" Class Warfare " ?

Of course. Obama is part of the elite that are waging class warfare on the poor and middle class. Anybody who denies that there is class warfare going on doesn't understand how the system works. The elite running our shadow government (the Council on Foreign Relations) have many tools under their control which they use to wage it. The govt, the fed, the media, etc.

 

Liberal Democrats like Reid are destroying this Country.
Yet their arrogance persists.Imagine if Bush Republicans refused
to pass a budget.We already know the answer to that.
Look what the Demopcrats did { Every one of them } when the
Debt Ceiling vote came up in 2006.Every Democrat in the Senate
voted it down in 2006 and almost everyone in 2007.
What did we hear last year at this time about the Debt ceiling.
The Lyin Democrats sang an entirely different tune.
Astounding ... No ... Just Hypocrisy.

 

I agree with this assessment. I don't believe we could do a better job in modern times than our Founding Fathers did at the Convention.

And, our modern elected representatives also can't seem to tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense. It is no wonder we have so many simple social problems that are not being addressed.

 

And some,Like the Great Ben Franklin were on their last legs,literally.
Barely able to walk,and frail with sickness,Franklin managed enough
strength and perseverance to get that Constitution and Bill of
Rights done.
And yet,many Liberals are on a mission to Rewrite history and
what kind of Men,these Founders were.Notice how easy and fun it
was for this Lolliopop Lamestream to mock and poke fun at Michele
Bachmann whenever she talked on praise of our Founders and
the import of the Constitution,which she helped to popularize in the
House.Bachmann organized meetings before certain House votes
for any member of Congress to attend where sections of the Constitution
were read.Imagine that.That this Lamestream actually laughed at her
along with former Speaker Pelosi for having such meetings.
Again ... Sheer Hypocrisy.
The very reason we have Breitbart.To uncover this American virus known
as Liberalism.

 

I didn't realize some members of Congress were that motivated in reading our own supreme law of the land, when words they can put on a blank piece of paper may have the effect and force of law, regardless.

I would expect a well informed electorate to know their own Constitution to some extent; and our elected representatives to almost be able to quote it by heart.

Why blame liberals when alleged conservatives can be worse?

In my opinion, we would not have many of our modern social dilemmas if we were merely moral enough to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land simply for the sake of morals and that form of moral absolutism.

A moral failure is more rightfully to be blamed on persons of alleged (religious) morals than temporal and secular ethicists.

 

My thread: "Obummer's RE-ELECTION BRIBE !!!" addresses your thread's central point SPOT ON.

My thread discusses Obummer's "Class Warfare" AND the resulting FREEBIES that the OWS- type crowd will SUPPOSEDLY aggrandize themselves with if they SUCCESSFULLY "TAX THE RICH" !!!

Obummer's strategy is SIMPLICITY ITSELF: To misdirect the National Focus from his DISASTROUS FINANCIAL MODEL THAT IS BASED ON THE "GREECE ENTITLEMENT MODEL" ...... by using the bogus solution of "TAX the RICH" as the solution .......Obummer seeks re-election by BRIBING the American Public with FREEBIES .....i.e., BOGUS ENTITLEMENTS with money that America does not have.

I show, using Stossel's report, that "TAXING the RICH" is a BOGUS SOLUTION because, AT BEST, it will reduce the Annual Fed Debt by only 1/3 if ALL the annual income & profits of the RICH would be grabbed by the IRS ..... and the Annual Fed Debt would STILL rise by 2/3 of the projected Annual Debt.

Naturally with this bogus hypothetical situation the Nation would collapse since all the major businesses would shut down.

 

I would be willing to vote down party lines, to the party which can most faithfully execute a federal doctrine regarding employment at will.

 

I watched the Stossel piece on O'Reilly last night.He did a typical
person on the street { New York city } upper manhattan I believe,
approaching Obama voters with his white cardboard fact sheet showing
the Numbers.What our debt is and how's it's catipulted the last
3 years.How much we take in and how much we spend.
Those persons were flabbergasted.They had No idea how broke
and in trouble this country is.Yet Democrats seem as if it's No Biggie.
Even those Obama voters in N.Y.C are now worried as to the
real State of our Union.
Obama has gotten away with way too much.
Democrats are incompetent,feckless and destroying this Country
with reckless disregard to their spending.

 

Yep.

I discuss that particular Stossel report on O'Reilly, add certain concepts, and elucidate certain parts of that scenario.....plus address the points you raise in your thread ......in my thread: "Obummer's RE-ELECTION BRIBE !!!"

 

Change for the sake of change isn't an acceptable reason. You have to give specifics, and you have to explain why past structure is no longer acceptable.

You haven't done that at all, and I'm not in favor of legislating liberalism.

 

Well ... it's true.

 

Hey Don Quixote: explain how - regardless the rates you are bloviating about - the collections from society are inexorably increasing, and the total percentage of gross revenue paid by the rich continue to increase.

If what you say is true, the wealthy have the suckiest lobbyists in history.

Fantastic. Now try to refute what I just said - facts that have already been cited on this site multiple times.

Nonsense. Made up fairy tales, akin to Don Quixote's jousting.

 

From one perspective, simply lowering taxes on the wealthy during times of war on Earth, may be perceived as a form of "class warfare" on its own merit.

 

You mean like here:

here:

or here:

?

I'm sure there is more and perhaps better reasons, I don't see the point of retaining rules about how to deal with Indian tribes in the constitution, and I'm sure a quick googling can give you a list of problems with the constitution, but my main point is the fact that a lot of the time, the interpretation is up to the constitutional lawyers and their ability to persuade people rather than the "wisdom of our founding fathers".

 

There is nothing ambiguous about our supreme Law of the land and social Contract for the People to secure the Blessings of Liberty on Earth to ourselves and our posterity. It is accessible to anyone who knows how to operate a dictionary and maybe a thesaurus, even if only for the sake and greater glory of our republic.

 

That's the best you can do???

No, it isn't nearly as vague as you claim. Liberals have added mud to the water and cataracts to the eyes of other liberals. It is written in plain text with plain meaning.

Um...you think that's specific? You just repeated your first statement, along with mentioning "stuff".

Not good enough. You gave no specifics of the modern life and thoughts into account.

Particularly none that couldn't be addressed with an Amendment, if you came up with something valid.

Can you?

3rd repetition. This is utterly vague, and - if you were paying attention - nearly entirely the construct of liberalism. The rest of us have no problem at all understanding what the Constitution says.

You're just identifying the agenda of those who wish to tear down the Constitution - and the country with it - instead of obeying plain meaning. You still gave no specifics at all.

 

Yes,it seems that the Supreme Court has taken great liberty to Invent
ways to usurp the interpretation of the Constitution,even granting a
Right { Abortion } never even remotely mentioned in any Bill of Rights.
I can see ammendments to the Constitution which requires ratification
via the States but I cannot imagine the flagrant taking away of a Right.
Like say to bear Arms.That is a Right.Not an Opinion which qualifies as
needing interpretation.Constitutional lawyers can and should give opinions,
but never,as in not once take it upon themself to declare a Constitutional
Right as unnecessary or to be eliminated.That is the beginning of Tyranny.

 

well. topics have a tendency to do this when your first responders are leftists. I apologize for being suckered into their misdirection.

 

We now know for certain that there IS a State-run media.
We have the smoking gun.The memo's from Media Matters showcasing
their purpose.Media Matters exists to dig up dirt on Obama's opposition
via Spying on their personal life and researching any an all comments
they've made.Most conservative talking heads already knew this.
But now we have the definitive proof.The Daily Caller went undercover
investigating David Brock and his Media Matters.Memo's were uncovered.
It appears Valerie Jarrett was one of the White House collaborators
with Media Matters in using whatever dirt to help Obama and the
Democrats in Congress.Media Matters has long been known to feed
MSNBC daily dirt for their Hosts,in particular Keith Olbermann and
Rachel Maddow.

 

True. My problem with the constitution isn't primarily the content, I'm not advocating specific change here, just the theoretical ability to do so without having to deal with the argument from age thing.

If you want specifics for reference, I can go with the election system.
I disagree with the system that allows people to win elections without getting a majority of the votes.
I disagree with the current system that gives too much power to the president and the winners of the election no matter how slight, forcing the country into a two party system.
I have also heard criticism for having a system that is so complicated that it brings down the numbers of voters (even though I don't know enough about it, I'm not going to argue the point unless I get more info).

But even with those, the point of the argument is not hinged on these points. For instance, when I'm discussing gun control, I don't want the argument to be the actual fact that it is in the constitution, but I want the argument to be the reason why it is in the constitution.

 

If you are suggesting it is a good thing to question God Given rights
or natural rights based upon mention of a creator,than you cannot
possibly be a serious thinker.Rights have to come from somewhere.
Not out of thin air.Which is what Lefties would like many Americans to
believe.There's a reason for the Right of Free Speech.The Right to Bear
Arms.The Right of Freedom of Religion which usurps all else.
Obama and Democrats would like our Populace to slowly adopt the belief
that Our Government is Our Religion.That it acts on behalf of a creator.
Initially wholly then eventually Apart.Which is the beginning of
Fascism.That The State shall decide ALL rights and how applied.
Tinkering with Our Constitution is both an affront to sanity as well
civility.You cannot have a civil soiciety by denying natural rights.
It is impossible.That is why Our Founders spent such carefull time and
attention in drafting a Constitution.
This current Administration is openly denying a fundamental natural
right of ... Consent of the Governed !

 

Recognizing a natural right is not granting something; our federal government is only delegated those powers by the People.

 

I wonder if it is apparent even to the LIEberrhoidals that LIEberrhoidals have very little credibility even among LIEberrhoidals.