If FedGovt can regulate bank exec pay, what in banking can't they regulate?

[Dr.Who]

AlGore and Herman Munster lost the last two presidential elections

That was funny how you compared Kerry to Herman Munster in parody. It was also funny how you compared Al Gore to Al Gore as a parody. They were two very funny people.

 

[Dr.Who]

Again , cant debate a issue can you, straw men are all you have...I was against the bail out....also show me where it is against the constitution for the Government to be involved in the finances of the US.

I didn't mean to create a strawman. I guess I assumed you favored the bailout. Opps.

All rights not otherwise listed as powers of the fed are reserved by the states or the people. That was my paraphrase but you could easily look up "the Enumerated rights clause."

So the real question becomes which article of the constitution gives the congress the right to take the money that belongs to all of the people and give it to just a few businesses?

That is directly in opposition to the general welfare clause which states that what the government does must be for the GENERAL welfare and not just for the welfare of a few people. You can always tell when they are violating the general welfare clause because the take money and give it to just a few people instead of using it for he benefit of the population in general.

The early courts consistently understood this and struck down any attempt to violate these principles. After FDR stacked the court and "blackmailed" them in the "constitutional revolution of 1937" the courts were forced to rule the other way and now precedent is set for huge money grab and socialist takeover.

 

[Dr.Who]

Clinton NEVER got 50 percent of the vote in EITHER of his elections. Bush's votes were sucked off by Perot the first time and then Perot sucked them again the second time.

Had clinton got even 50 percent of the votes I would not have said what I did.

Um, so yes, in other words more than 50% of the people voted against him.

Clinton won the first election with 42% of the vote for him, or 58% of the vote against him.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I didn't mean to create a strawman. I guess I assumed you favored the bailout. Opps.

All rights not otherwise listed as powers of the fed are reserved by the states or the people. That was my paraphrase but you could easily look up "the Enumerated rights clause."

So the real question becomes which article of the constitution gives the congress the right to take the money that belongs to all of the people and give it to just a few businesses?

That is directly in opposition to the general welfare clause which states that what the government does must be for the GENERAL welfare and not just for the welfare of a few people. You can always tell when they are violating the general welfare clause because the take money and give it to just a few people instead of using it for he benefit of the population in general.

The early courts consistently understood this and struck down any attempt to violate these principles. After FDR stacked the court and "blackmailed" them in the "constitutional revolution of 1937" the courts were forced to rule the other way and now precedent is set for huge money grab and socialist takeover.

nope I, like mainy liberals and moderates also where aginst the bail out, put in place by the Republican president...only to watch all blame for its passing go to obama after he one, even though it was Bush who pushed it, and signed it into law, and was president.

Just like I am sure the debt is all Obamas fault as well, not Bush who republicans voted into office 2 times.

Closing gitmo is Obama's fault....its not Bush's fault for doing it in the first place and never figuring out a real system of justice for them, just content to let it linger and hope someone else dealt with it. and then of course comes more straw men ( maybe not from you, just some right wingers on here. that somehow this means they will be now free to roam out streets ...or that somehow liberals think they are all innocent and nice people...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Um, so yes, in other words more than 50% of the people voted against him.

Clinton won the first election with 42% of the vote for him, or 58% of the vote against him.

the whole idea of X stole votes from Y is reatard, is assumes some that somehow those votes where rightfuly one persons votes to have in the first place. Had I not voted for Perot, as I did, who would I have voted for? you don't know, I may not have voted at all, I could have voted Bush who I did like but found lacking understanding of the current econ issues also for his failed support of a uprising of the Kurds and Shia in Iraq after we did not invade ( something I did not agree with as well at the time, but later understood why and agreed was right thing to do)

I voted Nader in 2000 does that mean I was going to vote Gore?
I voted Perot in 1996
I supported Perot in 1992 ( could not vote)

So to those who thing those votes are siffoned of, please let me know who I was going to vote for those times had I not voted or supported who I did...

Now please tell me why you feel that that person was somehow entitled to my vote.

Now tell me why Bush did not just steal votes from Perot....or Gore was not just stealing votes from Nader.

 

[Dr.Who]

the whole idea of X stole votes from Y is reatard, is assumes some that somehow those votes where rightfuly one persons votes to have in the first place. Had I not voted for Perot, as I did, who would I have voted for? you don't know, I may not have voted at all, I could have voted Bush who I did like but found lacking understanding of the current econ issues also for his failed support of a uprising of the Kurds and Shia in Iraq after we did not invade ( something I did not agree with as well at the time, but later understood why and agreed was right thing to do)

I voted Nader in 2000 does that mean I was going to vote Gore?
I voted Perot in 1996
I supported Perot in 1992 ( could not vote)

So to those who thing those votes are siffoned of, please let me know who I was going to vote for those times had I not voted or supported who I did...

Now please tell me why you feel that that person was somehow entitled to my vote.

Now tell me why Bush did not just steal votes from Perot....or Gore was not just stealing votes from Nader.

What are you talking about?

I was not talking about stolen votes in any way means or form.

Those were just the final numbers with no comment on whether or not they were legit. All they showed is that F. P. Clinton did not have a majority.

The only reason anyone said the truth that Clinton did not have a majority was because you implied he did when you said:

"so you mean to say that well more then half of the US voted against him then right? "

 

[Andy]

photoshopped pics with crap written on them are now facts?

Ok, I didn't write a picture book. There was tons of squiggly lines all over those posts that made words, sentences, paragraphs and such. These contained information regarding the prior topic raised by Top Gun, over the statement:

Man it's sooo easy to see how you guys keep getting your butts kicked in these elections!

That is what I was responding too.

As for the photos...

The Carter one is of course a cartoon meant to be humorous, while pointing out that carter was so bad that even a mainstream media outlet published the cartoon, validating the claim he was awful. To this day, even the most supportive liberal doesn't point out Carter's record, only what he's done after he left office. (which hasn't been much either)

The Mondale electoral outcome, merely validated his amazing victory of only his home state, and it was close even there.

The Dukakis Abram M1 Tank photo was real. He really did climb into a tank, in a bullet proof vest over his suit and tie, put on a Gomer Pyle helmet, and ride around like he knew something about the tank.

The German parade photo wasn't doctored either. It was an actual float depicting Clinton fondling liberty, a representation of the US. It didn't happen during or after his first election, like I suppose one might infer from how it was laid out. But I wanted the John Wong photo for the second election, because that's when Chinagate was taking place. Clinton, like Obama today, was hailed as being loved all over the world. However this parade photo shows how the world really viewed him, oddly much like how Americans view him today.

The John Wong photo was an actual photo at a fund raiser involving the Chi-Com military front company, and of course their middle man John Wong. It was entered as evidence as best I understand.

Of course Rainforest Man, and Hermen Munster, and Obama Supporters, all were meant to be funny. Obviously Rainforest Man was doctored. Hermen Munster was not. That's an untouched photo of Ketchup Kerry (who served in Vietnam). Of course the Obama Supporters photo is real and untouched as well.

The main point I was arguing was that... conservatives do not get their butts kicked in elections. Republicans in general are not getting their butts kicked in elections. If anything can be said, it's that the only time democrats do win, is when there isn't a conservative and/or republican in the race, or when the republican ticket is split somehow.

 

[Andy]

Um, so yes, in other words more than 50% of the people voted against him.

Clinton won the first election with 42% of the vote for him, or 58% of the vote against him.

Makes you wonder of our presidential elections would have better outcomes, if we simply voted against people, and have the ability to multi-vote. So out of the list, vote for everyone you do not want as president. Then see who wins. That might be interesting.

 

[Andy]

nope I, like mainy liberals and moderates also where aginst the bail out, put in place by the Republican president...only to watch all blame for its passing go to obama after he one, even though it was Bush who pushed it, and signed it into law, and was president.

Just like I am sure the debt is all Obamas fault as well, not Bush who republicans voted into office 2 times.

Closing gitmo is Obama's fault....its not Bush's fault for doing it in the first place and never figuring out a real system of justice for them, just content to let it linger and hope someone else dealt with it. and then of course comes more straw men ( maybe not from you, just some right wingers on here. that somehow this means they will be now free to roam out streets ...or that somehow liberals think they are all innocent and nice people...

Um... Bush never closed Gitmo. It was Obama who signed the executive order to have it closed.

You are basically saying that because Bush didn't close gitmo, it's his fault that Obama did? See, I never saw gitmo as a problem that needed a solution. You are trying to claim because Obama signed that gitmo had to close, that its our fault there's no solution to the mess he created. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

You can cry that Bush put the bailout in place, but do I need to remind you that Obama pushed for it, and vote in favor of it? In case you missed it, I never supported Bush over the bailout, but there's not point in complaining about the actions of a now departed president.

It's time to move forward. Obama is in the office, and he's supporting even more bailouts. Was it not Obama the pledged "Hope and Change"? Now it's "Despair and Stagnation" of continuing the same failed policies as before!

Why should we not blame Obama since he's the one in office? He could shut this tax payer hand out if he wanted too. Instead he's supporting it even more!

I'm sorry, but this constant "pass the buck", immature "shirk responsibility", "Blame Bush" mentality doesn't fly with me. Maybe the elementary school finger pointing works in Liberal circles, but I lay blame on who deserves it. Bush pushed for it, and I bashed him over it. Obama voted for it, and pushed for it, and is continuing it, and I'm going to bash him for it too. And rightly so, I might add.

You want to live a fantasy world where Bush is still president, and you can blame everything on him and ignore what Obama is doing, that fine, but that not reality where I'm from. Bush is gone, Obama is here. What he does, is his screwup now.