Obama on prolonged detention

medicineman

New Member
WTF Obama, You ran on the framework that Bush was all about illegal detentions at Gitmo, Now you are starting a whole new prolonged detention strategy??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

Seems the new boss is the same,(or worse), than the old boss.
My appreciation of Obama is fast falling through the floor. Looks like we have been "fooled again" Maybe he'll be enough to let someone like Ron Paul in, he is certainly dropping supporters, real fast.
 

Mcgician

Well-Known Member
Closing down Gitmo was his first idealogical mistake, and he's fast finding that out. The reality of what to do with those pieces of trash and where to keep them is finally setting in. Hopefully he'll wake up to the financial damage he's doing to the country, and change that policy too.
 

ViRedd

New Member
What's amazing to me is that no one is attempting to stop Obama's unconstitutional massive spending. Where's the Constitution police with we need them?

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Vi, Please tell me where in the US Constitution where it mentions anything about spending. Thanks.
Now I may not be happy with it, but I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that memtions anythign about spending.
My point is, that you using the term "unconstitutional massive spending" is a wrong and misleading statement.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Vi, Please tell me where in the US Constitution where it mentions anything about spending. Thanks.
Now I may not be happy with it, but I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that memtions anythign about spending.
My point is, that you using the term "unconstitutional massive spending" is a wrong and misleading statement.
Well, that's the point. Now get out your copy of the Constitution and read the Tenth Amendment.

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Here is the federal Funding Clause.

Federal funding
The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). However, where Congress has the power to implement programs, or to regulate, there are sound reasons for the national government to encourage States to become the instruments of national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One advantage is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another advantage is that implementation of federal programs at the state level tends to limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.

For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws.


Point, Set, match.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Here is the federal Funding Clause.

Federal funding
The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). However, where Congress has the power to implement programs, or to regulate, there are sound reasons for the national government to encourage States to become the instruments of national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One advantage is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another advantage is that implementation of federal programs at the state level tends to limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.

For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws.


Point, Set, match.
So the Federal Government convinces the State Governments to voluntarily cooperate with the enslavement of their citizens.

Wow, I'm so glad we have idiots in power at the State Level, NOT.

I can only wonder how many billions were siphoned from the Industrial Midwest at the height of the Dominance of the American Auto Market by the Big Three that would have remained in the local economies by the Federal Government for redistribitution to other states in the form of "federal aid."

I can only wonder how many trillions were siphoned from California at the height of the internet bubble that then was not spent in California, but spent elsewhere thus depriving California of the Trillions it could have used to create a rainy day fund for when the shit hit the fan (like now.)

The desire to help one's neighbor is all good and well, but the sad fact of the matter is that very rarely are the people in Federal Employee are our neighbors (at least to the degree we would want to claim them.)

More importantly is the fact that despite their repeated claims that they wish to help everyone when a person actually could use help the government applies an imbecilic test of their income to determine if they actually need help. This is self-defeating as if the government would not collect income taxes and payroll taxes from individuals it is likely that the middle class would be able to help itself and there would be no need for the continued expansion of the federal bureaucracy to help more and more people as they are forced into poverty by the very taxes that are stolen from them in order to "help" them.

Compared to the Federal Government Corporations are honest, they say straight out that they are selling you their product for their own profit, whereas the Federal Government lies to you by stating that they are selling you a product for your benefit. Of course the product is the equivalent of giant truck load of manure, and it really doesn't benefit you as it is a figurative load at that. This even happens at the state level where the Federal Government says it is collecting taxes to help the states. I've seen the Federal Government help Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, GM, Chrysler, PNC Financial, National City Corporation, and the list goes on, but it didn't help California. Personally I would have rather that the Federal Government told the corporations to swim on their own and help California than help the corporations and tell California to swim on its own. At least then the Federal Government could have insisted on forcing California to balance its budget and thus benefited more than just a few giant corporations.

Socialist/Fascist Tyranny... where the Sheeple get Sheered
 
Top