He isn't bad at all for mainstream.

I am sure many of yall have heard of him, but yall should take the time to check out Ron Paul.

Yes, he is from Texans, and NO, Bush was not from Texas. haha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

He shows that you can keep an open mind, while being conservative and sticking to the constitution.

Of all the things jefferson said, I like this the best.:
"He who knows best knows how little he knows."

"Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances."
This one describes Obama to a tee.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Bush might not have been born in Texas, but he sure as hell was from Texas , uhhh, the governor, hello.
BTW all you constitutionalists should try and interpret what the phrase "promote the general welfare" means. As it stands now, it means promote the general welfare of corporations, something that hadn't even been invented in their time. Think about it.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

Nice quotes. Absolutely agree with both of them. Who looks like the bigger fool, the man who stays calm, collected, and wise? Or the man who angers quickly and fights back with pure arrogance and/or ignorance?

I see a lot of that on this forum. People not thinking clearly, not staying calm when they discuss opposite opinions.

__________________
"And those who resisted were dragged out from their homes. This necklace was fashioned out of their teeth and bones."

On the contrary, Med ... it is YOU who should think about it. Obama (and Bush) did not, and are not, PROMOTING the general welfare of corporations, they are PROVIDING for the general welfare of the corporations ... and that is something that both of us should be adverse to because it is anti-constitutional.

By the way Med, I haven't seen any comments from you about Obama's bombing of villages in Afghanistan and was wondering if you had any comments about it at all. From what I've read/heard, over 150 civilians have been slaughtered by Obama's bombs so far ... and yet, no protests from the left have been heard as of yet. How come?

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

By promote the general welfare, do you mean give undeserving people my money, or my family's money?

I don't think so. And then after that, the income tax is illegal as is.

nexcare ...

Welcome to the forum.

The Progressives have a very hard time with the Welfare Clause in the Constitution and Med is no exception.

I continue pointing out that the Welfare Clause gives the federal government the power to PROMOTE the general welfare and PROVIDE for the common defense. Somehow the libs think "promoting" means using the gun of government to take from one to give to another. Sounds to me as though their idea of "promoting" is nothing more than common theft. Agree?

Vi

__________________
Liberals are people that will believe anything twice.

I completely agree.

Over 50% don't pay any federal income tax.

The reason why 40%, 45% or whatever is often quoted is because the IRS is complicit in pulling the wool over our eyes by some tricky accounting methods.

"Refundable" tax credits are not classified as a reduction in income tax receipts, but rather as an expense by one of the federal departments.

So, the bottom 50% of taxpayers shows something like a contributor of 3 or 4% of the total income tax paid, but that figure ignores the 5 or 6% that they pull from the system.

Right now, over half of the populace pays nothing or receives a welfare check after elimination of all income tax. This is a completely unstable system and has now resulted in $2T annual deficits and $50T in debt.

Those that pay nothing understandably demand even more while those that pay everything wonder how folks are confused over which group is actually comprised of the greedy.

------

I am sure the people who are against my view will bash it without taking the time for a rationale thought.

The hard working people, who aren't looking for handouts, but are looking to better their own/family lives are the ones getting screwed over. This government has tried its best to take the aspect of "nature/survival of the fittest" out of the equation. We keep dragging along these worthless, non-contributors, and it drags this country down with them. This wimpy, help the lazy woman with 13 kids, receiving 13 welfare checks a month BS has to go...

Ive got a feeling that the tide is turning on this group of hard working people. The hard workers are usually the ones who don't voice their opinions that loudly, and don't go march for some secondary rally(smaller issues). Yet, I feel like they are finally getting sick of the federal government taking their money and giving it (sic) worthless bastards.

You think that 50% of the population with 3% of the money can make a sound? What do you think even a small percentage of the top 50% using their money and power to actually get this country back in line? Hard working people's pay checks shouldn't be divide among the worthless and the people who made the decisions to make their life worthless...

To quote John Jay, the more I have seen of the current political system, the more I believe that he was correct with this quote, "Those that own the country ought to govern it."

From what I have seen the corporation that I work for is a benevolent tyrant, whereas the government is the equivalent of a malignant mob.

Those that pay taxes (net tax payers, not net tax eaters) should be the only ones with the vote.

Those that are on the dole, or on government pay roll, or do not pay anything in taxes should not be allowed to vote as long as their current balance of receipts and of payments (between them and the government) is in their favor.

Now, the important thing, is the fact that those that own the property are going to be interested in maintaining it and preserving it.

More importantly is the fact that land-owners are not likely to be partisan. They are going to support only those that support protecting their rights, regardless of their political party.

Left/Right is a false dichotomy as there is no difference between Big Corporation Fascism and Big Government Socialism. Both permit the existence of monopolies or near monopolies (defense sector.)

It is even more important to look at the record of both parties when it comes to protecting that quintessential sector of the American Middle Class, the farmer.

When it comes to ensuring a thriving private farming sector both parties have dismal records.

The Republicans with their stance on free trade has consistently screwed over American Farmers, despite the fact that being self-sufficient on food goes beyond being self-sufficient in anything else when it comes to national security. Being vulnerable to having your food cut off by another nation is idiotic at best, and treasonous at worst.

The Democrats, with their support of agrocorps like Archer Daniels Midland are just as bad, having supported the creation of a feudal type system where most farmers are nothing more than serfs working on land owned by the agrocorps. (Not that they aren't well compensated for their slavery, but they ultimately do not own the source of their income.)

Democrats are even worse when it comes to regulations such as the recent food inspection bills that would all but bankrupt small farmers by requiring insane levels of inspections of goods at every step of the production process.

The end result of all these regulations is going to be to destroy many small businesses and yield additional market share to the big corporations.

Government should not be involved in the regulation of interstate commerce, its history has been one of mismanagement, sloppiness and partisanship, with drastic swings between two extremes of taxing imports and free trade.

The interstate commerce clause was one of the two gigantic errors in the Constitution, the other was the necessary and proper clause. There was also mistakes made when the founders failed to forcefully state that the States and the Federal Government must use gold and silver and could not issue paper currency of any sort, or emit bills of credit.

They should have made it clear that it was unacceptable for the nation to go into debt, regardless of the reason.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis