Jump to content

Do You Believe Present obama?


JB 2

Recommended Posts

Saw this link on the Weatherchannel web site of all places. I remember 1993, when President Clinton's tax increased was characterized as the "biggest tax increase in history." Well, it was at that point. Anyone remember when it challenged Constitutionality by being retro active? Nobody challenged it though (sound familiar?).

 

Well, Barry looks to unseat that throne with Obamacare. Obamacare will now stand as the biggest tax increase in history.....

 

http://moneymorning.com/ob-article/obamacare-taxes.php?code=t-oc-taxes

 

Hidden taxes on business. Don't you love it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Wow....some real crazy talk on this thread. I think for most part there's a ton of people who are just missing the point period. It doesn't matter that Obama lied. He's a politician, they all do it. I'm not defending him at all. He's a filthy liar and manipulator I do agree.... It also is Congress and the Senate sticking it up our wazoo every chance they get. They all promise you the world....pat you on the back...and say "we'll help" when they really don't care. But they will kiss the ass of every large contributor to their campaign....that's who has their ear, NOT YOU. They don't care about the lower or middle class, even really don't care about the upper class, unless they fall into the "campaign contributor" category. Our government cares nothing about the people it governs....few do. What they want from you is to earn a living, pay your taxes and vote for them....love them as gods and keep your mouth shut. They don't care about anything else. Why would they care if you don't have health insurance? Why would they care if you don't have a job? I know they should but they don't. The scariest part out of this tragic government is that they have accomplished all they set out to.....They keep you arguing about who's party is best. Whose party is going to lead this country and whose party is at the root of all the government failings. All this while they sit back and watch us bitch and argue fighting amoungst ourselves as they sit together having drinks watching the "boxing match" they have created and all the time laughing..... all the way to the bank. I laugh when I see people say idiots like Hillary will save us! Lol....Your kidding right? She's already proven to be a liar several times over....Wasn't it her that had "bullets whistling over her head" in Chechnya, when if fact she was proven to be a liar and admitting to lying. Will we ever really know about what really happened in Benghazi? You believe this to be your savior? Wow....I almost pissed myself laughing when I read that post. Her husbands Presidency would have been a nightmare if not for the tech boom happening during his time in office...Remeber NAFTA? How'd that work out? What it did was send a boatload of US jobs overseas....Let's face it folks....We're in boatload of trouble after this schmuck gets out of office........A revolution is coming and it's going to be bad....maybe not in my lifetime....but let me assure you....it's coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Civil War took place after decades of conflict, some of it armed uprisings. History is still evolving around the issue of federal vs. states powers. Right now, the constitution appears to be worthless. Without a valid social contract, there cannot be a nation.

 

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/beforethewar/g/bleedingkansas.htm

 

Definition: Bleeding Kansas refers to the time between 1854-58 when the Kansas territory was the site of much violence over whether the territory would be free or slave. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 set the scene by allowing the territory of Kansas to decide for itself whether it would be free or slave, a situation known as popular sovereignty.* With the passage of the act, thousands of pro- and anti-slavery supporters flooded the state. Violent clashes soon occurred, especially once "border ruffians" crossed over from the South to sway the vote to the pro-slavery side.

One of the most publicized events that occurred in Bleeding Kansas was when on May 21, 1856 Border Ruffians ransacked Lawrence, Kansas which was known to be a staunch free-state area. One day later, violence occurred on the floor of the U.S. Senate when Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts with a cane after Sumner spoke out against Southerners responsible for violence in Kansas.

Several constitutions for the future state of Kansas were created, some pro- and some anti-slavery. The Lecompton Constitution was the most important pro-slavery Constitution. President James Buchanan actually wanted it to be ratified. However, the Constitution died. Kansas eventually entered the Union in 1861 as a free state.

Also Known As: Bloody Kansas or the Border War
* Definition: This principle states that the source of governmental power lies with the people. This belief stems from the concept of the social contract and the idea that government should be for the benefit of its citizens. If the government is not protecting the people, it should be dissolved. The theory evolved from the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Popular sovereignty is one of the six foundational principles upon which the US Constitution is built. The other five principles are: limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial review, and federalism. Each of gives the Constitution a basis for authority and legitimacy.

