PDA

View Full Version : If We Were to Divide The Country



RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/24/2009, 08:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw this in the comment section of a Human Events article and thought you might find this interesting and entertaining.

This is what the writer said

"Perhaps you folks will find the following entertaining:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot, and will not ever agree on what is right, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences, and go our own way…

Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the
difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them) …

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You
can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s, and rednecks. We’ll keep the bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks, and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security…

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. But we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya, or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickle down economics, and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot.
Since it often so offends you we’ll also keep our history, our name, and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots, and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,
John J. Wall.
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand."
__________________

Petro-Sooner
8/24/2009, 08:39 PM
Sounds fine by me.

Curly Bill
8/24/2009, 08:41 PM
I'm in.

Frozen Sooner
8/24/2009, 08:41 PM
One would think that someone writing a snarky chain e-mail talking about how stupid another group of people is would bother to spell a four-letter acronym correctly.

Unless, of course, he's looking to bet Sadat.

Curly Bill
8/24/2009, 08:44 PM
Wow. It's amazing that such an educated guy can't spell a simple four-letter acronym.

Just tell us if you're down with this or not. :P


:D

Frozen Sooner
8/24/2009, 08:47 PM
Just tell us if you're down with this or not. :P


:D

Personally, I suggest that if this America-hater dislikes the direction of the country so much he can leave.

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!

;)

Turd_Ferguson
8/24/2009, 08:49 PM
IN!

Curly Bill
8/24/2009, 08:49 PM
Personally, I suggest that if this America-hater dislikes the direction of the country so much he can leave.

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!

;)


So....I can put you down as undecided? ;)

Scott D
8/24/2009, 09:05 PM
I'm all for dividing the country.

We can have America, and Arizona, New Mexico and Texas can become North Mexico

AggieTool
8/24/2009, 09:47 PM
Yeah!:mad:

And them dern libs can have all their books and science, and universities too.:mad:

(Faux chain emails are teh bomb:D )

GottaHavePride
8/25/2009, 12:11 AM
The real line to be drawn here is the A-Team vs. the Dukes of Hazzard.

IBleedCrimson
8/25/2009, 01:57 AM
which side takes sicem? if its mine i shall defect

Petro-Sooner
8/25/2009, 02:02 AM
I'll take Sicem..... :O But I'll throw him a Brunton.

SicEmBaylor
8/25/2009, 02:23 AM
I've been advocating something similar to this for a very long time.

MrJimBeam
8/25/2009, 05:27 AM
I've been advocating something similar to this for a very long time.

At least since 1850.

swardboy
8/25/2009, 06:35 AM
In.

Oh, and make the libs take the child car seats too. I dreamed great dreams lying on the backseat dash under the rear window looking up at the stars as we whizzed down the highway late at night.....

OUDoc
8/25/2009, 08:04 AM
How about we divide it along the lines of "people who perpetuate the division between the parties yet do nothing to help the situation" and "people who could give 2 ****s about political parties but want what's best for America"?


Realistically, I know it could never happen, but I'd love the 2 party system to take a hike. I really don't see the benefits of only 2 lines of thinking. Black/white, good/bad. The world isn't that simple.

Harry Beanbag
8/25/2009, 08:22 AM
How about we divide it along the lines of "people who perpetuate the division between the parties yet do nothing to help the situation" and "people who could give 2 ****s about political parties but want what's best for America"?


Realistically, I know it could never happen, but I'd love the 2 party system to take a hike. I really don't see the benefits of only 2 lines of thinking. Black/white, good/bad. The world isn't that simple.

This.

Of course people have drastically different views of "what's best for America". I vote we go back and take a peak at the Constitution.

sooneron
8/25/2009, 08:35 AM
Like my old sig used to say ...
"Neither party is mine, not the jack *** or the elephant!"

thanks, Chuck D

My Opinion Matters
8/25/2009, 08:35 AM
Healthcare is a luxury? Seriously??

sooneron
8/25/2009, 08:40 AM
Healthcare is a luxury? Seriously??
Well yeah, it's gotta be written somewhere in the constitution!

Harry Beanbag
8/25/2009, 08:51 AM
Well yeah, it's gotta be written somewhere in the constitution!


It is, right there next to where it says it's a right.

GottaHavePride
8/25/2009, 10:14 AM
How about we divide it along the lines of "people who perpetuate the division between the parties yet do nothing to help the situation" and "people who could give 2 ****s about political parties but want what's best for America"?


Realistically, I know it could never happen, but I'd love the 2 party system to take a hike. I really don't see the benefits of only 2 lines of thinking. Black/white, good/bad. The world isn't that simple.

This.

stoops the eternal pimp
8/25/2009, 10:23 AM
I know, right?

MamaMia
8/25/2009, 10:50 AM
Show me where to sign. ;)

85Sooner
8/25/2009, 02:02 PM
SAY NO TO TEXAS SECESSION. SAY YES TO KICKING OUT CALIFORNIA ILLINOIS AND THE REST OF THE UPPER NW.

Sign me up ;)

OklahomaTuba
8/25/2009, 02:10 PM
Half our problems would be solved if we just sold California to the Chinese.

Not sure China would be far-left enough for Cali though.

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 02:29 PM
http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/uploads/Thread-Sucks-Yoda.jpg

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/25/2009, 02:36 PM
http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/uploads/Thread-Sucks-Yoda.jpgWhat is it you don't want to concede to the Conservatives?

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 02:40 PM
You can have all of the bad chain emails from four years ago (at least that is the firs time I saw this email), if you promise to keep them to yourselves.

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/this-thread-sucks/8/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 02:41 PM
What is it you don't want to concede to the Conservatives?

And conservatives... ha! That's a good one.

http://www.homee.com/pic/thread%20sucks.jpg

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 02:56 PM
http://gallery.viperclub.org/data/500/7655Thread-Sucks-Come_for-Arnold.jpg

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 02:57 PM
http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/Thread-Sucks-Come_for-Bush.jpg

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/25/2009, 02:57 PM
You can have all of the bad chain emails from four years ago (at least that is the firs time I saw this email), if you promise to keep them to yourselves.

AHEM...What is it you don't want to concede to the Conservatives?

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 03:04 PM
AHEM...

http://www.homee.com/pic/Bunnypancake.jpg

Turd_Ferguson
8/25/2009, 03:07 PM
AHEM...

http://www.homee.com/pic/Bunnypancake.jpgwhy don't you just answer the fook'n question ol' man?




:D

stoops the eternal pimp
8/25/2009, 03:09 PM
why don't you just answer the fook'n question ol' man?




:D

The goonch says leave fraggle alone before he bites your ****in head off

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2008/Oct/Week2/15116892.jpg

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/25/2009, 03:14 PM
The goonch says leave fraggle alone before he bites your ****in head off

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2008/Oct/Week2/15116892.jpgThe Fraggle is an Indian catfish? I thought he was an angry leftist Okie.

Turd_Ferguson
8/25/2009, 03:15 PM
I don't think the goonch is big enough.













:D

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 03:29 PM
Tell the Goonch I'm sorry (I love that picture :D).

I'm not answering the question because I really dont know what the **** it is asking. It doesnt even make sense.

I mean its always: Rah! Rah! Rah! America! **** Yeah! But now we are splitting up the country because a few righties didnt get their way and they want to go all chicken little and cry about it.

How very patriotic.

How very ****ing retarded.

Like it would ever happen... I dont have to concede anything.

...and for the record I am not an angry leftist Okie. I'm a Dirty Lib (Pay 'tention ;)) and I'm not angry. I'm tired, so very tired of this divisive ****ing us/them drivel that we have to put up with here on the SO everyday from the likes of you (RLIMC), Tuba, etc...

.

Animal Mother
8/25/2009, 03:30 PM
AHEM...

http://www.homee.com/pic/Bunnypancake.jpg

Rush Limpballs has started a thread you don't understand? File it in the sh!t can. After a piece of stale pizza and a crusty tampoon sticks to it maybe we can understand it. We will never give a sh!t or escape the incessant whining but we may, someday, with the help of psychiatrists understand..... What were we talking about?

Oh yeah! 'Bama won the elction! WAAAAAH! WAAAAH!

I luv the innerwebed

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/25/2009, 03:33 PM
Fraggle, our country has gone outlaw, and it doesn't bother you?
AM, don't hold out much hope.

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 03:33 PM
http://www.homee.com/pic/seriouscat.jpg

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 03:34 PM
Fraggle, our country has gone outlaw, and it doesn't bother you?

ROGUE COUNTRY!! :eek:

Animal Mother
8/25/2009, 03:36 PM
Fraggle, our country has gone outlaw, and it doesn't bother you?
AM, don't hold out much hope.

Do you drink paranoia or inject it?

Turd_Ferguson
8/25/2009, 03:44 PM
Do you drink paranoia or inject it?Do you eat ******* or snort it?

Animal Mother
8/25/2009, 03:46 PM
Do you eat ******* or snort it?

Why you are just the troll o' the day this Tuesday aren't ya honey? Following me around the dial, making your funny little remarks. You're so cute. At least for a turd.

Turd_Ferguson
8/25/2009, 03:53 PM
Why you are just the troll o' the day this Tuesday aren't ya honey? Following me around the dial, making your funny little remarks. You're so cute. At least for a turd.I'm not the one that come into this thread swing'n my **** like you did.

Animal Mother
8/25/2009, 03:59 PM
I'm not the one that come into this thread swing'n my **** like you did.

Buttons have been pushed.

Turd_Ferguson
8/25/2009, 04:00 PM
Buttons have been pushed.Is that code for something?

Pricetag
8/25/2009, 04:06 PM
I'm not the one that come into this thread swing'n my **** like you did.
You were one of the ones who said "IN." You should be embarrassed.

Turd_Ferguson
8/25/2009, 04:10 PM
You were one of the ones who said "IN." You should be embarrassed.I'm alway's emberrassed ....what's your point?

Animal Mother
8/25/2009, 04:17 PM
Is that code for something?

No it isn't code. Pushing people's buttons. Capiche? Now I understand Dean's post.

Bourbon St Sooner
8/25/2009, 04:20 PM
People? There's no people on here. We're all just computers making random posts.

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 04:41 PM
People? There's no people on here. We're all just computers making random posts.

THAT'S NOT TRUE!!![hairGel]

http://www.homee.com/pic/serious.jpg

Harry Beanbag
8/25/2009, 04:45 PM
People? There's no people on here. We're all just computers making random posts.

Sadly, it does appear that way sometimes, especially when dillhole trolls like AM show up. He/she needs to grow a ****ing sack and post his/her off the wall flamebait nonsense under his/her main handle.

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 04:51 PM
People? There's no people on here. We're all just computers making random posts.

heh, one more to go along with this one...

http://www.homee.com/pic/fwad.jpg

Scott D
8/25/2009, 04:58 PM
I've come up with a better idea.

Two countries, one with me...select dudes I'm cool with, all the hot chicks in the country, all the good sports in the country. And of course, all the cash.

The rest of you mother****ers can be in the second country living in squalor and sneaking across the border to Mexico in order to better your pathetic lives.

stoops the eternal pimp
8/25/2009, 05:00 PM
Big mother****in Pimpin

Harry Beanbag
8/25/2009, 05:00 PM
I've come up with a better idea.

Two countries, one with me...select dudes I'm cool with, all the hot chicks in the country, all the good sports in the country. And of course, all the cash.

The rest of you mother****ers can be in the second country living in squalor and sneaking across the border to Mexico in order to better your pathetic lives.


Include all the good beer and I'm in.

Scott D
8/25/2009, 05:01 PM
I know some people here that better get down and kiss the ring.

Scott D
8/25/2009, 05:01 PM
Include all the good beer and I'm in.

you should know I'm gonna have all the good booze..all the good food too.

I keep it big pimpin.

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 05:18 PM
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/68/695503-its_a_trap__super.jpg

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/25/2009, 08:29 PM
At one time, somebody gave this thread 5 stars...

OU Adonis
8/25/2009, 09:09 PM
I am all for a split. I think America has evolved two completely different mindsets.

JLEW1818
8/25/2009, 09:15 PM
At one time, somebody gave this thread 5 stars...

i just gave it 5


I'm all for separation

if you believe in Obama, you can go to his side, and pay for other peoples things.

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 09:18 PM
I love overly simplistic worldviews.

http://www.homee.com/pic/usorterror.jpg

OU Adonis
8/25/2009, 09:19 PM
Healthcare is a luxury? Seriously??

Yes

JLEW1818
8/25/2009, 09:21 PM
only people who believe in the health care thingy should be taxed... if you don't support it, you shouldn't have to pay it. now what would the libs do then? if they had to be the only ones paying for it

of course this wont ever happen

ha

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 09:22 PM
I am all for a split. I think America has evolved two completely different mindsets.

That is what TV and politicians want you to think. There are only two ways to think and that everyone is at each other's throats. Funny thing though, most of them are all in bed with each other.

Most of us while having different ideas on just about everything could probably sit down and have a beer together and get along just fine.

This email is the most unAmerican wad of chicken**** trash I have seen in a while.

AggieTool
8/25/2009, 09:24 PM
if you believe in Obama, you can go to his side, and pay for other peoples things.

Like highways, police, EMS, schools, fire departments, VA hospitals, Medicare, the military, etc.......;)

JLEW1818
8/25/2009, 10:00 PM
all those except Medicaid

everybody can benefit from highways, police ect... my taxes are not directly going to other people, with Obama care they will go to other people, that does not benefit America... paying for police and fire departments, and schools and military and highways do benefit Americans.

i think there is a difference between Obama care and the others

Fraggle145
8/25/2009, 10:15 PM
This thread wasnt about healthcare until you tried to make it about healthcare.

This thread is about whiners that complain because they live in a democracy and it isnt going their way.

So they decided to pretend that sending out biased emails (and then resending them out 4 years later based on the life of this email) with false pretenses designed to divide people and keep them from actually talking about and discussing issues rationally was the best idea in the world.

Emails pretending that the splitting the greatest country in the world would be a great idea.

Emails pretending that anything they happen to like should belong to them and was obviously created or thought of by their side...

Its ****ing retarded.

JLEW1818
8/25/2009, 10:49 PM
actually the original poster did mention health care as a main reason

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/26/2009, 12:25 AM
actually the original poster did mention health care as a main reasonThe socialism issues of 4 years ago haven't really changed. They smell as bad now as they did then.

JLEW1818
8/26/2009, 12:28 AM
starting to smell worse

Fraggle145
8/26/2009, 12:51 AM
actually the original poster did mention health care as a main reason

The author of that email is being a moron.

Anyone that thinks dividing up the country is a good idea or even something to be joked about is IMO being an idiot.

When Bush was in office I hated it, but I dealt with it. I wasn't pretending that anywhere else would be a better place to be. Did I say some things that in hindsight were divisive and dumb? Yeah. Do I still say things are divisive and dumb? Yeah. Am I trying not to do it as much because it doesnt help anything? Yeah.

To me, the idea of the melting pot, the bringing together of ideas, bringing differences of opinions, and all of the different types of people is what makes our country beautiful. It is also one of the "principles," for lack of a better word, that I don't think should be ****ed with.

For the guy to have the audacity to sign his post as: "Doosh Bag, An American" is the biggest crock of **** I have ever heard. A real American IMO wouldn't write anything that stupid.

This board seriously needs a ****ing reality check. Its not us/them, rep/dem, con/lib were all ****ing AMERICANS and were all SOONERS. You'd think with that much in common we could actually have some productive discussion about politics, that at least could lead to a better understanding of people's positions.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/26/2009, 12:56 AM
Socialism is ugly, evil crap. Srsly.
Over on the sports boards we are Sooners(most of us anyway). out here we are mostly just fellow Americans, speaking our opinions.

Fraggle145
8/26/2009, 02:02 AM
Over on the sports boards we are Sooners(most of us anyway). out here we are mostly just fellow Americans, speaking our opinions.

I would disagree with that. Seeing that this being a Sooner board is what brought everyone here in the first place.

And your opinion as an American is to divide it up? Nice. :mad:

KC//CRIMSON
8/26/2009, 02:11 AM
How about we divide it along the lines of "people who perpetuate the division between the parties yet do nothing to help the situation" and "people who could give 2 ****s about political parties but want what's best for America"?


Realistically, I know it could never happen, but I'd love the 2 party system to take a hike. I really don't see the benefits of only 2 lines of thinking. Black/white, good/bad. The world isn't that simple.


Bingo, and most countries have multiple parties. Good post.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/26/2009, 02:27 AM
And your opinion as an American is to divide it up? Nice. :mad:My opinion is that leftist ideas are excessively damaging to the country and world, and THEY SHOULD STOP THAT SHI*!

olevetonahill
8/26/2009, 02:31 AM
Is that code for something?

Ya turned Him on :hot:

olevetonahill
8/26/2009, 02:36 AM
you should know I'm gonna have all the good booze..all the good food too.

I keep it big pimpin.

I call Bullshat on this ;)

LosAngelesSooner
8/26/2009, 02:57 AM
This thread is dumb.

SicEmBaylor
8/26/2009, 03:00 AM
This thread is dumb.

Don't blame the thread -- blame the people in it. ;)

Fraggle145
8/26/2009, 03:07 AM
My opinion is that leftist ideas are excessively damaging to the country and world, and THEY SHOULD STOP THAT SHI*!

If anyone on this board didnt know that by now they should just give up.

Why would you stoop so low as to pretend you want to split up America when you know you dont?

Cant you see that there are people on the other side of this that think the exact same thing about your idealogy? And regardless of what you/they do you/they are not going to have the same opinions, and no matter how hard you/they try neither is going to stop having their opinions, and you/they cant always change each other's mind.

Instead of just brandishing your opinions, buzzwords, and divisive language, while deriding any position opposite to yours before it has even been mentioned over and over again, why dont you try to have a discussion? Instead of being so brazen all the time, why dont you try to use some tact?!

And if you already know their opinions and know it isnt going to change or if nobody wants to talk about it, you could put down your obsession with telling everyone how bad these ideas are (we all know your opinion on this) and actually talk about or let them talk about something else!

olevetonahill
8/26/2009, 03:16 AM
This thread is dumb.

Specialy the Part where Scott says hes gonna have all the GOOD booze
Less Im on his side that is ;)

Animal Mother
8/26/2009, 07:56 AM
The socialism issues of 4 years ago haven't really changed. They smell as bad now as they did then.

Wrong! What smells is your upper lip.

Yeah I've used the line before so sue me!

49r
8/26/2009, 09:15 AM
If anyone on this board didnt know that by now they should just give up.

Why would you stoop so low as to pretend you want to split up America when you know you dont?

Cant you see that there are people on the other side of this that think the exact same thing about your idealogy? And regardless of what you/they do you/they are not going to have the same opinions, and no matter how hard you/they try neither is going to stop having their opinions, and you/they cant always change each other's mind.

Instead of just brandishing your opinions, buzzwords, and divisive language, while deriding any position opposite to yours before it has even been mentioned over and over again, why dont you try to have a discussion? Instead of being so brazen all the time, why dont you try to use some tact?!

And if you already know their opinions and know it isnt going to change or if nobody wants to talk about it, you could put down your obsession with telling everyone how bad these ideas are (we all know your opinion on this) and actually talk about or let them talk about something else!

Yeah, but see? That's hard. It requires original thought and considering other points of view and construction of an opinion based on consideration and thought.

It's just a whole lot easier to parrot others' (mostly un-original) thoughts, generally learned through one's favorite media outlet. Ever hear the Jim Rome show? He calls the callers to his show "clones" for a reason. He even ridicules them daily. He has a segment called "unfunny, unoriginal, and unreadable emails", yet his loyal subjects are absolutely passionate about participating in the show, just for the opportunity to "run smack", which is really a euphemism for "trying to do the best job of imitating the host of the show as closely as possible".

Nope, it's just easier to participate in this kind of verbal masturbation and pretend it's something real. I suppose internet message boards are more like the modern day nudie booth than they are public forums for rational discussion. It's too bad, too because it had so much potential.

Animal Mother
8/26/2009, 10:03 AM
Yeah, but see? That's hard. It requires original thought and considering other points of view and construction of an opinion based on consideration and thought.

It's just a whole lot easier to parrot others' (mostly un-original) thoughts, generally learned through one's favorite media outlet. Ever hear the Jim Rome show? He calls the callers to his show "clones" for a reason. He even ridicules them daily. He has a segment called "unfunny, unoriginal, and unreadable emails", yet his loyal subjects are absolutely passionate about participating in the show, just for the opportunity to "run smack", which is really a euphemism for "trying to do the best job of imitating the host of the show as closely as possible".

Nope, it's just easier to participate in this kind of verbal masturbation and pretend it's something real. I suppose internet message boards are more like the modern day nudie booth than they are public forums for rational discussion. It's too bad, too because it had so much potential.

It involved us humans and our opinions. When was the potential part gonna happen?

StoopTroup
8/26/2009, 10:09 AM
I just wonder if "John J. Wall - Law Student and an American" used any Government Loans to get through school?

JLEW1818
8/26/2009, 11:11 AM
its great to have LAS back

Fraggle145
8/26/2009, 11:29 AM
Heh.

Pricetag
8/26/2009, 11:31 AM
I just wonder if "John J. Wall - Law Student and an American" used any Government Loans to get through school?
What's going to happen when he becomes a trial lawyer, and everyone sharing his opinion suddenly hates him (unless they need him, of course)?

OU Adonis
8/26/2009, 03:57 PM
So whens the last time the country has been this divided? The 60s? Even farther back?

Pricetag
8/26/2009, 04:26 PM
This couldn't hold the '60s jock.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/26/2009, 04:48 PM
This couldn't hold the '60s jock.You think America was more divided in the '60's than it is now? I don't think even LBJ hisself was anywhere near as socialist as Maobama is, nor did he do as many outlaw things as the current president HAS ALREADY DONE.

Fraggle145
8/26/2009, 04:55 PM
You think America was more divided in the '60's than it is now? I don't think even LBJ hisself was anywhere near as socialist as Maobama is, nor did he do as many outlaw things as the current president HAS ALREADY DONE.

Cant you write one paragraph without using something like Maobama, Dear Leader, etc...?

And if you are going to make general sweeping statements it helps to clarify what you mean by the words in them. I know I am going to regret this... For example: "outlaw" what do you mean by outlaw?

And just because you use caps doesnt make what you say a true statement.

Crucifax Autumn
8/26/2009, 05:35 PM
Yep, it's only true if you end the statement with "EVAR".

landrun
8/26/2009, 06:11 PM
This country is about as united as Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity are. The divides are very deep and only getting more so.

If you were to take a poll regarding how willing people are to seriously consider splitting the country, conservatives would give this a much greater consideration than liberals. Mainly because liberals know that a large portion of their base is made up of unproductive and uneducated people and they know in their heart of hearts that both their social and economic ideals are inane.

When liberals seriously consider the repercussions of the policies they claim to believe in, they know it is impossible to sustain a country where the producers provide for the those who wait for the government to assist them in every facet of their lives, they know it is impossible to run up debts that the human mind can not even fathom without bring about an economic Armageddon. They know legalizing drugs and throwing off all social restraint brings death and pain on a large scale within the mass population. They claim to hold to such 'values' but in their hearts they know that the policies they support do not work, will not work and never have.

They would fight splitting the country because they only give 'lip service' to liberty. They'll go on hunger strikes showing they empathize with those killed in Tiananmen Square. They pretend to be humanitarians and whine about 'no blood-for-oil' and argue that we have no right to wage the wars we do while a conservative is in office. Yet, because they don't truly believe their own spill, and as soon as the conservative leaves, they vacate the streets and you cease to hear a single chirp from them while nothing real has changed with our foreign policies at all.

If you ask them if they believe in liberty. They'll say 'yes!' If you ask them if they believe that a province in China who wants to be free has the right to be free, they say 'Yes!'. If you ask them if Oklahoma has the right to succeed from the union, they say .... 'no.. of course not'.

In short, everyone has the right to be free except those in America who want to be free from the left-wing nut-jobs who are slowing, incrementally, year-by-year gaining more and more control of our own country eroding our liberties a little at a time.

Liberals care nothing about liberty. They want control.

But to conservatives liberty isn't a cliche - which is why conservative would be willing to split the country. If the liberals wanted to split, (which I doubt they would as they can't survive without conservatives) fine with us.

We'd be willing to split knowing full well we don't need big government or any political group to go and build a great society on our own. Escaping the lunacy of the left would bring about a society close to Utopia within a decade. The left would be terrified of living in a society where they had to survive on their own merits, with their own ideas, with their own supporters. The liberals would fight splitting the country, claiming something noble such as 'love of country'. But in truth they would fight it because they know their country would turn into a hell-hole in no time without the resources of conservatives they detest .

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/26/2009, 06:13 PM
Cant you write one paragraph without using something like Maobama, Dear Leader, etc...?

And if you are going to make general sweeping statements it helps to clarify what you mean by the words in them. I know I am going to regret this... For example: "outlaw" what do you mean by outlaw?

And just because you use caps doesnt make what you say a true statement.When referring to the One, we should show him his due respect as a Changer of America.

Outlaw act: Awarding taxpayer money to a political organization, ACORN. Outlaw acts #'s 2-you count 'em: we have discussed so many throughout recent threads on this message board. If you really don't think he has, You either have on horse blinders, or something's wrong....but I guess you are calling me wrong, or lying, or something other than right.

Use of CAPS. OF COURSE IT DOES, THILLY GUY!

LosAngelesSooner
8/26/2009, 06:17 PM
This country is about as united as Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity are. The divides are very deep and only getting more so.

If you were to take a poll regarding how willing people are to seriously consider splitting the country, conservatives would give this a much greater consideration than liberals. Mainly because liberals know that a large portion of their base is made up of unproductive and uneducated people and they know in their heart of hearts that both their social and economic ideals are inane. :rolleyes:

You were doing so well until you got to your second paragraph and de-railed into Crazyland.

LosAngelesSooner
8/26/2009, 06:20 PM
Escaping the lunacy of the left would bring about a society close to Utopia within a decade. The left would be terrified of living in a society where they had to survive on their own merits, with their own ideas, with their own supporters.LMFAO!!!

You just can't make this psychotic **** up!!!!! :texan:

LosAngelesSooner
8/26/2009, 06:21 PM
When referring to the One, we should show him his due respect as a Changer of America.

Outlaw act: Awarding taxpayer money to a political organization, ACORN. Outlaw acts #'s 2-you count 'em: we have discussed so many throughout recent threads on this message board. If you really don't think he has, You either have on horse blinders, or something's wrong....but I guess you are calling me wrong, or lying, or something other than right.

Use of CAPS. OF COURSE IT DOES, THILLY GUY!If Obama actually did ANYTHING "outlaw" (aka: illegal) then you wingnuts would impeach him.

I mean, shoot...you impeached Clinton over a BLOWJOB, for Christ's sake.

Fraggle145
8/26/2009, 06:26 PM
This country is about as united as Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity are. The divides are very deep and only getting more so.

If you were to take a poll regarding how willing people are to seriously consider splitting the country, conservatives would give this a much greater consideration than liberals. Mainly because liberals know that a large portion of their base is made up of unproductive and uneducated people and they know in their heart of hearts that both their social and economic ideals are inane.

When liberals seriously consider the repercussions of the policies they claim to believe in, they know it is impossible to sustain a country where the producers provide for the those who wait for the government to assist them in every facet of their lives, they know it is impossible to run up debts that the human mind can not even fathom without bring about an economic Armageddon. They know legalizing drugs and throwing off all social restraint brings death and pain on a large scale within the mass population. They claim to hold to such 'values' but in their hearts they know that the policies they support do not work, will not work and never have.

They would fight splitting the country because they only give 'lip service' to liberty. They'll go on hunger strikes showing they empathize with those killed in Tiananmen Square. They pretend to be humanitarians and whine about 'no blood-for-oil' and argue that we have no right to wage the wars we do while a conservative is in office. Yet, because they don't truly believe their own spill, and as soon as the conservative leaves, they vacate the streets and you cease to hear a single chirp from them while nothing real has changed with our foreign policies at all.

If you ask them if they believe in liberty. They'll say 'yes!' If you ask them if they believe that a province in China who wants to be free has the right to be free, they say 'Yes!'. If you ask them if Oklahoma has the right to succeed from the union, they say .... 'no.. of course not'.

In short, everyone has the right to be free except those in America who want to be free from the left-wing nut-jobs who are slowing, incrementally, year-by-year gaining more and more control of our own country eroding our liberties a little at a time.

Liberals care nothing about liberty. They want control.

But to conservatives liberty isn't a cliche - which is why conservative would be willing to split the country. If the liberals wanted to split, (which I doubt they would as they can't survive without conservatives) fine with us.

We'd be willing to split knowing full well we don't need big government or any political group to go and build a great society on our own. Escaping the lunacy of the left would bring about a society close to Utopia within a decade. The left would be terrified of living in a society where they had to survive on their own merits, with their own ideas, with their own supporters. The liberals would fight splitting the country, claiming something noble such as 'love of country'. But in truth they would fight it because they know their country would turn into a hell-hole in no time without the resources of conservatives they detest .

Wow, that's a lot of sweeping generalizations with out a lot of fact to back it up. Since when are Conservatives the only producers? Since when are conservatives the only ones that have any of the resources? I would love some proof since this assumption has shown up a lot in this thread.

I would also argue there are just as many unproductive peoples on both sides. You falsely assume that all liberals maintain the same philosophy about every aspect of politics. It has to be all the way or no way I guess... Black or white, all crystal clear.

Do all liberals want the government to assist them in every facet of their lives? No.

Do all liberals want to legalize drugs and throw off all social restraint? No.

Just an example of a prominnent liberal that doesnt fit your mold... Is Bill Clinton a liberal? how did we do as a country when he was in office? did he end programs like welfare? did he have liberal policies while managing to save money? hmmm doesnt fit your pretty box you want to put all liberals in does it.

And if you think I or most other liberals dont give a **** about liberty you are sadly mistaken. And if you think we dont have the ability to think for ourselves with the ability to come up with new ideas you again are sadly mistaken.

Sooner24
8/26/2009, 06:28 PM
If Obama actually did ANYTHING "outlaw" (aka: illegal) then you wingnuts would impeach him.

I mean, shoot...you impeached Clinton over a BLOWJOB, for Christ's sake.

No I'm pretty sure that was the House of Representatives that did that.

LosAngelesSooner
8/26/2009, 06:31 PM
Revolting against the crown was a pretty "Liberal" and "Progressive" thing to do.

LosAngelesSooner
8/26/2009, 06:31 PM
No I'm pretty sure that was the House of Representatives that did that.
My stalker follows me everywhere...:rolleyes:

Fraggle145
8/26/2009, 06:34 PM
When referring to the One, we should show him his due respect as a Changer of America.

Outlaw act: Awarding taxpayer money to a political organization, ACORN. Outlaw acts #'s 2-you count 'em: we have discussed so many throughout recent threads on this message board. If you really don't think he has, You either have on horse blinders, or something's wrong....but I guess you are calling me wrong, or lying, or something other than right.

Use of CAPS. OF COURSE IT DOES, THILLY GUY!

Discussed? or you posted numerous times about the same thing?

2-you count 'em does this mean you dont know of anymore and just want to make it sound awful?

And you still havent told me what your definition of outlaw is...

And I see that you obviously cant refer to the president in anyway other than childishly.

Scott D
8/26/2009, 06:43 PM
Specialy the Part where Scott says hes gonna have all the GOOD booze
Less Im on his side that is ;)

I do remember sayin' you gotta be cool with me....step your game up olevet :)

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/26/2009, 06:45 PM
Discussed? or you posted numerous times about the same thing?

2-you count 'em does this mean you dont know of anymore and just want to make it sound awful?

And you still havent told me what your definition of outlaw is...

And I see that you obviously cant refer to the president in anyway other than childishly.no, outside the law, and haha. haha

Pricetag
8/27/2009, 12:24 AM
You think America was more divided in the '60's than it is now? I don't think even LBJ hisself was anywhere near as socialist as Maobama is, nor did he do as many outlaw things as the current president HAS ALREADY DONE.
I'll give you the tie on the Vietnam War vs. nation building in the Middle East. Nothing going on now can touch the Civil Rights movement.

The only thing more amusing than the far right hissy fit after Obama's election has been their delusions of grandeur. They can't decide whether they're part of a "great generation" akin to the WWII folks, or whether they're revolutionaries akin to the founders of this country.

What they really are, what we all are, are spoiled rotten brats left with the keys to what those great people put together. We are Billy Madison. We are the fruits of at least one generation of folks who have treaded water and think that they're the ****. All blow, no show.

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 01:38 AM
You think America was more divided in the '60's than it is now? I don't think even LBJ hisself was anywhere near as socialist as Maobama is, nor did he do as many outlaw things as the current president HAS ALREADY DONE.

Cite, with specificity and legal authority (Rush Limbaugh does not count) one "outlaw things" Obama has done. If you can I will donate $20 to your favorite charity (again, Rush Limbaugh doesn't count).

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 01:39 AM
Cite, with specificity and legal authority (Rush Limbaugh does not count) one "outlaw things" Obama has done. If you can I will donate $20 to your favorite charity (again, Rush Limbaugh doesn't count).

Just to be clear, when I say "outlaw", I mean "illegal", which, I assume, is your definition of "outlaw".

Boomer.

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 01:46 AM
By the way, I'm willing to divide the country. How about red states and blue states? Does anyone have the statistics on the aggregate GDP of red states versus blue states? I'm pretty sure if I were trying to build a successful country, I'd pick the blue states, instead of the unemployable red states. I'd take the football team from Oklahoma with me though. Boomer.

PS - for the record, last time I checked, the only reason those wonderful, capitalist red states in the south increased/improved their employment, GDP, and economies, it was because they gave a bunch of socialist style subsidies to a bunch of European and Japanese car and airplane companies. But, don't let the facts get in the way of your myopic hatred and anger.

olevetonahill
8/27/2009, 02:12 AM
I do remember sayin' you gotta be cool with me....step your game up olevet :)

Im the Maker of the Good stiff
YOU step up :D

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/27/2009, 02:20 AM
Just to be clear, when I say "outlaw", I mean "illegal", which, I assume, is your definition of "outlaw".

Boomer.see post #101, and study the things Obama has done that violate the constitution. You might, of course construe the constitution differently than I would, so don't worry about the money. I've a feeling we're not going to agree on his criminality. If you want, discuss the healthcare proposal in regards to constitutionality, his firing of GM executives, taking govt. control of GM and Chrysler, and other stuff-whatever you think might be controversial. Go for it!

LosAngelesSooner
8/27/2009, 03:36 AM
see post #101, and study the things Obama has done that violate the constitution. You might, of course construe the constitution differently than I would, so don't worry about the money. I've a feeling we're not going to agree on his criminality. If you want, discuss the healthcare proposal in regards to constitutionality, his firing of GM executives, taking govt. control of GM and Chrysler, and other stuff-whatever you think might be controversial. Go for it!
Okay...so I'll go see post #101 "and study the things Obama has done that violate the Constitution.

Here is post #101

When referring to the One, we should show him his due respect as a Changer of America.

Outlaw act: Awarding taxpayer money to a political organization, ACORN. Outlaw acts #'s 2-you count 'em: we have discussed so many throughout recent threads on this message board. If you really don't think he has, You either have on horse blinders, or something's wrong....but I guess you are calling me wrong, or lying, or something other than right.

Use of CAPS. OF COURSE IT DOES, THILLY GUY!So I studied post #101 as you asked and you know what I don't see? Proof. No proof of any kind. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Squat.

What I DO see is you making empty claims again then adding that the proof is all over the place....but as for ACTUAL proof? NOTHING.

So I ask you for proof again. Please supply PROOF*(1) of President Obama doing ANYTHING ILLEGAL*(2) while he's been in office. Please...I beg of you...that way we can allow you to keep calling him an "outlaw" and saying he's done "illegal things" without laughing at you mightily.

Again...if President Obama had done anything illegal, don't you think "your side"*(3) would have tried to start impeaching him by now? I mean...you guys tried to impeach President Clinton over a blowjob...aaaand some of "your team"*(3) are still trying to sue him over his birth certificate.



*(1) - Proof
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind
*(2) - Illegal
–adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.: The referee ruled that it was an illegal forward pass. *(3) - By "Your Side" and "You Guys" I am referring to the RINOS who are currently in power within the "republican party"...losing elections...getting caught in scandals...ramping up government spending...and generally giving us REAL Republicans a bad name.

SicEmBaylor
8/27/2009, 03:38 AM
Again...if President Obama had done anything illegal, don't you think "your side" would have tried to start impeaching him by now? I mean...you guys tried to impeach President Clinton over a blowjob...

I think, technically, he was impeached for lying about a blowjob under oath.

LosAngelesSooner
8/27/2009, 04:14 AM
I think, technically, he was impeached for lying about a blowjob under oath.
This was at the end of an almost 2 year long probe of anything and everything the Clintons ever did, starting at Whitewater and ending with a blowjob...right? Where the blowjob was the only thing that they ever really caught him doing even though they started by saying he "might have killed his former partner while he was in Arkansas."

Murder.
Conspiracy.
Fellatio.

Yeah...I think TECHNICALLY if President Obama had done ANYTHING even REMOTELY illegal, the current "opposition party" would be pressing like HELL for impeachment and at the very least we'd be inundated with "news" of it all day long on every one of the news channels.

49r
8/27/2009, 10:43 AM
I think, technically, he was impeached for lying about a blowjob under oath.

It was for lying about Whitewater under oath wasn't it? The blowjob came well after the impeachment IIRC.


...and mostly I just wanted to post "blowjob" on this thread...

OU Adonis
8/27/2009, 11:39 AM
By the way, I'm willing to divide the country. How about red states and blue states? Does anyone have the statistics on the aggregate GDP of red states versus blue states?

The biggest Blue state in regards to GDP is the most in the hole financially so you can have it. (California)

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 11:53 AM
The biggest Blue state in regards to GDP is the most in the hole financially so you can have it. (California)

Those are two separate and distinct metrics of economic health. The U.S. government itself is in a hole financially (beginning under George W. Bush, though continuing under Obama).

My point is that the blue states are bigger and more significant economic producers than the red states. Again, Oklahoma football notwithstanding.

My Opinion Matters
8/27/2009, 11:55 AM
Lots of good stuff in this thread.

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 11:58 AM
see post #101, and study the things Obama has done that violate the constitution. You might, of course construe the constitution differently than I would, so don't worry about the money. I've a feeling we're not going to agree on his criminality. If you want, discuss the healthcare proposal in regards to constitutionality, his firing of GM executives, taking govt. control of GM and Chrysler, and other stuff-whatever you think might be controversial. Go for it!

Sure my friend, I'll bite.

(1) Which sections of either the current house or senate bill regarding health care reform are unconstitutional?

(2) Regarding GM or Chrysler: if a third party invests capital in a company, does it have the right to dictate terms as a condition of such investment?

(2)(a) Which section of the constitution prohibits the US from investing capital in a company?

OU Adonis
8/27/2009, 12:12 PM
Those are two separate and distinct metrics of economic health. The U.S. government itself is in a hole financially (beginning under George W. Bush, though continuing under Obama).

My point is that the blue states are bigger and more significant economic producers than the red states. Again, Oklahoma football notwithstanding.


Oklahoma sends more money to DC than it recieves. I will see if I can find a link but if I recall correctly it was somewhere in the range of 86 cents of every dollar Oklahoma Pays to the federal goverment it gets back in programs, ect.

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 12:51 PM
Oklahoma sends more money to DC than it recieves. I will see if I can find a link but if I recall correctly it was somewhere in the range of 86 cents of every dollar Oklahoma Pays to the federal goverment it gets back in programs, ect.

I'm sure that's true if you are calculating direct federal government expenditures. Anyway, don't get me wrong...I would like to see taxes and spending lowered across the board.

Frozen Sooner
8/27/2009, 01:00 PM
Oklahoma sends more money to DC than it recieves. I will see if I can find a link but if I recall correctly it was somewhere in the range of 86 cents of every dollar Oklahoma Pays to the federal goverment it gets back in programs, ect.

Huh. I recall seeing the opposite, and the latest numbers I could find on a quick search showed that Oklahoma was receiving 1.38 per dollar of taxes. Then again, that was from 2004, so it may be significantly outdated.

As a general rule, states with higher per-capita income are going to be below 1.00 on this metric, just because fewer people will qualify for federal assistance and more people will be in higher brackets. CT generally has the lowest ratio here, I think.

OU Adonis
8/27/2009, 01:02 PM
Huh. I recall seeing the opposite, and the latest numbers I could find on a quick search showed that Oklahoma was receiving 1.38 per dollar of taxes. Then again, that was from 2004, so it may be significantly outdated.

As a general rule, states with higher per-capita income are going to be below 1.00 on this metric, just because fewer people will qualify for federal assistance and more people will be in higher brackets. CT generally has the lowest ratio here, I think.

Let me do some research. My figures were on a converstation I had last year so I don't know for sure what fiscal year the data was from.

Frozen Sooner
8/27/2009, 01:10 PM
The more I think about it the more likely it is that Oklahoma's number is falling, simply because Coburn sticks pretty hard to his guns about not requesting any federal dollars to OK. And I was wrong on CT-it's normally AZ that has the lowest number on this metric, and for precisely the same reason: John McCain doesn't generally go looking for pork projects.

AK usually has the highest simply because of Young and Stevens, though that's likely to change with no Uncle Ted.

Scott D
8/27/2009, 01:59 PM
oh he sticks to his guns about not 'requesting', but if it's being given out, he's usually in the front part of the line with both hands out.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/27/2009, 02:07 PM
Sure my friend, I'll bite.

(1) Which sections of either the current house or senate bill regarding health care reform are unconstitutional?

(2) Regarding GM or Chrysler: if a third party invests capital in a company, does it have the right to dictate terms as a condition of such investment?

(2)(a) Which section of the constitution prohibits the US from investing capital in a company?No, you defend. We can start with Obamacare/Kennedycare. The constitution doesn't have nationalized health care/rationing as part of the functions of govt.

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 02:16 PM
No, you defend. We can start with Obamacare/Kennedycare. The constitution doesn't have nationalized health care/rationing as part of the functions of govt.

Well you're the one who said it was unconstitutional. By the way you can't have it both ways - it can't be both unconstitutional to pay for health care and to ration health care (which by definition would be the absence of paying). Furthermore, with regard to the federal government paying for health care - not even Scalia or Thomas - who I assume you would recognize as strict constructionists - would argue that Medicare, for example, is not a constitutionally permissible act of Congress under both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. You can have a good faith policy debate as to whether or not the government SHOULD spend our taxpayer money on it; you cannot successfully argue that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So again, I ask you: where is the illegality? Where are the supposed crimes against the Constitution you keep screaming about??

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/27/2009, 02:25 PM
Well you're the one who said it was unconstitutional. By the way you can't have it both ways - it can't be both unconstitutional to pay for health care and to ration health care (which by definition would be the absence of paying). Furthermore, with regard to the federal government paying for health care - not even Scalia or Thomas - who I assume you would recognize as strict constructionists - would argue that Medicare, for example, is not a constitutionally permissible act of Congress under both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. You can have a good faith policy debate as to whether or not the government SHOULD spend our taxpayer money on it; you cannot successfully argue that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So again, I ask you: where is the illegality? Where are the supposed crimes against the Constitution you keep screaming about??There are laws and programs on the books that are of dubious constitutionality, including most, if not all of the entitlement programs.

Fraggle145
8/27/2009, 02:44 PM
There are laws and programs on the books that are of dubious constitutionality, including most, if not all of the entitlement programs.

http://grimstveit.no/jakob/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shipment-of-fail.jpg

SicEmBaylor
8/27/2009, 02:48 PM
http://grimstveit.no/jakob/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shipment-of-fail.jpg

He's wrong about a lot, but he's right about that.

Entitlement programs belong on the state level where I don't wholly oppose all of them. I think some social safety nets are needed.

Fraggle145
8/27/2009, 03:02 PM
i was talking more about his general statements about something entirely different than what was asked. Instead of any specific examples of things that Obama has done that were against the constitution.

LosAngelesSooner
8/27/2009, 03:16 PM
No, you defend. We can start with Obamacare/Kennedycare. The constitution doesn't have nationalized health care/rationing as part of the functions of govt.See...RLiMC believes in the Guilty proving they are innocent.

He makes the accusations...it is up to YOU to prove he's full of ****.

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 03:37 PM
There are laws and programs on the books that are of dubious constitutionality, including most, if not all of the entitlement programs.

So, since Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in the aggregate make up half of all entitlement spending, I assume your position is that each program is of "dubious constitutionality"?

Again, I ask you - what provision of the constitution do these programs violate?

SicEmBaylor
8/27/2009, 03:52 PM
So, since Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in the aggregate make up half of all entitlement spending, I assume your position is that each program is of "dubious constitutionality"?

Again, I ask you - what provision of the constitution do these programs violate?

Their passage was wholly unconstitutional because the acts themselves go beyond the prescribed and enumerated powers of the Federal government. The Constitution is very specific as to what the Federal government can legislate on and regulate and leaves EVERYTHING else to the states. In fact, nearly all domestic policy was intended to be handled by the individual state. You won't find, in the enumerated powers of Congress, any mandate to create national healthcare, social security, or any other entitlement program. And don't even try to suggest its covered under the General Welfare Clause because the GWC still has to remain consistent with the rest of the Constitution otherwise it gives the Federal government the power to regulate and legislate on anything which renders virtually everything else in the constitution void. It's an absurd suggestion.

The Supreme Court, itself an entity of the Federal government, has upheld the Constitutionality of these programs on some VERY loose interpretations of the Constitution with a *wink* *wink* that they ruled that way because the people's representatives in Congress were simply providing what the people wanted.

These programs are at best extra-constitutional and at worst (which is my opinion) unconstitutional and the termites that destroy the foundation of our Republic.

IF YOU WANT A PROGRAM OR ENTITLEMENT FROM GOVERNMENT STOP LOOKING TO THE FEDS AND START DEMANDING IT FROM YOUR STATE!

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 04:01 PM
Their passage was wholly unconstitutional because the acts themselves go beyond the prescribed and enumerated powers of the Federal government. The Constitution is very specific as to what the Federal government can legislate on and regulate and leaves EVERYTHING else to the states. In fact, nearly all domestic policy was intended to be handled by the individual state. You won't find, in the enumerated powers of Congress, any mandate to create national healthcare, social security, or any other entitlement program. And don't even try to suggest its covered under the General Welfare Clause because the GWC still has to remain consistent with the rest of the Constitution otherwise it gives the Federal government the power to regulate and legislate on anything which renders virtually everything else in the constitution void. It's an absurd suggestion.

The Supreme Court, itself an entity of the Federal government, has upheld the Constitutionality of these programs on some VERY loose interpretations of the Constitution with a *wink* *wink* that they ruled that way because the people's representatives in Congress were simply providing what the people wanted.

These programs are at best extra-constitutional and at worst (which is my opinion) unconstitutional and the termites that destroy the foundation of our Republic.

IF YOU WANT A PROGRAM OR ENTITLEMENT FROM GOVERNMENT STOP LOOKING TO THE FEDS AND START DEMANDING IT FROM YOUR STATE!

You're simply wrong. They are permissible under the Commerce Clause and further authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes those acts not specifically enumerated. Do you believe that NASA is a constitutional body? It is not specifically enumerated. The Necessary and Proper Clause specifically allows for those things not otherwise enumerated.

There is no such thing as a General Welfare Clause in the Constitution anyway - it is simply mentioned in taxing and spending clause.

I suppose if you think that any Supreme Court decision that doesn't match up with your interpretation of the constitutions was made based on wink-wink conspiracies, so be it. I'm not sure how to keep having this discussion with you if you hear voices. With all due respect, of course.

49r
8/27/2009, 04:48 PM
Sounds like theres a lawyer convention in the house here today folks.

SicEmBaylor
8/27/2009, 05:00 PM
You're simply wrong. They are permissible under the Commerce Clause
That's the VERY loose interpretation that I'm talking about. If you've read the debates of the Constitutional convention and the Federalist papers then you'd know the Commerce clause was NEVER intended for entitlement programs like social security and its ilk. The Commerce Clause was created to regulate interstate commerce which no one state can regulate on its own. This is exactly the sort of power the Federal government was created to exercise, but claiming that Social Security was the sort of program intended under the CC is simply insane and inconsistent with history and any explanation of the clause by the men who wrote it.


Necessary and Proper Clause, which authorizes those acts not specifically enumerated.
Any act not specifically authorized so long as it, like the GWC, is consistent with the rest of the Constitution. For example, using the Commerce Clause, the Federal government doesn't specifically have the right to build an interstate system within the Constitution but the NAP clause allows it do so as part of its right to regulate interstate commerce. That is a legitimate exercise of Federal power while remaining faithful to the intent and spirit of the document.


Do you believe that NASA is a constitutional body?
Yes, Space is not the domain of any one state which is the best litmus test for determining what level of government is most appropriate for enacting certain legislation. Space is beyond the domestic realm therefore its perfectly acceptable for the Feds to have a Space Agency although I personally think NASA should be abandoned.


There is no such thing as a General Welfare Clause in the Constitution anyway - it is simply mentioned in taxing and spending clause.
Uh, that's why we refer to it as a "clause" which it is and it does exist.


I suppose if you think that any Supreme Court decision that doesn't match up with your interpretation of the constitutions was made based on wink-wink conspiracies, so be it.
It's not a conspiracy. The Supreme Court routinely says as much itself.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
8/27/2009, 05:01 PM
i was talking more about his general statements about something entirely different than what was asked. Instead of any specific examples of things that Obama has done that were against the constitution.Since you didn't like my answer, you labeled it FAIL. That's the lib way. You think you're right. We get that. SicEm and Ranier are busy going round and round saying the same things over and over. Lotta fun.

Fraggle145
8/27/2009, 05:07 PM
Since you didn't like my answer, you labeled it FAIL. That's the lib way. You think you're right. We get that. SicEm and Ranier are busy going round and round saying the same things over and over. Lotta fun.

No I labeled it fail because you didnt answer his question.

You still havent listed a single thing that Obama has done that was against the constituition or broke the law. You listed that "entitlement programs" in general are dubious. Which isnt the same thing and weren't necessarily started by Obama. Hence not answering his question.

If you dont want to or cant answer the question, just say so. I did it earlier in the thread and nobody died.

SicEmBaylor
8/27/2009, 05:23 PM
No I labeled it fail because you didnt answer his question.

You still havent listed a single thing that Obama has done that was against the constituition or broke the law. You listed that "entitlement programs" in general are dubious. Which isnt the same thing and weren't necessarily started by Obama. Hence not answering his question.

If you dont want to or cant answer the question, just say so. I did it earlier in the thread and nobody died.

He isn't doing anything that virtually every President before him hasn't done. I would say the seizure of banks and the entire automotive industry goes WAY the hell beyond the limit of Federal power within the Constitution, but you really can't make that claim since the automotive and banking industries invited that action when they made a "deal with the devil" by accepting bailout money.

rainiersooner
8/27/2009, 06:02 PM
Ok - I'm trying to respond to this on my mobile so not sure if it will work. Sic 'Em, you can't claim the defense of strict construction while at the same time looking to the intent of the drafters to interpret the document's meaning. As I'm guessing you know, courts have long grappled with what acts of congress affect commerce to the extent that they would be permitted under the commerce clause. The constitution was a negotiated contract - some argued for centralized govt, some decentralized. As I'm guessing you also know, US v. Lopez sets the outer limits of the CC. So argue for the appointment of judges who will devign intent when interpreting the CC, argue that Medicare is a bad policy, but don't argue that it clearly violates the express language of the constitution, because it doesn't: moreover, using medicare or Obama's proposed health care reform - which might be bad POLICY - as an example of him being an "outlaw" is just wrongheaded.

Gandalf_The_Grey
8/28/2009, 02:53 AM
If you think Obama or Bush destroyed or are destroying this country..you obviously haven't seen the fall line up of VH1...that is where our downfall will be

SicEmBaylor
8/28/2009, 05:07 AM
As I'm guessing you know, courts have long grappled with what acts of congress affect commerce to the extent that they would be permitted under the commerce clause.
Which, in and of itself, is somewhat extra-constitutional since I'm sure you know there is no provision providing for judicial review.


The constitution was a negotiated contract - some argued for centralized govt, some decentralized.
There weren't many who argued for a strictly centralized government. Alexander Hamilton was the most extreme case, but there were actually very few who advocated a strictly centralized government. There were a lot of ideas thrown around at the convention and one of which would have eliminated state borders all together and redrawn them as simple administrative districts to be governed by the Federal government (similar to the way France is currently governed). I forget who proposed that particular idea, but it was overwhelmingly rejected because the overwhelming majority of delegates to the Convention believed in the sovereignty of the individual states. I could go on with several other attempts to make a truly centralized government, but needless to say there was very little support for it among the Framer's.


As I'm guessing you also know, US v. Lopez sets the outer limits of the CC. So argue for the appointment of judges who will devign intent when interpreting the CC, argue that Medicare is a bad policy, but don't argue that it clearly violates the express language of the constitution, because it doesn't:
So wait a minute. Are you seriously telling me that it's wrong to argue what the original intent of the CC was based on the Federalist Papers, Madison himself, and the actual debates within the Constitutional Convention all because the Supreme Court ruled (what was it 1992?) this way or that? Seriously? Do your really want to defend that particular position on several Supreme Court cases I could mention? The Supreme Court is part of the Federal government and as such has a vested interest in protecting and increasing the size of the Federal government. The individual members aren't infallible and they all have their own political prejudices when sitting on the bench. Personally, I think it's highly dangerous to have one branch/level of government have sole purview over the constitutional review of legislation.


moreover, using medicare or Obama's proposed health care reform - which might be bad POLICY - as an example of him being an "outlaw" is just wrongheaded.

I never said he was an outlaw or doing anything illegal -- that was RLIMC. I also think that simply arguing what constitutes good or bad policy is exactly what is missing and wrong with this healthcare debate. By arguing the policy points there is a tacit acceptance of the premise that the Federal government has a role in providing healthcare. I wholly reject that premise so whether or not the policy is good or bad is a moot point. What the Federal government can do is regulate health insurance companies that operate in multiple states and then we can argue the policy points.

In any case, this is yet political debate that should be conducted on the state level and not the Federal.

Frozen Sooner
8/28/2009, 10:06 AM
SicEm, I've called you on this before and I'll call you on it again.

You can't argue "original intent" in one breath and decry "judicial review" in the next. Judicial review was a common part of the English legal tradition and had the founders wanted it to not exist they would have said no to the practice. You can't tell me that Adams wasn't at least aware of the practice.

"And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will controul acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it and adjudge such act to be void."-Lord Coke, Dr. Bonham's Case

"When statutes contradict...common law, the common law shall prevail"-Alexander Hamilton

"Whenever a statute contravenes the Constitution it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to to adhere to the latter and discard the former"-Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

This isn't to say that all of the founders were OK with the idea, by the way. Jefferson was particularly against judicial review. Then again, that may have something to do with the disposition of Marbury.

SicEmBaylor
8/28/2009, 03:33 PM
SicEm, I've called you on this before and I'll call you on it again.

You can't argue "original intent" in one breath and decry "judicial review" in the next. Judicial review was a common part of the English legal tradition and had the founders wanted it to not exist they would have said no to the practice. You can't tell me that Adams wasn't at least aware of the practice.

Adams didn't have anything to do with writing the Constitution. I know they were aware of judicial review, but there was NO discussion of it at the convention itself; it isn't mentioned in the Constitution explicitly; Madison never mentioned it in his journal; however, Adams did in one of the Federalist papers (I forget the number) in a rudimentary way. Nonetheless, it seems to me that there would have been more mention of a concept so extremely important to the new government.

In any case, I'm not disputing the importance of common law. We'd be hard-pressed to have a legal system without it. I don't even mind judicial review -- my problem is that all authority to do so is vested in one single body. I'd be far happier if the states had some right to nullification. Ideally, the Supreme Court would "check" state power while the states checked Federal power.

Frozen Sooner
8/28/2009, 04:10 PM
They didn't discuss it because it was obvious. Marbury didn't establish judicial review, it simply expressed a long-standing principle.

I'm not sure what you mean by states having some right of nullification. States are free to enact whatever laws they wish subject to supremacy. If the states are against a federal law, they DO have a method of nullification. The mechanism for such is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

MR2-Sooner86
8/28/2009, 06:46 PM
:pop:

Sooner_Havok
9/28/2009, 07:26 PM
WooHoo!

PDXsooner
9/28/2009, 07:47 PM
ha ha, all you pussies whining about the president need to velcro your balls back on and quit being suck absolute freakin' pansies.

actually, go ahead and whine, it's your right.

but *NEWSFLASH* we live in a democracy and the people have spoken. you have no better alternative, so stop acting like you do.

also, why don't you round up a couple of your cronies and take the first shot in starting a secession. Let me know how that goes for ya!

OU Adonis
9/28/2009, 07:55 PM
also, why don't you round up a couple of your cronies and take the first shot in starting a secession. Let me know how that goes for ya!

Based on past history, the USA has had about a 50% success rate on succession. Not sure if I would encourage that behavior. :)

PDXsooner
9/28/2009, 07:56 PM
Based on past history, the USA has had about a 50% success rate on succession. Not sure if I would encourage that behavior. :)

the "freemen" might disagree!:D

SicEmBaylor
9/28/2009, 08:11 PM
ha ha, all you pussies whining about the president need to velcro your balls back on and quit being suck absolute freakin' pansies.

actually, go ahead and whine, it's your right.

but *NEWSFLASH* we live in a democracy and the people have spoken. you have no better alternative, so stop acting like you do.

also, why don't you round up a couple of your cronies and take the first shot in starting a secession. Let me know how that goes for ya!

This is just a pet peeve of mine...

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! WE LIVE IN A FEDERAL REPUBLIC!!!!!!

Lott's Bandana
9/28/2009, 08:18 PM
This is just a pet peeve of mine...

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMORACY! WE LIVE IN A FEDERAL REPUBLIC!!!!!!


Edit button: down and to the right.

SicEmBaylor
9/28/2009, 08:32 PM
My typos have increased since I bought this Mac keyboard.

PDXsooner
9/28/2009, 10:28 PM
This is just a pet peeve of mine...

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! WE LIVE IN A FEDERAL REPUBLIC!!!!!!

the common usage of the word democracy applies here. the accepted interpretation of the word is that the people vote for their leaders.

stop being such a word nerd ;)

OU Adonis
3/23/2010, 10:42 AM
Anyone ready to divide the country yet?

Tulsa_Fireman
3/23/2010, 11:23 AM
I want Mexico.

TUSooner
3/23/2010, 01:39 PM
Life gets so simple once you know everything and no longer have to think.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
3/23/2010, 01:42 PM
Life gets so simple once you give up everything and no longer have to think.(fixed)YES! They are going to take care of us. All we have to do is transfer money to them.

Half a Hundred
3/23/2010, 03:26 PM
This is just a pet peeve of mine...

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! WE LIVE IN A FEDERAL REPUBLIC!!!!!!

A federal republic whose means of choosing representation is democratic.