• 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!

Obama's Approval Rating Drops to Lowest Ever, According to Gallup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Misterveritis said:
Good point. If liberals were smart they would be conservatives.
Click to expand...

If conservatives were smart they'd vote libertarian. See what I did there?

j-mac said:
I don't think it is necessarily loyalty to Obama, as much as it is a complete buy in to what Progressive/Socialistic ideals offer the youth by an education system that is replete with '60s era rejects that wanted nothing better than to end American exceptionalism, and capitalism as a system. They must be called out now, for their intentional attempt to destroy this country, and exposed for the liars they are.

j-mac
Click to expand...

When was the last time you were in school?

Conservative said:
Total jobs mean **** to those that get them and today Obama keeps reducing the labor force by creating dispair and watching people drop out of the labor force. reduce that force far enough and the percentage change will look great.
Click to expand...

Then the stimulus meant something to people who were hired because of that spending. You really should try to be less of a partisan hack.

Conservative said:
Most people that understand history, personal responsibility, and the true role of Govt. will indeed vote for the lesser of two evils, Perry if he is the nominee
Click to expand...

How is a person who wants to legislate what happens in the bed room the lesser of two evils?

Conservative said:
The problem is you have no idea whether or not those jobs would have been eliminated as the states weren't given the opportunity to solve their own problem. Show me where those jobs are calculated by an unbiased source?
Click to expand...

You are joking right? The states were given nearly 2/3 of the stimulus money to use it as they saw fit.

Conservative said:
Any idea why there is such loyalty to Obama and the liberal ideology in the face of total and complete failure of the stimulus and Obamanomics
Click to expand...

Same reason why there was such loyalty to Bush despite economic and foreign policy failure. Partisan-hackery. The difference between you and some of the other people here is you are blaming Obama for the finical crash and subsequent recession without actually trying to discover the root cause of the failure. Its the equivalent of blaming Bush, who was also a Keynesian just like Paul Ryan
(don't believe me, read his budget proposal its loaded with deficit spending and tax cuts)
 
xpiher said:
If conservatives were smart they'd vote libertarian. See what I did there?
Click to expand...

Why is it smart in a global society to weaken yourself through isolationism, all to advocate the legalization of drugs?

When was the last time you were in school?
Click to expand...

Why is that relevant? I had two kids in the public system, the most recent graduated last year. My daughter is now in collage. I am familiar with those who infest our education system.

j-mac
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That's a strawman. First prove this ...


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;​

... is not one of those enumerated powers.

Then prove spending is limited to only those enumerated powers following that one. And before you start posting Madison, expect posts on Hamilton.
Click to expand...
This is tiring. I rreally must save this and then justcopy/paste when it comes up.

The "common defense/general welfare clause" gives the power to tax so that there is money to spend, and the power to spend that money.
All monies must be appropriated before they can be spent. The "common denese/general welfare clause" gives no power to appropriate money - that power is found in the 16 clauses that follow.

Disagree? Please explain the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, without which Congress could do no such thing.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Note the semi colon use here denoting that the following list of items lays out the prior statement of taxation for the general welfare....In other words the general welfare was listed as those powers written.

j-mac
Click to expand...
If it's semicolons you want, that section's full of 'em. There's a semicolon following each enumerated power, including the one about providing for the general welfare of the nation. So unless it's your misguided contention that each enumerated power is limited to the ones following each one them respectively, you might want to rethink that.
 
j-mac said:
Why is it smart in a global society to weaken yourself through isolationism, all to advocate the legalization of drugs?
Click to expand...

Proving once again you don't know what libertarianism is.



Why is that relevant? I had two kids in the public system, the most recent graduated last year. My daughter is now in collage. I am familiar with those who infest our education system.
Click to expand...

Its relevant because more and more schools are promoting Friedman.
 
xpiher said:
Proving once again you don't know what libertarianism is.
Click to expand...

every time a libertarian uses that excuse it translates into
"you know libertariansim too well"
Click to expand...
. They prefer the old days when they could hold their county convention in a phone booth and some people thought they did not like meat. Today, we know them very very well thanks to their adoption of internet message boards as a main recruiting and proselytizing tool.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
This is tiring. I rreally must save this and then justcopy/paste when it comes up.

The "common defense/general welfare clause" gives the power to tax so that there is money to spend, and the power to spend that money.
All monies must be appropriated before they can be spent. The "common denese/general welfare clause" gives no power to appropriate money - that power is found in the 16 clauses that follow.

Disagree? Please explain the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.
Click to expand...
If that were the case, it wouldn't have listed general welfare. If you were right, the government wouldn't be allowed to pay for an air force, since that is not specifically enumerated, but does fall within the "common defence" clause.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If that were the case, it wouldn't have listed general welfare/
Click to expand...
How is this true, especually given that almost half of the immediately following powers fall under 'general welfare'?