Popular sovereignty was often cited before the US Civil War as a reason why individuals in a newly organized territory should have the right to decide whether or not slavery should be allowed. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was based on this idea. It set the stage for a situation that became known as Bleeding Kansas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as any other president. Naïve people think the president actually does something.

The president is his party's agenda salesman, has the bully pulpit with media, can veto legislation, apparently now rewrite it after enactment, and most important appoint judges to the Supreme Court thus possibly giving control to two of three branches of government. If congress majority is of the presidents party along with a Supreme Court favoring, the President is the government.

 

The executive branch has now become very dangerous because of apparent ability to change law after enactment, ability to choose which laws or portions therein to be enforced or not, and ability to legislate by executive order. No matter which party holds the white house, there is real power there now because the legislative branch has been significantly weakened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Sengui, The proper name is "War of Northern Agression" not "The Civil War". A Civil War is what is beginning to happen across the USA in seemingly isolated incidences.

 

Just my opinion of course.

What ever you wish to call it, the seeds were planted just after the revolution in drafting of the Constitution. The Dred Scott decision set the states rights vs. federal powers civil division on fire. Then there is John Brown's visit to to Harpers Ferry Va. (now W.VA). This was before secession and quelled by federal troops. Brown (hung) hoped to start a slave uprising. The rights issue led to the South succeeding and then firing on Fort Sumter.

 

I give the first act of aggression to the CSA.

 

'FORT SUMTER, S.C., April 12, 1861, 3:20 A.M. - SIR: By authority of Brigadier-General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open the fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time. We have the honor to be very respectfully, Your obedient servants, JAMES CHESNUT JR., Aide-de-camp. STEPHEN D. LEE, Captain C. S. Army, Aide-de-camp.'

 

I believe Gen. Lee's visit to Pennsylvania had a bit of aggressiveness as well. With Lee's failure, Gen. Sherman then wrote the definition on aggression and scorched earth.

 

The root cause of the war was irreconcilable differences on civil law, and definition of the role of the federal government's power. It ain't over yet, and it involves a patch work of states, not a region. The division of power battle still is on.

 

Just my opinion of course. (not really, just a story on who chucked the first rock)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What ever you wish to call it, the seeds were planted just after the revolution in drafting of the Constitution. The Dred Scott decision set the states rights vs. federal powers civil division on fire. Then there is John Brown's visit to to Harpers Ferry Va. (now W.VA). This was before secession and quelled by federal troops. Brown (hung) hoped to start a slave uprising. The rights issue led to the South succeeding and then firing on Fort Sumter.

 

I give the first act of aggression to the CSA.

 

'FORT SUMTER, S.C., April 12, 1861, 3:20 A.M. - SIR: By authority of Brigadier-General Beauregard, commanding the Provisional Forces of the Confederate States, we have the honor to notify you that he will open the fire of his batteries on Fort Sumter in one hour from this time. We have the honor to be very respectfully, Your obedient servants, JAMES CHESNUT JR., Aide-de-camp. STEPHEN D. LEE, Captain C. S. Army, Aide-de-camp.'

 

I believe Gen. Lee's visit to Pennsylvania had a bit of aggressiveness as well. With Lee's failure, Gen. Sherman then wrote the definition on aggression and scorched earth.

 

The root cause of the war was irreconcilable differences on civil law, and definition of the role of the federal government's power. It ain't over yet, and it involves a patch work of states, not a region. The division of power battle still is on.

 

Just my opinion of course. (not really, just a story on who chucked the first rock)

 

 

I believe Present obama has finally accomplished what another fascist did in 1933. The democrat party in the Senate has passed its version of "The Enabling Act of 1933".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RogerRebuttal

Your paycheck is money allowable, because without the military or government, you wouldn't have a paycheck, the Chinese would be taking it as they knocked on your front door...

