THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[lonewolf]

Even more irrelevant.

[Hawk]

Even more irrelevant.

Easy solution when your proven wrong.

[Banned]

I am waiting for you to mis-interpret Thomas Jefferson's writing and change him to a progressive commie. Come on, try to change history on that one Bill. I bet you can make George Washington a double agent for King George.

I really get amused at Bill's revised history of America. Small government founding fathers become budget busting liberals like Nancy Pelosi. The man who wrote the Constitution is now said to be in favor of the federal nanny state.

Do you drink a lot before these posts?

[lonewolf]

Madison said the bank was not constitutional. Was he wrong when he said that ? Or was he wrong when he recreated it ? He can't be right both times.

Madison thought internal improvements were not constitutional. Was he wrong when he said that. Then he supported Henry Clay's internal improvements. Was he wrong when he did that ? He can't be constitutionally right both times.

You brought up the constitution and the federalist papers. I thought you needed to know that in the real world, Jefferson and Madison abandoned what Madison said in the federalist papers. or he abandoned what he meant in the federalist papers, as he was adamantly against the bank on constitutional grounds, until HE needed it. Then he ignored what he originally said. Now you want to spin history? Classic Limbaughism.

There is no mention of any banks in the Federalist Papers; however, Madison did add this:

"Let it be remarked, in the third place, that the intercourse
throughout the Union will be facilitated by new improvements.
Roads will everywhere be shortened, and kept in better
order; accommodations for travelers will be multiplied
and meliorated; an interior navigation on our eastern side will
be opened throughout, or nearly throughout, the whole extent
of the thirteen States. The communication between the
Western and Atlantic districts, and between different parts of
each, will be rendered more and more easy by those numerous
canals with which the beneficence of nature has intersected
our country, and which art finds it so little difficult to
connect and complete."

Even though all this stuff is still completely irrelevant, it seems to me that reports of Madison's flip-flop is greatly exaggerated.

[Hawk]

I am waiting for you to mis-interpret Thomas Jefferson's writing and change him to a progressive commie. Come on, try to change history on that one Bill. I bet you can make George Washington a double agent for King George.

I really get amused at Bill's revised history of America. Small government founding fathers become budget busting liberals like Nancy Pelosi. The man who wrote the Constitution is now said to be in favor of the federal nanny state.

Do you drink a lot before these posts?

I can't help it if the writers of the constitution went against the constitution. Jefferson bought Louisiana and that was unconstitutional and increased the national debt at the same time. No revision of history there, just an indisputable fact.

[lonewolf]

Even more irrelevant.

Easy solution when your proven wrong.

That was in response to the Virginia Plan...I mean really...what the hell did that have to do with anything?

You need some rest Bill, you are spewing all kinds of irrelevant trivia.

[Banned]

I am waiting for you to mis-interpret Thomas Jefferson's writing and change him to a progressive commie. Come on, try to change history on that one Bill. I bet you can make George Washington a double agent for King George.

I really get amused at Bill's revised history of America. Small government founding fathers become budget busting liberals like Nancy Pelosi. The man who wrote the Constitution is now said to be in favor of the federal nanny state.

Do you drink a lot before these posts?

I can't help it if the writers of the constitution went against the constitution. Jefferson bought Louisiana and that was unconstitutional and increased the national debt at the same time. No revision of history there, just an indisputable fact.

So does that make a $60 Trillion debt of unfunded entitlements today okey dokey?

Is there anything the government cannot do that you would not find acceptable?

There is some history at the time involving avoiding war with France and Spain that was crucial to the Louisiana Purchase. There were no provisions for the purchase, but there were no provisions against it either.

[Hawk]

Even more irrelevant.

Easy solution when your proven wrong.

That was in response to the Virginia Plan...I mean really...what the hell did that have to do with anything?

You need some rest Bill, you are spewing all kinds of irrelevant trivia.

Of course it's irrelevant to you because you don't want to hear it.
I pointed out that Madison was the weasel because he originally wanted the Federal Government to have total veto power over all state legislation. Then he changed his mind and secretly (as weasels do) wrote the Virginia & kentucky resolution wherein he proposed that states had the right to veto federal legislation.

The story provided two relevant points. Madison was a weasel and he regularly changed his mind on the power of the federal government. Very relevant unless you want to use him as your supreme authority. Oh, you do. No wonder you are trying to make it irrelevant. Another failed attempt at spinning on your part.

[Hawk]

I am waiting for you to mis-interpret Thomas Jefferson's writing and change him to a progressive commie. Come on, try to change history on that one Bill. I bet you can make George Washington a double agent for King George.