If you were right, the government wouldn't be allowed to pay for an air force...
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that the AF was created under the power to raise armies, and then seperated from the army under the power to organize the military... This just means you can argue that the USAF is unconstitutional, and thus, does nothing to counter anything I said.
:shrug:

-And- you did not explain the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.

Thus, your response receives a solid F+
 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
How is this true, especually given that almost half of the immediately following powers fall under 'general welfare'?


Aside from the fact that the AF was created under the power to raise armies, and then seperated from the army under the power to organize the military... This just means you can argue that the USAF is unconstitutional, and thus, does nothing to counter anything I said.
:shrug:

-And- you did not explain the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.

Thus, your response receives a solid F+
Click to expand...

Given the fact that you're on the wrong side of about 100 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, I think you better give yourself an F-.

When did every conservative become a constitutional scholar, btw? :lol:
 
PzKfW IVe said:
How is this true, especually given that almost half of the immediately following powers fall under 'general welfare'?
Click to expand...
I've already pointed out how it's true by using the air force as an example.

PzKfW IVe said:
Aside from the fact that the AF was created under the power to raise armies, and then seperated from the army under the power to organize the military...
Click to expand...
Which according to your nonsense, would make it unconstitutional for the Congress to fund.

PzKfW IVe said:
This just means you can argue that the USAF is unconstitutional, and thus, does nothing to counter anything I said.
Click to expand...
Too funny. Ok, you go ahead and argue the air force is unconstitutional. :roll: Hey, maybe you can impeach Obama over that! :lol:

PzKfW IVe said:
-And- you did not explain the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.

Thus, your response receives a solid F+
Click to expand...
Otay, like Conservative, you're on record as not liking my asnwer.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
If it's semicolons you want, that section's full of 'em. There's a semicolon following each enumerated power, including the one about providing for the general welfare of the nation. So unless it's your misguided contention that each enumerated power is limited to the ones following each one them respectively, you might want to rethink that.
Click to expand...

Please tell me what a semi colon denotes? See I think you are intentionally misinterpreting the Constitution by taking the opening declarative statement, dropping off the enumerated clauses that they intended as the "General Welfare" of the nation, and trying to use a broad scope of General Welfare to be so ambiguous as to encompass anything, any program, any spending you want to do in an ever increasing government....That is misguided.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Please tell me what a semi colon denotes? See I think you are intentionally misinterpreting the Constitution by taking the opening declarative statement, dropping off the enumerated clauses that they intended as the "General Welfare" of the nation, and trying to use a broad scope of General Welfare to be so ambiguous as to encompass anything, any program, any spending you want to do in an ever increasing government....
Click to expand...
A semicolon is used break up sentences; stronger than a comma; weaker than a period.

Tell me why you think the semicolon at the end of the first enumerated power is treated different than any of the other semicolons at the end of every other enumerated power?

j-mac said:
That is misguided.
Click to expand...
That has actually been upheld in every Supreme Court decission which was faced with the issue.

What's misguided is claiming the first semicolon stores a hidden, different meaning (known only to Conservatives), than every other semicolon in Article I, Section 8.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I've already pointed out how it's true by using the air force as an example.
Which according to your nonsense, would make it unconstitutional for the Congress to fund.
Click to expand...
Yes. The USAF is unconstitutional.
This does nothing to support your argument our counter mine.
:shrug:

Further, you STILL have not explained the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.

Sooo... you still have a solid F+
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Yes. The USAF is unconstitutional.
This does nothing to support your argument our counter mine.
:shrug:

Further, you STILL have not explained the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing.

Sooo... you still have a solid F+
Click to expand...
Sorry, but debates aren't won by arguing the absurd, raising strawmen and by grading your opponent. ALL laws are Constsitutional until the U.S. Supreme Court deems otherwise. That's the daunting hurdle you face.

the absurd: "The USAF is unconstitutional"

The absurdity of that speaks for itself.

The strawman: "you STILL have not explained the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy"

That's a strawman because the first enumerated power is not limited to the ones which follow, as you portray. It's merely one of the enumerated powers. This is established law, even though you reject it.


United States v. Butler, 1936

Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, [p66] limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. [n12] We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
​


The grade: "you still have a solid F+"

Like the first one, this falls under the category of absurdity. That you believe you are even in a position to judge others is ridiculous enough, but that you think you can be objective against the one you are debating is beyond silly in terms of offering any validity to a grading system as it would be to school children allowed to grade themselves without the authority of a teacher.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Sorry, but debates aren't won by arguing the absurd, raising strawmen and by grading your opponent.
Click to expand...
Fact of the matter is, you have failed to address the argument that counters yours. Nothing -I- can to do change that.
:shrug:

the absurd: "The USAF is unconstitutional"
The absurdity of that speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
YOU argued that the USAF is unconstitutional, put up as a red herring to avoind the issue put to you.
I simply agreed with you; the fact that you offered this as a red herring remains.

The strawman: "you STILL have not explained the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy"
Click to expand...
This isn't a strawman as it speaks directly to the issue you present, that the power to spend monet to provide for the common defense and the general welfare inherently confers the power to do whatever is necessary to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

The fact that Congresss had to be specifically given the power to raise armies and create the navy and would not have been able to do so absent that grant negates your argument, in toto.

Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them,
Click to expand...
Madson disagrees. Show, specifially, where the court explains how Hamilton's position is sound and Madison's is not.

The grade: "you still have a solid F+"
Like the first one, this falls under the category of absurdity.
Click to expand...
Well, lets see:
-You refuse to address the argument that counters yours with anthing other than a red herring
-You refuse to address a specific question regarding an issue absolutely necessary for your argument to be sound.

No one with any degree of intellectual honesty whatsoever would describe -that- as anything other than a failure on your part.
 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
Fact of the matter is, you have failed to address the argument that counters yours. Nothing -I- can to do change that.
:shrug:
Click to expand...
Umm, maybe you weren't paying attention, but not only did I address it, I pretty much clobbered it.

Let me remind of the statement you made which you remain under the false impression went unanswered:


"you STILL have not explained the necessary inclusion of the power to raise an army and navy, withouth which Congress could do no such thing." ~ PzKfW IVe​


First of all, my position is that is a strawman argument since I maintain it's a false statement; that being the necessity to include the specific powers of raising an army and a navy. My position is that it's not necessary which is why I believe the air force is constitutional.

But to drive a nail into the proverbial coffin; to back up my position that the first two enumerated powers of common defense and general welfare are not limited to the enumerated powers which follow; I posted a U.S.S.C. decision from U.S. v. Butler in 1936 which makes my case. Did you not notice the text I highlighted got your convenience?

  • Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them
  • Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position.


  • Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one.
PzKfW IVe said:
YOU argued that the USAF is unconstitutional, put up as a red herring to avoind the issue put to you.
I simply agreed with you; the fact that you offered this as a red herring remains.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I maintain your position is wrong and it's constitutional for us to have an air force since that falls under the "common defense" clause.

You're the one who believes the air force is unconstitutional. You even said so. Why don't you file a law suit to have it disbanded since that's what you believe?

PzKfW IVe said:
This isn't a strawman as it speaks directly to the issue you present, that the power to spend monet to provide for the common defense and the general welfare inherently confers the power to do whatever is necessary to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a strawman. You are taking Madison's position on this issue. I am taking Hamilton's position. The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Hamilton's position.

G'head, this is where you kvetch about the 1936 court. :roll:

PzKfW IVe said:
The fact that Congresss had to be specifically given the power to raise armies and create the navy and would not have been able to do so absent that grant negates your argument, in toto.
Click to expand...
Yet that's not a fact. It's a strawman. U.S. v. Butler confirms this.

PzKfW IVe said:
Madson disagrees. Show, specifially, where the court explains how Hamilton's position is sound and Madison's is not.
Click to expand...
Regrettably, in their siding with Hamilton and Story they said, "We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice."

PzKfW IVe said:
Well, lets see:
-You refuse to address the argument that counters yours with anthing other than a red herring
-You refuse to address a specific question regarding an issue absolutely necessary for your argument to be sound.

No one with any degree of intellectual honesty whatsoever would describe -that- as anything other than a failure on your part.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you keep saying that over and over, someone will believe it.

Your position is built on the foundation of the false premise that the first two enumerated powers are limited to those which follow.

You are not the decider if that is true or not.

I am not the decider if that is true or not.

The U.S. Supreme Court IS the decider if that is true or not.

And they decided.
 
Last edited:
Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President in U.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 38-41% JAR and well over 50% disapproval ratings.
 
AdamT said:
Given the fact that you're on the wrong side of about 100 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, I think you better give yourself an F-.

When did every conservative become a constitutional scholar, btw? :lol:
Click to expand...
Did you notice not a single Conservative responded to your post?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Did you notice not a single Conservative responded to your post?
Click to expand...

What does that question have to do with the thread topic? Obama has a terrible JAR because of the following

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDPand 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americansin 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade ofthe U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President inU.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 38-41% JAR and wellover 50% disapproval ratings.
 
Conservative said:
What does that question have to do with the thread topic? Obama has a terrible JAR because of the following

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDPand 1% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americansin 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade ofthe U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. First President inU.S. History to have our credit downgraded on his watch! 38-41% JAR and wellover 50% disapproval ratings.
Click to expand...
You said you were done posting to me ... when are you going to display some character and keep your word?
 
Obama's approval should go up now since he cut a day off his vacation to save NY from Irene's 2' storm surge and 25 mph winds.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Umm, maybe you weren't paying attention, but not only did I address it, I pretty much clobbered it
Click to expand...
It is sad, but I do believe you actually believe this.
Thank you making it abundantly clear that I need not seriously consider anything you might post, nor waste any time in responding to it.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
It is sad, but I do believe you actually believe this.
Thank you making it abundantly clear that I need not seriously consider anything you might post, nor waste any time in responding to it.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait ... before you run away ... who do you think is the ultimate arbitrator of the Constitution?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom