A rising insurrection against Obama

[Peter1469]

States are defying lawless action by the regime. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-rising-insurrection-against-obama/2015/04/03/d00e39f6-d94f-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html) And they are well within their Constitutional rights to do so. The question is whether the legislative branch will support the Constitution, or the regime.


It’s a scary thought, but here it is: If some red states were to openly defy the authority of President Obama in the exercise of his constitutional duties, would today’s Republican Congress side with him? Or would they honor the insurrection?


I wish it could be said with confidence that the legislative branch would oppose a rebellion against the executive branch of government. But I’m not so sure.


Last month, the Republican-led Arizona House of Representatives passed, on a 36-to-24 party-line vote (http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2015/03/10/hb2368-arizona-house-executive-orders/24728555/), a bill (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/52leg/1r/summary/h.hb2368_02-13-15_fsr.doc.htm&Session_ID=114) sponsored by tea party Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-Flagstaff) that “prohibits this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with an executive order issued by the President of the U.S. that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.”

[Green Arrow]

The real question is...will they continue this when a Republican is in office?

That's the true test.

[Peter1469]

The real question is...will they continue this when a Republican is in office?

That's the true test.

I don't see why not. The (R) is going to nominate a Statist anyway.

[Ransom]

He's pitted states against the federal government. Men against women. Poor against rich. Ethnicity against race. Look to how we tear each other apart over a pizza shop that personally declines catering a same sex wedding.

Congress against the President, the President taking his State of the Union to oppose the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court now being polled for popularity, the American process of government pitted against itself. Almost as if it's by design or something.

[Ransom]

I don't see why not. The (R) is going to nominate a Statist anyway.

I say Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, then.....Huckabee believe it or not. Statists?

[Green Arrow]

I say Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, then.....Huckabee believe it or not. Statists?

Rand Paul, no. The rest, yes.

[Calypso Jones]

what a hit piece in the post. Trying to cut it off at the pass. Unfortunately, the majorty of the American public is not on the side of the left.

[Ransom]

Rand Paul elected in conservative Kentucky.... not a status? Do tell.

[Green Arrow]

Rand Paul elected in conservative Kentucky.... not a status? Do tell.

Statist, Ransom. Not status.

[Mini Me]

massive thread fail!

[Peter1469]

I say Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, then.....Huckabee believe it or not. Statists?
Jeb and the Huckster are Statists.

[Ransom]

Statist, Ransom. Not status.

Focus on the ?, not the spell check on the tablet. Satisfy comes up if I don't correct it.:)

[Ransom]

Jeb and the Huckster are Statists.

Paul?

[zelmo1234]

Rand Paul, no. The rest, yes.

I am not so sure anymore. but I would say the least statist anyway.

[Green Arrow]

Focus on the ?, not the spell check on the tablet. Satisfy comes up if I don't correct it.:)

Your question implies that conservatives are statists and elect statists, which would contradict the conservative message of limited government.

[Peter1469]

Your question implies that conservatives are statists and elect statists, which would contradict the conservative message of limited government.

Well, he is a neocon. They are as conservative as Al Franken.

[Mac-7]

The real question is...will they continue this when a Republican is in office?

That's the true test.

Nice try at changing the subject.

a repub is not in office now so the immediate problem is obumer

Try to focus Green

[Green Arrow]

Nice try at changing the subject.

a repub is not in office now so the immediate problem is obumer

Try to focus Green

I'm on subject. You just don't want to acknowledge the accuracy of my statement.

[Safety]

I'm on subject. You just don't want to acknowledge the accuracy of my statement.

I believe he answered your question without knowing it.

[Mac-7]

I'm on subject. You just don't want to acknowledge the accuracy of my statement.

Accurate perhaps.

but not on topic

a repub is not in the White House today

it is obumer a misbehavior in question right now
you are
just trying to take the heat off him

[Safety]

Accurate perhaps.

but not on topic

a repub is not in the White House today

it is obumer a misbehavior in question right now
you are
just trying to take the heat off him

No, I think he's trying to see if some are sincere about limiting the government or just limiting the government when someone you don't like is in office.

[MisterVeritis]

No, I think he's trying to see if some are sincere about limiting the government or just limiting the government when someone you don't like is in office.
An Article V Convention of States to propose amendments is the way to make sure both political parties are kept in check.

[Safety]

An Article V Convention of States to propose amendments is the way to make sure both political parties are kept in check.

That's good to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Green Arrow]

Accurate perhaps.

but not on topic

a repub is not in the White House today

it is obumer a misbehavior in question right now
you are
just trying to take the heat off him

Do you ever get tired of being stupid, Mac? I agree with their actions, Einstein. I just doubt that they will continue when a Republican is in office.

[Ransom]

Your question implies that conservatives are statists and elect statists, which would contradict the conservative message of limited government.

We elected John McCain, George Bush, Ronald Reagan. By limited, we mean scope Arrow, don't misinterpret the conservative message if yer quoting it.

[Ransom]

And there is no insurrection either. We've statists in Congress and in the WH. It's just nice to see you've finally been convinced this is neither hope nor change, I'll see you in DC for the 2017 Inaugural for a new President, hopefully an (R), but let's just all agree it's far past time for this one to move on.

[PolWatch]

No, I think he's trying to see if some are sincere about limiting the government or just limiting the government when someone you don't like is in office.

Kinda like the Patriot Act? The one that all the repubs loved when Bush proposed and passed it. The same one that Obama objected to at the time. Move forward a few years & now Obama loves the Patriot Act & the repubs don't think it is quite so bright & shiny. I think the filibuster rules have the same love/hate history.

Another chorus of 'oh what a difference a day makes'

[Green Arrow]

We elected John McCain, George Bush, Ronald Reagan. By limited, we mean scope Arrow, don't misinterpret the conservative message if yer quoting it.

What does that mean, exactly? How do you limit the "scope" of the government without limiting the government itself?

[Safety]

Kinda like the Patriot Act? The one that all the repubs loved when Bush proposed and passed it. The same one that Obama objected to at the time. Move forward a few years & now Obama loves the Patriot Act & the repubs don't think it is quite so bright & shiny. I think the filibuster rules have the same love/hate history.

Another chorus of 'oh what a difference a day makes'

Exactly^^^^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mac-7]

Do you ever get tired of being stupid, Mac? I agree with their actions, Einstein. I just doubt that they will continue when a Republican is in office.

I didn't hear you helping the repubs with the problem they are dealing with now, but rather just bashing them for what your lib crystal ball tells you they will do in the future.

[Green Arrow]

I didn't hear you helping the repubs with the problem they are dealing with now, but rather just bashing them for what your lib crystal balls tells you they will do in the future.

I wondered if they would keep it up. I never said they would not. I hope they do.

[Mac-7]

I wondered if they would keep it up. I never said they would not. I hope they do.

Yeah, right.

Anyone can see how much you adore the repubs and hate the dems.

[Green Arrow]

Yeah, right.

Anyone can see how much you adore the repubs and hate the dems.

Nope. Anyone that isn't terminally stupid can see that I hate both but like the GOP slightly better than the Democrats, though.

[Mac-7]

Nope. Anyone that isn't terminally stupid can see that I hate both but like the GOP slightly better than the Democrats, though.

Terminally stupid?

Well who knows.

You are part of the superior class and I'm not so whatever you say goes.

sometimes you will reluctantly concede that the dems are not perfect, but you only get warmed up when its time to bash conservatives and republicans.

[MisterVeritis]

Kinda like the Patriot Act? The one that all the repubs loved when Bush proposed and passed it. The same one that Obama objected to at the time. Move forward a few years & now Obama loves the Patriot Act & the repubs don't think it is quite so bright & shiny. I think the filibuster rules have the same love/hate history.

Another chorus of 'oh what a difference a day makes'
Is it the same act? Sensenbrenner did not think it was.

[Green Arrow]

Terminally stupid?

Well who knows.

You are part of the superior class and I'm not so whatever you say goes.

sometimes you will reluctantly concede that the dems are not perfect, but you only get warmed up when its time to bash conservatives and republicans.

I have "conceded" that Democrats are not only not perfect, but inept and often wildly stupid, on a number of occasions. I can't help that you are a selective reader.

[Green Arrow]

Is it the same act? Sensenbrenner did not think it was.

That's because Sensenbrenner was reaping the monstrosity that he helped sow and wanted to find a way out of having to take responsibility.

It was the same act that he has supported every time it came up for reauthorization. Once the opinion of the general American populace turned against it, he tried to act like he had nothing to do with it when, in fact, it was his baby from the start.

[MisterVeritis]

That's because Sensenbrenner was reaping the monstrosity that he helped sow and wanted to find a way out of having to take responsibility.

It was the same act that he has supported every time it came up for reauthorization. Once the opinion of the general American populace turned against it, he tried to act like he had nothing to do with it when, in fact, it was his baby from the start.
He says PATRIOT I and PATRIOT II are different laws. He has never stepped away from I.

Gathering intelligence where one subject of the collection effort is overseas or one or both are foreigners is legitimate and appropriate. Spying on all Americans is not. The former occurred in PATRIOT I. The latter in PATRIOT II.

My concern is that we are now spied upon for political suppression purposes and not as part of the nation's defense. With the emerging data science where big data analytics can find connections that are hidden in very large data sets anything that can be known about each of us will be known. If we were still governed by men and women with integrity that might not be a problem.

[Green Arrow]

He says PATRIOT I and PATRIOT II are different laws. He has never stepped away from I.

Gathering intelligence where one subject of the collection effort is overseas or one or both are foreigners is legitimate and appropriate. Spying on all Americans is not. The former occurred in PATRIOT I. The latter in PATRIOT II.

My concern is that we are now spied upon for political suppression purposes and not as part of the nation's defense. With the emerging data science where big data analytics can find connections that are hidden in very large data sets anything that can be known about each of us will be known. If we were still governed by men and women with integrity that might not be a problem.

What, specifically, are you calling PATRIOT II?

[Mac-7]

I have "conceded" that Democrats are not only not perfect, but inept and often wildly stupid, on a number of occasions. I can't help that you are a selective reader.

ha!

[MisterVeritis]

What, specifically, are you calling PATRIOT II?
Patriot I was the initial law. Patriot II was the re-implementation with its associated changes.

[Green Arrow]

Patriot I was the initial law. Patriot II was the re-implementation with its associated changes.

Right, that's what I thought. Sensenbrenner voted for the reauths, associated changes and all. Then public opinion turned against his baby and he "turned" against it to save face.

[MisterVeritis]

Right, that's what I thought. Sensenbrenner voted for the reauths, associated changes and all. Then public opinion turned against his baby and he "turned" against it to save face.
What I remember his saying about it was that just like the rest of his brethren he never read the second enabling legislation.

That is the true crime. Two or three people put together a massive bill and then give it out 30 minutes before the vote.

An Article V convention of states is sorely needed.

[Green Arrow]

What I remember his saying about it was that just like the rest of his brethren he never read the second enabling legislation.

That is the true crime. Two or three people put together a massive bill and then give it out 30 minutes before the vote.

An Article V convention of states is sorely needed.

And how many state level politicians are just as bad as their federal counterparts?

Nothing short of a full reset can save us now.

[MisterVeritis]

And how many state level politicians are just as bad as their federal counterparts?

Nothing short of a full reset can save us now.
Article V of the US Constitution is the final legal way to resolve the federal problem. The greatest danger to our liberties lies at the federal level.

[Green Arrow]

Article V of the US Constitution is the final legal way to resolve the federal problem. The greatest danger to our liberties lies at the federal level.

The final moral way to resolve the federal problem, and likely now the only way to resolve the federal problem, is to completely reset the system and start over from scratch. Much like the founders did with the British Crown.

[MisterVeritis]

The final moral way to resolve the federal problem, and likely now the only way to resolve the federal problem, is to completely reset the system and start over from scratch. Much like the founders did with the British Crown.
That ends it. It may come to that. I have studied a large number of rebellions and other small wars. They seldom have a good ending. If we do not have an ARticle V convention of states to propose amendments I do believe a rebellion will occur.

[texan]

I am fine with a statist if it keeps Billary out!

[Green Arrow]

I am fine with a statist if it keeps Billary out!

We know, texan. The march of tyranny has always been aided by the goosestepping of followers like you.

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/028/8/9/ww2_era_german_march_gif_by_tiepilot789-d4ny7r0.gif

[gamewell45]

States are defying lawless action by the regime. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-rising-insurrection-against-obama/2015/04/03/d00e39f6-d94f-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html) And they are well within their Constitutional rights to do so. The question is whether the legislative branch will support the Constitution, or the regime.
The states that do this need to understand that it's quite possible at sometime the Federal Government might decide to cut off funding to those states going against the Fed's. Putting economic squeeze on the states can cause them to re-think their positions. Some here might remember when the Federal Government pushed the drinking age from 18 to 21 and those states that refused to go along with it would lose their federal funding for their highways. For some reason all the state went along with it as far as I know.

[Cthulhu]

An Article V Convention of States to propose amendments is the way to make sure both political parties are kept in check.
Doesn't seem to be working.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Peter1469]

If the States stick together they can force the federal government to act in accordance with the Constitution.


The states that do this need to understand that it's quite possible at sometime the Federal Government might decide to cut off funding to those states going against the Fed's. Putting economic squeeze on the states can cause them to re-think their positions. Some here might remember when the Federal Government pushed the drinking age from 18 to 21 and those states that refused to go along with it would lose their federal funding for their highways. For some reason all the state went along with it as far as I know.

[Mac-7]

No, I think he's trying to see if some are sincere about limiting the government or just limiting the government when someone you don't like is in office.

Does it matter?

To a fence sitter who swings both ways politically and claims to want smaller government you take advantage of the prevailing winds.

Green Leaf claims to be non partisan.

What does he care what repubs will do later?

If they are pushing to limit government now that's all that matters.

[Cthulhu]

Does it matter?

To a fence sitter who swings both ways politically and claims to want smaller government you take advantage of the prevailing winds.

Green Leaf claims to be non partisan.

What does he care what repubs will do later?

If they are pushing to limit government now they all that matters.
That would first require evidence of them curtailing government powers with meaningful actions.

I have not seen meaningful republican actions in 20 years.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

[Mac-7]

That would first require evidence of them curtailing government powers with meaningful actions.

I have not seen meaningful republican actions in 20 years.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

You don't think Ted Cruz wants to limit government?

[Howey]

The states that do this need to understand that it's quite possible at sometime the Federal Government might decide to cut off funding to those states going against the Fed's. Putting economic squeeze on the states can cause them to re-think their positions. Some here might remember when the Federal Government pushed the drinking age from 18 to 21 and those states that refused to go along with it would lose their federal funding for their highways. For some reason all the state went along with it as far as I know.


If the States stick together they can force the federal government to act in accordance with the Constitution.
I can't wait to see the federal government cut the states off from everything. EVERYTHING! After all that's what the secessionist traitors want. Then I'm going to sit back and watch them come groveling back to the government on hands and knees, begging for a little military protection, food for their people, environmental help for their smoggy skies and some kind of healthcare.




I have not seen meaningful republican actions in 20 years.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

You finally got one right.

[Safety]

You don't think Ted Cruz wants to limit government?

I think Ted Cruz wants whatever helps him to get elected.

[Peter1469]

The States should call an Article V convention and right the ship.

The feds shouldn't be sucking up tax dollars and then using it as a stick to force the states to do this or that.


I can't wait to see the federal government cut the states off from everything. EVERYTHING! After all that's what the secessionist traitors want. Then I'm going to sit back and watch them come groveling back to the government on hands and knees, begging for a little military protection, food for their people, environmental help for their smoggy skies and some kind of healthcare.



You finally got one right.

[MisterVeritis]

I can't wait to see the federal government cut the states off from everything. EVERYTHING! After all that's what the secessionist traitors want. Then I'm going to sit back and watch them come groveling back to the government on hands and knees, begging for a little military protection, food for their people, environmental help for their smoggy skies and some kind of healthcare.

I believe it is John Locke's first treatise on government covered the Divine Right of Kings. It may be time for the states to cut off the federal government and let it starve. If we have to go there we will have to go there armed.

[Howey]

The States should call an Article V convention and right the ship.

The feds shouldn't be sucking up tax dollars and then using it as a stick to force the states to do this or that.

Who's going to pay for the convention?

[Howey]

I believe it is John Locke's first treatise on government covered the Divine Right of Kings. It may be time for the states to cut off the federal government and let it starve. If we have to go there we will have to go there armed.

I'd rather the federal government cut off the states. They'll he back in six months.

[Bob]

I don't see why not. The (R) is going to nominate a Statist anyway.

I need to verify something.

By statist, you mean those believing in our own states????????

[zelmo1234]

I can't wait to see the federal government cut the states off from everything. EVERYTHING! After all that's what the secessionist traitors want. Then I'm going to sit back and watch them come groveling back to the government on hands and knees, begging for a little military protection, food for their people, environmental help for their smoggy skies and some kind of healthcare.



You finally got one right.

I know that you would never intentionally mislead the people, but I am going to need some back up on this all the same.

And if you cut the states off? Why would they send you the tax money they collect?

[zelmo1234]

I believe it is John Locke's first treatise on government covered the Divine Right of Kings. It may be time for the states to cut off the federal government and let it starve. If we have to go there we will have to go there armed.

Maybe but with a military approval rating of just 15% of this administration, it is not likely that the military would turn on the people

[PolWatch]

In the case of the southern states that would save the federal government lots of money. The majority of the southern states receive considerably more back from the federal government than they send in.

[Bob]

I'd rather the federal government cut off the states. They'll he back in six months.

Here is what I believe Democrats can't get.

They believe in the Federal Government. More than their own state, they believe in the Federal Government.

To what effect one might ask.

To the effect that if the Federal Government acts to suppress their own state, they side with the Federal government.

It matters not who is right. Support of the Feds is paramount.

When the Feds invade your state and commence shooting, you back the Feds.

[Bob]

In the case of the southern states that would save the federal government lots of money. The majority of the southern states receive considerably more back from the federal government than they send in.

Is that well known to the population living in the South?

I hope you guys appreciate getting California money.

[PolWatch]

I doubt there would be as much talk of secession if people realized that.

[zelmo1234]

Who's going to pay for the convention?

Do you think that the Feds collect taxes without the help of the States? I have to send my taxes to the feds if the state I live in wants a convention all they need to do is give me another address and it is not like they are going to allow the IRS to operate within its borders.

I would hope that you can see that the current policies of the federal government sponsored by this administration are leading to a very dangerous future.

[zelmo1234]

I'd rather the federal government cut off the states. They'll he back in six months.

well TX and Alaska can cut of the oil to the feds, That should get there attention

[zelmo1234]

I need to verify something.

By statist, you mean those believing in our own states????????

NO! just the opposite those believing in a cradle to grave nanny state

[nic34]

Is that well known to the population living in the South?

I hope you guys appreciate getting California money.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/non-payers-by-state.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

[zelmo1234]

In the case of the southern states that would save the federal government lots of money. The majority of the southern states receive considerably more back from the federal government than they send in.

But a lot of that money is for military bases. and if you add in TX and the oil they could sell to the feds?

kind of evens the score.

[Bob]

I know that you would never intentionally mislead the people, but I am going to need some back up on this all the same.

And if you cut the states off? Why would they send you the tax money they collect?

Bump

[Bob]

But a lot of that money is for military bases. and if you add in TX and the oil they could sell to the feds?

kind of evens the score.

Thanks for reminding us of those military bases in the South.

[Cigar]

Well Denial is their middle Name :laugh:

[PolWatch]

I don't see the oil industry allowing that. They would not receive subsidies from the states and that would cut their profit margins. Unless the Texas & Alaska nationalized the oil operations like Venezuela.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1033080#post1033080)
I need to verify something.

By statist, you mean those believing in our own states????????


NO! just the opposite those believing in a cradle to grave nanny state

Are you certain that is what Peter1469 means?

[zelmo1234]

I don't see the oil industry allowing that. They would not receive subsidies from the states and that would cut their profit margins. Unless the Texas & Alaska nationalized the oil operations like Venezuela.

They would also not be paying taxes to the federal government?

I don't think liberals understand this at all. TX refines oil for the nation, the oil companies would have much lower taxations in TX.

They will be just fine. And you really should research what subsidies the oil companies receive, it is an increased depreciation rate, nothing more.

[nic34]

But a lot of that money is for military bases. and if you add in TX and the oil they could sell to the feds?

kind of evens the score.

Even? Maybe you can eat that oil and gas....:laugh:

[Bob]

They would also not be paying taxes to the federal government?

I don't think liberals understand this at all. TX refines oil for the nation, the oil companies would have much lower taxations in TX.

They will be just fine. And you really should research what subsidies the oil companies receive, it is an increased depreciation rate, nothing more.

Democrats get the idea if you pay less taxes, you got a subsidy.

Well, a hell of a lot of Americans pay zero income taxes. I suppose they are the 47 percent Mitt Romney talked of being fully subsidized.

I don't believe any oil company receives treasury checks from the Feds. Seems they kick in funds to the Feds by the billions of dollars.

[nic34]

I don't see the oil industry allowing that. They would not receive subsidies from the states and that would cut their profit margins. Unless the Texas & Alaska nationalized the oil operations like Venezuela.

I'm not sure they understand oil is traded on the global market. The best Texas could do is hurt their own trade.

[PolWatch]

But a lot of that money is for military bases. and if you add in TX and the oil they could sell to the feds?

kind of evens the score.

They would need them. I remember reading several articles about if the south had won the Civil War. One thing I remember was the idea that Texas would have been invaded and taken over by Mexico and Alaska would have stayed Russian property. Without the American military to protect them, that could be a possibility. After all, do you think Texas or Alaska could fight off another nation by themselves?

[Bob]

I'm not sure they understand oil is traded on the global market. The best Texas could do is hurt their own trade.

So little of the USA oil production leaves this country but for our own military operations, it's not even significant. We still import more. A lot more. Then there are those pesky laws holding back Oil companies in the USA from exporting oil and products.

[PolWatch]

Democrats get the idea if you pay less taxes, you got a subsidy.

Well, a hell of a lot of Americans pay zero income taxes. I suppose they are the 47 percent Mitt Romney talked of being fully subsidized.

I don't believe any oil company receives treasury checks from the Feds. Seems they kick in funds to the Feds by the billions of dollars.

Bob, look at the map of the states that receive more than they send. Who do they vote for?

[Cigar]

Rising Insurrection; is that like Morning Wood :laugh:

[Bob]

They would need them. I remember reading several articles about if the south had won the Civil War. One thing I remember was the idea that Texas would have been invaded and taken over by Mexico and Alaska would have stayed Russian property. Without the American military to protect them, that could be a possibility. After all, do you think Texas or Alaska could fight off another nation by themselves?

Texas was invaded prior to the Civil war and beat off the Mexicans. Even by the time of the Civil war, General Fremont beat off the Mexicans in California.

Would Alaska remain with the Russians or perhaps Canada would have taken it over? At one point, America was extremely expansionist.

[Bob]

Bob, look at the map of the states that receive more than they send. Who do they vote for?

Can you explain your point? Is this over voting or money?

[nic34]

States are defying lawless action by the regime. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-rising-insurrection-against-obama/2015/04/03/d00e39f6-d94f-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html) And they are well within their Constitutional rights to do so. The question is whether the legislative branch will support the Constitution, or the regime.

