RockneDrive

What type of flag did u try to get them to fly?

If you don't watch out, they may take my "official board skunk poker" trophy and give it to you.

He only did it after Cigar smoke got in his eyes...:hat:

hehehehehehehe

you're treated like a pricess everyday round here..........

That's because most around here are horny sumbitches.

Is this guy serious? I can't tell anymore if he's a stereotype or a Colbert style parody.

 

The fake outrage act is old and no one will take you seriously.

You were the one who used the term teabagger. Was that a compliment directed toward someone? Toward those good people who are exercising their right to assemble and who don't like what is going on in this country?

I thought you libs said that being critical of the President is the highest form of Patriotism. Oops, that applies only to you. Silly me, what was I thinking?

What did you mean by calling people teabaggers? Huh?

A friend of mine is the hardest-core liberatarian conservative I know. He often blogged about the evils of socialized healthcare.

 

Then his kidney failed and he had no health insurance as he was between jobs. Guess which person is having the state pick up the tab?

 

Well he still blogs about the evils of socialized medical care, but now he's just a hypocrit. People can only practice the morals they can afford, I guess.

Sweeping and hasty generalization. The hypocrisy of one person doesn't transfer to or represent all people who are against socialized medicine and what they would have done in similar circumstances.

Description of Hasty Generalization

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
   
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
   

The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:

1. X% of all observed A's are B''s.
   
2. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.
   

The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion.

He is unstable: that's what. I suppose it is relevant that he's a baby too, but unstable is enough of a show-stopper for me.

Bill Clinton often wiped tears from his eyes in public and gave us that famous lower lip-bite to parade how campassionate he was. I suppose he was unstable too.

With Rush Limbaugh as Secretary of State......

And Sarah Palin as Secretary of Defense......

And Sean Hannity as the speaker of the house..........

The author's last comments drives to the heart of why 0bamacare is unconsitutional:

Nonetheless, the individual mandate’s IRS enforcement scheme operates, in essence, as a tax. The hitch is that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Congresshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” Section 9 adds that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

 

A penalty collected via the IRS would be a direct tax on individuals, independent of anything reflected in the Census or tied to enumeration of citizens among the states. As such, the individual mandate’s enforcement mechanism would fail Constitutional scrutiny. And a mandate without enforcement is just a suggestion.

 

.....One of the most compelling arguments against Obamacare is that it is self-defeatingly unconstitutional. That is yet another reason why this menacing monster must be silenced.

 

To which I say AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, to be so young! Cheers.

From the article in the first post:

“If Congress constitutionally can command that one buy health insurance, it can command that everyone over age 21 buy a GM car to bail out GM or, for that matter, buy a gun or, in lieu thereof, pay a fine,” says Manhattan attorney Leo Kayser III. “Under the rubric of regulating commerce, we would have no effective protection from any edict that Congress might impose on citizens to enhance commerce in whatever way Congress decides.”

 

Beyond this lies another problem. The individual mandate would be enforced by penalizing Americans $495 or 0.5 percent of Adjusted Gross Income, whichever is higher, if they do not acquire health insurance by 2014. Two years later, that fine would rise to 2 percent of AGI, equal to $640 today. Anticipated fines total some $15 billion.

And this:

Congress’s legitimate power to regulate interstate commerce has been stretched like saltwater taffy. “It is one thing, however, for Congress to regulate economic activity in which individuals choose to engage; it is another to require that individuals engage in such activity,” Sen. Orrin Hatchhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (R., Utah), former Ohio secretary of state J. Kenneth Blackwell, and the American Civil Rights Union’s Kenneth Klukowski observed in the January 2 Wall Street Journal. “That is not a difference in degree, but instead a difference in kind.”

And finally:

“Without precedent, Congress is attempting to punish the non-purchase of a private product,” says Robert Levy, senior fellow for constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, which he chairs. “That would be an intolerable affront to the Constitutionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif and personal autonomy.”

 

So mandated auto insurance is unconstitutional! I need to call my congressman immediately!

Try reading the Constitution. Mandating auto insurance IS unconstitutional. If it's not specifally enumerated, the federal government can't do it - remember that pesky little amendment referring to that? And that all else is left to the people and to the states? If a particular state wants to mandate it, it can; if another does not, it doesn't have to, but if the fed mandates it, all of the states SHALL!

Duh!

Both of the tea-baggers and the progressive liberals dont like their leadership.

Teabagger definition from Wiki:

"Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth[1] or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio."

So libs are basically using this term in the pejorative sense with a broad brush calling anyone who attends a tea party a teabagger?

Class, pure class!

And liberals squawk and howl about the lack of civility all of the time.

If it weren't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

All this liberal/conservative hokus is just that. I am not a liberal.

Yeah right! hahahahahahahahahahaha

Even Davy Crockett learned the hard lesson that charity is not a proper role of the federal government:

NOT YOURS TO GIVE!

http://fee.org/library/books/not-yours-to-give-2/

Most of that stuff falls into the military category. I don't see anything about free health care. If it's not enumerated, it's not their's to do. Where does it say charity is a legitmate function of the federal government? I'm with Madison on that!

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

several of those same "fathers' also saw no problem with the ownership of slaves. In fact, most of them owned some.

 

This a fallacious argument called poisoning the well:

 

 

 

 

 

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
   
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
   

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.

Yes some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves but that doesn't mean that they weren't brilliant statesmen and geniuses who founded this country which has been the envy of the world. They made it possible for us to be free and crafted a document to assure there wouldn't be the kind of tyranny they had to face. To attempt to dismiss their accomplishments because they owned slaves is a feeble attempt to ignore all of the good they did and that they made it possible for so many millions of people to live free from tyranny.

Now the current administration is doing all that it can to bastardize the Constitution and take away our freedoms. That's why we need to kick this socialist bum and his buddies out next election.

The government the Founding Fathers envisioned was one with limited powers and not pervasive powers as we have today. They were skeptical of government power, not trusting of it. They outlined the proper role as one of being a protector of inalienable rights, not to be a mommy and daddy to everyone doling out benefits by extracting money from other people's earnings.

They basically said that the federal government should have the following roles:

1. Protect individuals from foreign enemies. This is why it is appropriate to spend large sums of money on the military.

2. Protect individuals from those inside the country who wish to do harm to another individual or steal his/her private property. This is why we have a police force and other law enforcement.

3. To arbitrate disuputes among free individuals when they cannot agree on whose rights are superior. This is why we have a court system.

These are the primary functions of our federal government as outlined in their writings. Add in infrastructure, highways, and interstate commerce and you have what the Founding Fathers desired and wrote about in our Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers to get more insight into what they had in mind. In those letters, they sought to explain the Constitution to others. Here are some thoughts from some of the Founding Fathers:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry

“…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” – Ben Franklin

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own. James Madison

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention, December 2, 1829

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

my morals come from the bible so I believe I have a duty to help the weakest and most vulnerable among us... For me it is a simple question what would Jesus do? Really what would he do if a person was dieing on the streets because he had no health insurance, would Jesus say get up and pull yourself up by your boot straps.. Or would Jesus say let me help you up and help heal you.. To me Jesus would do the latter, I believe charties have failed to provide enough assitance to these people.. So that is why I believe government should step in and help...To me it is a moral obligation for my government to do that... Your view is different from that so it is what it is. It does not help to be called evil by some people here because this is what you want to seen done by our government..

 

 

WWJD is such a trite statement. Nontheless, Jesus did not call governments to take care of the poor and feed the hungry, he called individuals. It is not the government's legitimate role to give charity. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's. Jesus called you and me to do His work, he did not call Ceasar or his army or his minions to do that. The biblical role of government is as God's arm for civil justice and punishment, not to be a provider. Government is a protector and defender of rights, not a provider of benefits.

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

vs2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

vs3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; vs4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

 

Liberals have no sense of humor and can't laugh at themselves.

But they sure are hilarious to me.

I dont think anyone here is in need of condemnation, we can make our point and call them to answer the questions.

 

If they choose not to answer by attacking the sources or the poster or by changing the subject, that is their problem.

 

By lowering yourself to the level of their tactics you undermine our argument and give them an easy way to dodge the substantial questions which we pose. on top of that this can and should be a friendly discussion... lets try and keep it that way.

Condemning behavior is different from condemning people.

Here is what I wrote:

It's immoral and should be called out as such - that's the right thing to do, to disparage and condemn immoral behavior.

We are all called as Christians to condemn evil and immoral behavior as long as we don't do it self-righteously or hypocritically. Nothing wrong with that at all.

By no means are we lowering ourselves to their level when we speak the truth any more than when Jesus called out the bad behavior of the Pharisee's and called them and their ancestors hypocrites and vipers:

23 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, hypocrites that you are! You pay tithes on mint, fennel, and caraway seed, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and good faith. These last you ought to have put into practice, without neglecting the first. 24 You blind guides, to strain out a gnat and to swallow a camel! 25 Woe to you, teachers of law and Pharisees, hypocrites that you are! You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are filled with the results of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the dish, so that the outside may become clean as well.

Their views are not distorted, they are just different.

We dont need to disparage anyone for wanting to see the conditions of our fellow man improved.

We need to simply remind them that it is their own responsibility to act to their moral obligations which cannot be forced upon others or handed over to the government.

Wanting to and actually helping someone is a noble and Christian thing to do. I don't disparage anyone who actually takes it upon themselves to reach into their own pockets to help someone; however, it is despicable and worthy of condemnation to reach into someone else's pocket to help others and that's exactly what liberals and Obama want to do. It's immoral and should be called out as such - that's the right thing to do, to disparage and condemn immoral behavior.

that is a very noble sentiment.

 

I think you should contribute your time and/or money to this cause.

 

regarding moral obligations, i think you should explain to me why that is any of the government's business?

 

what if my moral structure differs from yours? why must i be held to your moral obligations?

 

I think it is a moral obligation that all 5* recruits go to ND and play football. Will you support my new bill in congress? These kids not going to ND are having sever economic impacts on the south bend area and NBC's advertising revenues, which affects tax revenues which go to very good causes.

Good point! Libs think that everyone should be forced to believe the same way they believe regarding morality which is what they often accuse Christians of doing. For people who generally don't believe in absolute truth, it's ironic that libs wish to force their own notions of morality on the rest of us. It's perfectly fine for them to use the strong arm of government to coerce money from the rest of us who disagree with their twisted and distorted views of morality.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/olympics-feds-reading-tweets/story?id=9825070

At least they are watching the HuffPo, where they are more likely to find the kind of people who would be terrorists - you know - people who hate America.

okay many, not all. Where's the source data for the talking point that says that many poor people are just lazy or shiftless?

I never said that. Another strawman to beat up on?

Those are your words. Try reading what I actually wrote next time.