Gas price up a $1 a gallon
in [Technical]
|
From: aemeijers on 28 Mar 2010 14:01 hls wrote: > The price of gasoline is not the worst thing that could result from > Obama's presidency. > > I didnt like his politics before he was elected,and like them even > less now. > > I hope that after November a lot of Democrats have to walk home > from Washington D.C. Both current parties are fulla s__t, and both need to be turned out of office en masse. (actually more like 1.5 parties- they are more alike than they are different.) I think we need to try it without ANY political parties for a couple decades. Elect the man or woman based on what THEY say. Wonder how they would make committee assignments if everyone was an independent? It was never supposed to be a life-long career. None Of The Above in '10 and '12! -- aem sends...
From: AZ Nomad on 28 Mar 2010 16:42 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:01:51 -0400, aemeijers <aemeijers(a)att.net> wrote: >hls wrote: >> The price of gasoline is not the worst thing that could result from >> Obama's presidency. >> >> I didnt like his politics before he was elected,and like them even >> less now. >> >> I hope that after November a lot of Democrats have to walk home >> from Washington D.C. >Both current parties are fulla s__t, and both need to be turned out of >office en masse. (actually more like 1.5 parties- they are more alike >than they are different.) >I think we need to try it without ANY political parties for a couple >decades. Elect the man or woman based on what THEY say. Wonder how they >would make committee assignments if everyone was an independent? Not only that, but make all political contributions illegal. Treat them the same as paying off a cop for favor. Representatives are supposed to represent the people, not the corporation with the most money to contribute.
From: APLer on 28 Mar 2010 19:27 aemeijers <aemeijers(a)att.net> wrote in news:S_KdnYaWLOcWBDLWnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > hls wrote: >> The price of gasoline is not the worst thing that could result from >> Obama's presidency. >> >> I didnt like his politics before he was elected,and like them even >> less now. >> >> I hope that after November a lot of Democrats have to walk home >> from Washington D.C. > > Both current parties are fulla s__t, and both need to be turned out of > office en masse. (actually more like 1.5 parties- they are more alike > than they are different.) > > I think we need to try it without ANY political parties for a couple > decades. Elect the man or woman based on what THEY say. Wonder how > they would make committee assignments if everyone was an independent? > > It was never supposed to be a life-long career. None Of The Above in > '10 and '12! > Do what the greeks did. Select a citizen at random.
From: Roger Blake on 29 Mar 2010 09:09 On 2010-03-27, M.M. <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > Not that there was much left of it after Bush & his henchmen were > finished with it... It started way before Bush, though he certainly did his part. Obama, Pelose, and company seem intent on destroying the rest. -- Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.) "Obama dozed while people froze."
From: Roger Blake on 29 Mar 2010 09:36
On 2010-03-27, Scott Dorsey <kludge(a)panix.com> wrote: > I'd look in the preamble under "promoting the general welfare" personally. I'd look at the historical basis of that personally, and discover that it is supposed to be a restrictive rather than an expansive clause, such as what James Madison had to say about it: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison Likewise, the much-abused commerce clause was intended to be restrictive, its intent was to prevent tarriffs and trade wars between the states, to to have central government managing every aspect of our lives. Don't take my word for it, Madison said so himself: "Yet it [commerce clause] is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged." -- James Madison The words of the Constitution do not exist in a vacuum, the Framers left behind plenty of evidence as to what their intentions were. Given that a fundamental axiom is that the intent of the law maker is the force and intent of the law, how do we get to an authoritarian central government dictating to individuals that they must buy specific products and services without shredding the Constitution into confetti? > But, if you require that everything has to be specifically enumerated > as a line in the constitution, we'd better get rid of the national > transportation system and shut down all the highways. Regulation of > gasoline quality? I don't see anything about that in the constitution, So you believe that "the end justifies the means" and that government should be given unlimited power to do whatever politicians decide is needed at any given moment. May your chains rest lightly upon your shoulders. (Of course any of the items you mention could be lawfully implemented via a constitutional amendment. The constitution was designed as an extensible document.) > I think it was Jefferson whose attitudes you are objecting to rather than > Obama's. Looking over Jefferson's concerns about authoritarian government in places such as: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0900.htm I don't see much that would lend support to the objectives of the thugs currently in power. > You might also want to try looking over the actual health care proposals > and some of what Obama has said. I disagree with a lot of it too, but I disagree with ALL of it. My health is not a federal issue. > some of it I strongly support, and it's certainly an improvement over the > horrible disaster we've got right now. I see no "horrible disaster." Even if there were, in the absense of a Constitutional amendment I certainly see no lawful authority for the scheme that has been enacted. -- Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.) "Obama dozed while people froze." |