I really get amused at Bill's revised history of America. Small government founding fathers become budget busting liberals like Nancy Pelosi. The man who wrote the Constitution is now said to be in favor of the federal nanny state.

Do you drink a lot before these posts?

I can't help it if the writers of the constitution went against the constitution. Jefferson bought Louisiana and that was unconstitutional and increased the national debt at the same time. No revision of history there, just an indisputable fact.

So does that make a $60 Trillion debt of unfunded entitlements today okey dokey?

Is there anything the government cannot do that you would not find acceptable?

There is some history at the time involving avoiding war with France and Spain that was crucial to the Louisiana Purchase. There were no provisions for the purchase, but there were no provisions against it either.

I posted today that I'm upset about Obama not following through on off shore taxes. The same post was an opinion piece that I was mostly in agreement with. Did you miss it ?

Yes, I regularly report the things the government does wrong. Remember when we argued about the Patriot act because you were for it ?

I don't like all of the government subsidies to companies that don't need it. Again covered in a post today.

[lonewolf]

Easy solution when your proven wrong.

That was in response to the Virginia Plan...I mean really...what the hell did that have to do with anything?

You need some rest Bill, you are spewing all kinds of irrelevant trivia.

Of course it's irrelevant to you because you don't want to hear it.
I pointed out that Madison was the weasel because he originally wanted the Federal Government to have total veto power over all state legislation. Then he changed his mind and secretly (as weasels do) wrote the Virginia & kentucky resolution wherein he proposed that states had the right to veto federal legislation.

The story provided two relevant points. Madison was a weasel and he regularly changed his mind on the power of the federal government. Very relevant unless you want to use him as your supreme authority. Oh, you do. No wonder you are trying to make it irrelevant. Another failed attempt at spinning on your part.

That's hilarious...you pile on paragraph after paragraph of spin and tell me I'm spinning. You're spinning, Bill. Dizzy....

BTW, my favorite authority is the Federalist Papers--not the life and times of James Madison. Like I said before, I generally don't quote other sources about the Constitution, whether its from the authors of the Fed-Papers or not. That is because the Fed-Papers' sole purpose was to explain and advertise the Constitution.

You can quote them outside the Fed-papers all you want, just avoid putting any words in my mouth.

I do not see how Madison's actions as President steered outside the boundaries set forth in my favorite source, the Fed-Papers.

[Hawk]

I am waiting for you to mis-interpret Thomas Jefferson's writing and change him to a progressive commie. Come on, try to change history on that one Bill. I bet you can make George Washington a double agent for King George.

I really get amused at Bill's revised history of America. Small government founding fathers become budget busting liberals like Nancy Pelosi. The man who wrote the Constitution is now said to be in favor of the federal nanny state.

Do you drink a lot before these posts?

I can't help it if the writers of the constitution went against the constitution. Jefferson bought Louisiana and that was unconstitutional and increased the national debt at the same time. No revision of history there, just an indisputable fact.

So does that make a $60 Trillion debt of unfunded entitlements today okey dokey?

Is there anything the government cannot do that you would not find acceptable?

There is some history at the time involving avoiding war with France and Spain that was crucial to the Louisiana Purchase. There were no provisions for the purchase, but there were no provisions against it either.

Again for your sake Joe. I don't like the debt. Go back to Reagan era taxes and close the tax loopholes of the off shore companies and increase tax breaks to companies who are in the US and hire US citizens. Problem solved, but the Republicans would never go for it.

[Hawk]

That was in response to the Virginia Plan...I mean really...what the hell did that have to do with anything?

You need some rest Bill, you are spewing all kinds of irrelevant trivia.

Of course it's irrelevant to you because you don't want to hear it.
I pointed out that Madison was the weasel because he originally wanted the Federal Government to have total veto power over all state legislation. Then he changed his mind and secretly (as weasels do) wrote the Virginia & kentucky resolution wherein he proposed that states had the right to veto federal legislation.

The story provided two relevant points. Madison was a weasel and he regularly changed his mind on the power of the federal government. Very relevant unless you want to use him as your supreme authority. Oh, you do. No wonder you are trying to make it irrelevant. Another failed attempt at spinning on your part.

That's hilarious...you pile on paragraph after paragraph of spin and tell me I'm spinning. You're spinning, Bill. Dizzy....

BTW, my favorite authority is the Federalist Papers--not the life and times of James Madison. Like I said before, I generally don't quote other sources about the Constitution, whether its from the authors of the Fed-Papers or not. That is because the Fed-Papers' sole purpose was to explain and advertise the Constitution.

You can quote them outside the Fed-papers all you want, just avoid putting any words in my mouth.

I do not see how Madison's actions as President steered outside the boundaries set forth in my favorite source, the Fed-Papers.

You don't see how Madison's actions steered outside the boundaries but Madison did. That's a fact that proves you are the spinner. Madison (who I believe understood the content of both the constitution and the Federalist Papers better than you) said the bank was unconstitutional. Are you saying you are more of an authority than Madison ?

[lonewolf]

Of course it's irrelevant to you because you don't want to hear it.
I pointed out that Madison was the weasel because he originally wanted the Federal Government to have total veto power over all state legislation. Then he changed his mind and secretly (as weasels do) wrote the Virginia & kentucky resolution wherein he proposed that states had the right to veto federal legislation.

The story provided two relevant points. Madison was a weasel and he regularly changed his mind on the power of the federal government. Very relevant unless you want to use him as your supreme authority. Oh, you do. No wonder you are trying to make it irrelevant. Another failed attempt at spinning on your part.

That's hilarious...you pile on paragraph after paragraph of spin and tell me I'm spinning. You're spinning, Bill. Dizzy....

BTW, my favorite authority is the Federalist Papers--not the life and times of James Madison. Like I said before, I generally don't quote other sources about the Constitution, whether its from the authors of the Fed-Papers or not. That is because the Fed-Papers' sole purpose was to explain and advertise the Constitution.

You can quote them outside the Fed-papers all you want, just avoid putting any words in my mouth.

I do not see how Madison's actions as President steered outside the boundaries set forth in my favorite source, the Fed-Papers.

You don't see how Madison's actions steered outside the boundaries but Madison did. That's a fact that proves you are the spinner. Madison (who I believe understood the content of both the constitution and the Federalist Papers better than you) said the bank was unconstitutional. Are you saying you are more of an authority than Madison ?

Show me where I said the bank was or was not constitutional. Then, show me where Madison said the bank was outside the boundaries set by the Federalist Papers. I didn't really comment otherwise.

You are putting words in my mouth Bill. This is a low, low tactic used by only the most desperate of liberal progressive spinsters.

Please let me know when you have decided how any of this is relevant to your socialist spin.

[Hawk]

Show me where I said the bank was or was not constitutional. Then, show me where Madison said the bank was outside the boundaries set by the Federalist Papers. I didn't really comment otherwise.

You are putting words in my mouth Bill. This is a low, low tactic used by only the most desperate of liberal progressive spinsters.

Please let me know when you have decided how any of this is relevant to your socialist spin.

lonewolf said, "I do not see how Madison's actions as President steered outside the boundaries set forth in my favorite source, the Fed-Papers."

That is when you said he did not go against the constitution or the Federalist papers when he recreated the bank.

Madison said the bank was unconstitutional when Washington started the bank.

Who was right, you or Madison ?

[Hawk]

There is some history at the time involving avoiding war with France and Spain that was crucial to the Louisiana Purchase. There were no provisions for the purchase, but there were no provisions against it either.

Thank you Joe. I repeatedly said that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional waiting for someone to point out it was not.

"...there were no provisions against it..."

You and others like you are all about the idea that the constitution numbers an exact list of things the federal government can do and it can ONLY do those things. I on the other hand believe that it was NOT against the constitution for Jefferson to buy Louisiana !

Now you understand. Sometimes the federal government NEEDS to do more than the enumerated list and there is nothing wrong relative to the constitution if it does so.

There are no provisions against the EPA etc. etc...

[lonewolf]

Show me where I said the bank was or was not constitutional . Then, show me where Madison said the bank was outside the boundaries set by the Federalist Papers. I didn't really comment otherwise.

You are putting words in my mouth Bill. This is a low, low tactic used by only the most desperate of liberal progressive spinsters.

Please let me know when you have decided how any of this is relevant to your socialist spin.

lonewolf said, "I do not see how Madison's actions as President steered outside the boundaries set forth in my favorite source, the Fed-Papers."

That is when you said he did not go against the constitution or the Federalist papers when he recreated the bank.

Madison said the bank was unconstitutional when Washington started the bank.

Who was right, you or Madison ?

Obviously, since the bank was proven to be constitutional, I am correct.