 

You earn your paycheck huh?? Funny concept. Talk to a veteran when it comes to earning something. Everyone of us is riding their coat tails...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RogerRebuttal

When WW III comes, figure out the math. You may want to read something before you make it yours. Some reading requires your own input and logic. That's being rational

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When WW III comes, figure out the math. You may want to read something before you make it yours. Some reading requires your own input and logic. That's being rational

 

It has been in planning stage for months and there were hundreds of red flags to make a logical progression. Too bad you never remember much of my rantings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Enabling Act of 1933 is comparable to the Immigration Act of 1986 by yours truly, Ronald The Great

I don't remember, did Regan change or ammend the law after congress passed it and he signed it.

 

The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich (English: "Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich")

 

This also sounds familiar.

Meanwhile, the Social Democrats initially planned to hinder the passage of the Act by boycotting the Reichstag session, rendering that body short of the quorum (two thirds) needed to vote on a constitutional amendment. The Reichstag, however, led by its President, Hermann Göring, changed its rules of procedure, allowing the President to declare that any deputy who was "absent without excuse" was to be considered as present, in order to overcome obstructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting. While looking at all of your links I ran into something I found, closer to home, more elucidating...The Morgenthau Plan. I wonder if it's possible for the Triple Cities to become prosperous again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting. While looking at all of your links I ran into something I found, closer to home, more elucidating...The Morgenthau Plan. I wonder if it's possible for the Triple Cities to become prosperous again?

Ok who are we going to war with so they can beat us, then rebuild us, Tioga County ? The Peoples Republic of Ithaca?

 

I can't recall the history exactly, it has been a while since my college days. I had written a paper on social aspects in unification of the separate German states. At one time there were approximately 30. For BCV Wikipedia is close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_German_history

 

Seriously, if that plan was executed it would have planted the seeds of Germanic nationalism and a Fourth Reich just it occurred at the Hambach Festival in 1832. Up until unification of Germanic speaking (ethnic) states in 1871 (Second Reich), there was no Germany as a single nation. These separate states were linked by culture, language, music, and a desire not to be kicked around by the rest of Europe any more. Richard Wagner expressly sought to encourage Germanic supremacy, and unification through his music. When Germany was separated from Austria and ceded territories to France and Czechoslovakia after WWI, Hitler and Goebbels exploited culture, the press, film, and radio. What had taken hundreds of years, they did in ten. Build an empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ :blink::) Actually, as I read the Wiki info on the Morgenthau plan, what I was really doing was substituting the word Binghamton for Germany. It's my assertation that several points of this directly correlate toward the destruction of industry to create a pastoral, dependent and politically powerless upstate economy. But to answer your question..who are we going to war with? New York City just elected a communist for mayor. We have a city council that thinks it's ok to threaten peoples jobs by forcing them to move within the city limits. AND, THEY'RE STILL TRYING TO GET OVERBURDENED TAX PAYERS TO FUND ELECTIONS! I could go on...but it's late and I'm tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ :blink::) Actually, as I read the Wiki info on the Morgenthau plan, what I was really doing was substituting the word Binghamton for Germany. It's my assertation that several points of this directly correlate toward the destruction of industry to create a pastoral, dependent and politically powerless upstate economy. But to answer your question..who are we going to war with? New York City just elected a communist for mayor. We have a city council that thinks it's ok to threaten peoples jobs by forcing them to move within the city limits. AND, THEY'RE STILL TRYING TO GET OVERBURDENED TAX PAYERS TO FUND ELECTIONS! I could go on...but it's late and I'm tired.

OMGGGG The Peoples Republic of Ithaca on the West, The Peoples Socialist City of New York on the East, IT IS A TWO FRONT WAR. !!!!!!!

 

"to threaten peoples jobs by forcing them to move within the city limits"

This is a beauty, force people to sell their homes in a depressed market and move into the City. Why not just tax their income and save everyone the grief. That is what the residency requirement boils down. The City would be directly collecting property (school?) taxes and a water bill if the employees buy a home in Binghamton, indirectly if they rent, plus claim a population increase on their watch. It's a win, win, win !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...