for being so.

Yeah I guess we did go off on a tangent there.:mrgreen:
 
leave reid where he is, cooking up catastrophes in his closet like a secret necromancer, emerging once a week or so to imperially allow another of those HUGE exemptions, like nebraska, like govt employees "covered by collective bargaining"

he's the perfect poster for the party, the perfect personification of the president's plans

and he's expired in nevada, as everyone knows

party on, harry
 
It wasn't you. The same thing happened to me.

Who's on first?

What's up with the confusion?

Anyway - a mandate is a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the eloctrate to its representatives.

Obama thinks he is speaking for the electorate, so he has authorized his representatives, Reid and Pelosi, to bribe the other Democrats to vote for the health care bill. If that doesn't tell you how bad it is nothing will.

Geez, he's even taken this corrupt crap outside of congress - now they have given a bribe to the unions so they will endorse it. Everybody else who buys their type of insurance will have to pay the taxes for it but not the unions.

Never in the history of this country has anyone been so corrupt and arrogant with the taxpayer's money - never in the history of this nation has there been such disregard for the feelings of the majority of the citizens - these arrogant asswipes don't care what they have to do or how anyone feels about their shoving crap down the people's throats.

Come November it's TIMBER time for the dems in the house and senate.

And come 2012 it's Timber time for Obama.
 
Last edited:
What's up with the confusion?

Anyway - a mandate is a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the eloctrate to its representatives.

Obama thinks he is speaking for the electorate, so he has authorized his representatives, Reid and Pelosi, to bribe the other Democrats to vote for the health care bill. If that doesn't tell you how bad it is nothing will.

Geez, he's even taken this corrupt crap outside of congress - now they have given a bribe to the unions so they will endorse it. Everybody else who buys their type of insurance will have to pay the taxes for it but not the unions.

Never in the history of this country has anyone been so corrupt and arrogant with the taxpayer's money - never in the history of this nation has there been such disregard for the feelings of the majority of the citizens - these arrogant asswipes don't care what they have to do or how anyone feels about their shoving crap down the people's throats.

Come November it's TIMBER time for the dems in the house and senate.

And come 2012 it's Timber time for Obama.

Are you sure you're a moderate? You seem to be acting like a partisan kind of person here...

But anyway, are you done with your rant?
 
leave reid where he is, cooking up catastrophes in his closet like a secret necromancer, emerging once a week or so to imperially allow another of those HUGE exemptions, like nebraska, like govt employees "covered by collective bargaining"

he's the perfect poster for the party, the perfect personification of the president's plans

and he's expired in nevada, as everyone knows

party on, harry
Let's dump this whole liberal plan, then we can all be exempt.
 
massachusetts, friend
 
Back
Top Bottom