Madison's prior view may even have been valid before the bank was created, but when he entered office, the bank was already in operation and had apparently become necessary and proper. That is what changed and Madison adapted to the new conditions. I cannot fault him for that. Whatever the reason, it had become obvious in practice that strict constructionism would not be adequate to govern the new Republic. It would need to loosen up a little...but not nearly as much as Hamilton wanted.

Saying that something is within or outside the bounds of the Fed-Papers is NOT anywhere near the same thing as saying something is constitutional or not. Only the Supreme Court can decide what is or is not constitutional. We can only have opinions on that subject...and you know what opinions are like....

Now, are you going to preach about how Madison or Hamilton or Washington secretly supported your socialist ideas or are you gonna whistle dixie?

[Hawk]

Show me where I said the bank was or was not constitutional . Then, show me where Madison said the bank was outside the boundaries set by the Federalist Papers. I didn't really comment otherwise.

You are putting words in my mouth Bill. This is a low, low tactic used by only the most desperate of liberal progressive spinsters.

Please let me know when you have decided how any of this is relevant to your socialist spin.

lonewolf said, "I do not see how Madison's actions as President steered outside the boundaries set forth in my favorite source, the Fed-Papers."

That is when you said he did not go against the constitution or the Federalist papers when he recreated the bank.

Madison said the bank was unconstitutional when Washington started the bank.

Who was right, you or Madison ?

Obviously, since the bank was proven to be constitutional, I am correct.

Madison's prior view may even have been valid before the bank was created, but when he entered office, the bank was already in operation and had apparently become necessary and proper. That is what changed and Madison adapted to the new conditions. I cannot fault him for that. Whatever the reason, it had become obvious in practice that strict constructionism would not be adequate to govern the new Republic. It would need to loosen up a little...but not nearly as much as Hamilton wanted.

Saying that something is within or outside the bounds of the Fed-Papers is NOT anywhere near the same thing as saying something is constitutional or not. Only the Supreme Court can decide what is or is not constitutional. We can only have opinions on that subject...and you know what opinions are like....

Now, are you going to preach about how Madison or Hamilton or Washington secretly supported your socialist ideas or are you gonna whistle dixie?

Cool. You understand that Madison said it was unconstitutional and he knows the constitution better than you. However you recognise (as did Madison when he became president) that a government need supercedes the strict view of the constitution (from both you and Madison). Wonderful !

[Banned]

I can't help it if the writers of the constitution went against the constitution. Jefferson bought Louisiana and that was unconstitutional and increased the national debt at the same time. No revision of history there, just an indisputable fact.

So does that make a $60 Trillion debt of unfunded entitlements today okey dokey?

Is there anything the government cannot do that you would not find acceptable?

There is some history at the time involving avoiding war with France and Spain that was crucial to the Louisiana Purchase. There were no provisions for the purchase, but there were no provisions against it either.

Again for your sake Joe. I don't like the debt. Go back to Reagan era taxes and close the tax loopholes of the off shore companies and increase tax breaks to companies who are in the US and hire US citizens. Problem solved, but the Republicans would never go for it.

Bill, the debt is due to run away spending, not lack of taxing. You never speak out against the debt, because you love your gummint so much. You can't have one without the other. When you embrace the nanny state government, you are embracing a $60 Trillion unfunded future debt.

Extra taxes on the rich would give billions of revenue, but the problem is that your gummint is spending Trillions of deficit.

[Banned]

There is some history at the time involving avoiding war with France and Spain that was crucial to the Louisiana Purchase. There were no provisions for the purchase, but there were no provisions against it either.

Thank you Joe. I repeatedly said that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional waiting for someone to point out it was not.

"...there were no provisions against it..."

You and others like you are all about the idea that the constitution numbers an exact list of things the federal government can do and it can ONLY do those things. I on the other hand believe that it was NOT against the constitution for Jefferson to buy Louisiana !

Now you understand. Sometimes the federal government NEEDS to do more than the enumerated list and there is nothing wrong relative to the constitution if it does so.

There are no provisions against the EPA etc. etc...

Show me how the EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Obamination Care, welfare.... protects us from war with France and Spain. No comparison there Bill, no matter how hard you wish. No correlation with the Purchase at all, but in your mind.

[lonewolf]

Cool. You understand that Madison said it was unconstitutional and he knows the constitution better than you. However you recognise (as did Madison when he became president) that a government need supercedes the strict view of the constitution (from both you and Madison). Wonderful !

Perhaps, but I don't take that as far as the programs that were enabled by the Extortion of 1937. We have had several decades since and all the evidence shows that the federal government is a fiscal failure when it addresses state and local issues that it was not designed to address.

Now they are virtually bankrupt and there is a very short window of time--perhaps a year or two--where they can either fix the problem or fall into the abyss. If they aren't paying at least part of the interest on the debt with real revenues by the time interest rates start rising again, our government is f-worded.

[Banned]

Obaminations job approval rating dropped an additional 4 percent. Wonder why? Look at the housing market, it is a mess and getting worse.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Home-sale ... 3.html?x=0

I wonder if even liberals will stop and think before they vote to re-elect this buffoon.

[Hawk]

Let's recap where we're at.

Joe now understands that the federal government HAS to do things that are not in the constitution relative to it's power beyond the enumerated list. It did so to purchase Louisiana. (The purchase was mostly to have access to the New Orleans port, not because of war Joe.)

lonewolf now understands that the federal government HAS to do things that are not in the constitution relative to it's power beyond the enumerated list.

I will bookmark the page where they said that. So if they ever give anyone this bull crap line, "It's not in the constitution", we will show them that if THEIR heroes did it, it was okay.

[Hawk]

There is some history at the time involving avoiding war with France and Spain that was crucial to the Louisiana Purchase. There were no provisions for the purchase, but there were no provisions against it either.

Thank you Joe. I repeatedly said that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional waiting for someone to point out it was not.

"...there were no provisions against it..."

You and others like you are all about the idea that the constitution numbers an exact list of things the federal government can do and it can ONLY do those things. I on the other hand believe that it was NOT against the constitution for Jefferson to buy Louisiana !

Now you understand. Sometimes the federal government NEEDS to do more than the enumerated list and there is nothing wrong relative to the constitution if it does so.

There are no provisions against the EPA etc. etc...

Show me how the EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Obamination Care, welfare.... protects us from war with France and Spain. No comparison there Bill, no matter how hard you wish. No correlation with the Purchase at all, but in your mind.

They don't have to protect us from war. The EPA for example protects us from poison. I think that is equally important as protecting us from war. Do you favor poison ? Social Security protects senior citizens from poverty in old age. ETC.

[Hawk]

So does that make a $60 Trillion debt of unfunded entitlements today okey dokey?

Is there anything the government cannot do that you would not find acceptable?

There is some history at the time involving avoiding war with France and Spain that was crucial to the Louisiana Purchase. There were no provisions for the purchase, but there were no provisions against it either.

Again for your sake Joe. I don't like the debt. Go back to Reagan era taxes and close the tax loopholes of the off shore companies and increase tax breaks to companies who are in the US and hire US citizens. Problem solved, but the Republicans would never go for it.

Bill, the debt is due to run away spending, not lack of taxing. You never speak out against the debt, because you love your gummint so much. You can't have one without the other. When you embrace the nanny state government, you are embracing a $60 Trillion unfunded future debt.

Extra taxes on the rich would give billions of revenue, but the problem is that your gummint is spending Trillions of deficit.

Joe. The debt is a combination of spending relative to revenue. Cutting revenue without cutting spending is the cause of the debt.

[Hawk]

Cool. You understand that Madison said it was unconstitutional and he knows the constitution better than you. However you recognise (as did Madison when he became president) that a government need supersedes the strict view of the constitution (from both you and Madison). Wonderful !

Perhaps, but I don't take that as far as the programs that were enabled by the Extortion of 1937. We have had several decades since and all the evidence shows that the federal government is a fiscal failure when it addresses state and local issues that it was not designed to address.

Now they are virtually bankrupt and there is a very short window of time--perhaps a year or two--where they can either fix the problem or fall into the abyss. If they aren't paying at least part of the interest on the debt with real revenues by the time interest rates start rising again, our government is f-worded.

BUT you can no longer argue it's unconstitutional. Madison said Washington's bank was unconstitutional. Madison saw a need for the bank and recreated it. You explained Madison did nothing wrong (even though Madison himself argued it was unconstitutional when Washington wanted it). Part of you argument was that a precedent was already set because Washington already had done it. By your intelligent reasoning, if a president does something (using the power of the federal government) the following presidents are allowed to do it as a precedent has been set. You also said Madison saw a NEED for it. Other presidents saw a NEED for other things as well.

The debt. President Reagan started the downward spiral with his trickle down theory. GW enhanced it with increased spending while DECREASING revenue. What a stupid idiot ! Obama's hands have been tied relative to taxes. Much of his spending has saved little places like GM and every little company that supplies GM. I know, you would have preferred that GM went into full bankruptcy. But I would argue that people bought GM products because the federal government backed GM.