RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!!

RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 10:39:04 AM)
Makes you wonder why its taken until now to realise that its Allllllll UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 10:45:14 AM)
Exactly. The latest example was the healthcare debacle. It isn't just unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. It is unconstitutional because 99% of the time it is an individual walking into a local hospital for medical care. It doesn't even cross state lines. Congress can regulate medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies that already cross state lines, but they can't regulate anything that they aren't specifically authorized to regulate and that doesn't cross state lines. They aren't even authorized to regulate energy exploration in a specific state. They can regulate pipelines though that cross state boundaries.

Lucylastic -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 10:47:19 AM)
[sm=alien.gif]

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 10:49:16 AM)
You might argue that the pipeline was illegal before it was built too, which eliminates my argument that they are creating laws and agencies that are unconstitutional then declaring them legal after the fact because they fall under the ICC. The flaw in your logic is that each state has the right to build a pipeline though, and if they decide to connect them to each other then they have that right.

mnottertail -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 10:57:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls Where they are confusing you brainiacs is they go ahead and pass laws and create agencies that apply to all the states, then after the fact, they say it falls under the ICC clause. i.e., they are doing things that are unconstitutional in the first place, then claiming it falls under the ICC clause after they passed the law or created the agency. Give me some of the SCOTUS decisions that have found the commerce clause of 1.8 illegal, or have said that its ok, because illegal as it is, you can just chalk er up to the whimsy of the commerce clause article one, section eight. The ICC is the interstate commerce commission, and not language in the US Constitution. Most SCOTUS level arguments and decisions in this particular area are based up the 14th amendment. More night school for you.

cuckoldmepls -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 11:00:04 AM)
Now here's the good part. Since 90% of everything Congress has done for the past 50 years is unconstitutional. That means these debts are not legally incurred and we don't have to pay them off. That means we could get around the 14th amendment and declare bankruptcy. Although the right thing to do would be to declare bankruptcy. Then pay only the principle back, oldest debts first, no interest, at our own pace. In my opinion, the 14th amendment was written to make sure that people didn't fork over all their money to the government during wartime, and then get shafted after the war.

mnottertail -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 11:00:37 AM)
You getting this off some blog? Cuz it aint real.

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 12:09:42 PM)
The constitutional debate needs to go to it's own thread please. Here is a refresher for those that need the OP again: quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Prominent conservative leaders want their rank and file to quickly get behind a single presidential candidate — Rick Santorum now seems the likeliest — fearful that persistent splits will help Mitt Romney win the Republican nomination. "While no political candidate, or human being for that matter, is perfect, Rick Santorum's baggage contains his clothes," CatholicVote.org president Brian Burch said Thursday, after Santorum's virtual tie with Romney in Iowa won the support of the 600,000-member online organization. "Republicans hoping to win back the White House in November must unite behind the candidate most dedicated to the foundational issues of faith, family and freedom." Romney narrowly won the Iowa caucuses when conservative voters split their support among several challengers, and the worry is that the same thing will happen in South Carolina, Florida and beyond if Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry all stay in the race. "Conservatives are still divided among a number of different candidates, but the field is winnowing," said former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer. And, he said: "I certainly think that Senator Santorum is in a good position to inherit a lot of that support." http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-time-rally-around-not-romney-203635123.html

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 6:19:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel When JFK was running for president, people were afraid he would become the Pope's puppet in the US. Why is nobody concerned about that now? My guess is (and it's just a guess)....JFK is dead.

Owner59 -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 7:26:47 PM)
Here`s a good one folks..... "Evangelicals Consider Pushing Gingrich, Perry To Drop Out And Back Santorum" A prominent evangelical Christian said Friday that if Rick Santorum continues to surge in the polls and does well in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Christian leaders are planning to ask Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to drop out and get behind the former Pennsylvania senator."There is real concern that [Mitt] Romney will win without having to face one concentrated effort of a conservative challenger," Richard Land, one of the most well-known Southern Baptist leaders in the nation, told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-gingrich-perry_n_1190491.html 1st of all,newt ain`t quit`n for nobody but Calista.Not sure what the fundies are smoking. This is all extraordinary. What is it that`s making the cons eat their own children like this?

Lucylastic -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/6/2012 10:41:14 PM)
Its all a big show so they can deny they wanted Romney to win, and then use him as a scapegoat, just in case they win in november. If they DONT they can blame Romney cos hes not conservative enough. covering ones arse I believe its called

Moonhead -> RE: Cons: Time to rally around a not-Romney....Ouch!! (1/7/2012 4:52:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel When JFK was running for president, people were afraid he would become the Pope's puppet in the US. Why is nobody concerned about that now? My guess is (and it's just a guess)....JFK is dead. Doesn't that make him even more the Pope's bitch? [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125