More from AZCentral:

Yes our leaders are so focused on and passionate about the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


If only we could get them as interested in Article 11, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/11/6.htm)..

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1033122#post1033122)
Democrats get the idea if you pay less taxes, you got a subsidy.

Well, a hell of a lot of Americans pay zero income taxes. I suppose they are the 47 percent Mitt Romney talked of being fully subsidized.

I don't believe any oil company receives treasury checks from the Feds. Seems they kick in funds to the Feds by the billions of dollars.



Suggested replies for Democrats.

1. Democrats believe Subsidies is not actual money, it is lower taxes paid.
2. Democrats don't know what they are talking about.
3. The many non paying Americans all must be republicans.
4. The non payers are just kidding us.
5. If you don't pay income taxes, you must be a Democrat.

I don't get it. I am so confused.

[nic34]

I don't get it. I am so confused.

We noticed.

[PolWatch]

Can you explain your point? Is this over voting or money?

What was your point about Romney & his 47%? voting or money?

[Bob]

What was your point about Romney & his 47%? voting or money?

Money.

[PolWatch]

ok...follow the money. Who is sending to Washington & who is receiving it from Washington. People who advocate for splitting the nation for whatever reason don't think about the fact that the money would stay with liberal, predominately democratic north. If the right wants to establish their own nation, they need to figure out how to change those facts. The south is loyally republican....as long as DC keeps sending those pork chops. Cut off that, and you might just lose their support.

[nic34]

More from AZCentral:

Yes our leaders are so focused on and passionate about the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


If only we could get them as interested in Article 11, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/11/6.htm)..



The rwnj's in our state won't be happy until they've kicked all those that have recently gotten health insurance off the rolls too.

Pre-existing conditions, preventative checkups and anything else the rest of the developed world does...

House Bill 2643 by Republican Rep. Justin Olson of Mesa stops state and local governments from using financial resources to enforce the Affordable Care Act.

http://phoenix.suntimes.com/phx-news/7/83/157813/senate-committee-passes-bills-blocking-federal-regulations

[nic34]

Money.

Rmoney?

[Bob]

Rmoney?

??????????????????

[Peter1469]

More from AZCentral:

Yes our leaders are so focused on and passionate about the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


If only we could get them as interested in Article 11, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/const/11/6.htm)..


Those who don't live in Az ought not care about Art 11, sec 6 of Az's Constitution. That is a concern for those who live in Az.

[Green Arrow]

I don't get it. I am so confused.

The only new thing there is that you're actually admitting it.

[Green Arrow]

Personally, I'd rather we all shut the hell up about secession and cutting off money or oil or what have you, and all sit down at the table like adults and find amicable solutions.

All this posturing by the federal and state governments and their respective backers is just childish and unproductive. Get the hell over yourselves.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1033143#post1033143)
I don't get it. I am so confused.


The only new thing there is that you're actually admitting it.

It did not work this time. Maybe next time it might.

[Bob]

Personally, I'd rather we all shut the hell up about secession and cutting off money or oil or what have you, and all sit down at the table like adults and find amicable solutions.

All this posturing by the federal and state governments and their respective backers is just childish and unproductive. Get the hell over yourselves.

It was time for that temper to show up again and now you might feel better.

[Green Arrow]

It was time for that temper to show up again and now you might feel better.

What temper? I'm chill as the arctic right now.

[Howey]

I'm not sure they understand oil is traded on the global market. The best Texas could do is hurt their own trade.
They don't understand a lot.

[Howey]

They would need them. I remember reading several articles about if the south had won the Civil War. One thing I remember was the idea that Texas would have been invaded and taken over by Mexico and Alaska would have stayed Russian property. Without the American military to protect them, that could be a possibility. After all, do you think Texas or Alaska could fight off another nation by themselves?

Schmucks couldn't even defend the Alamo.

[Howey]

The rwnj's in our state won't be happy until they've kicked all those that have recently gotten health insurance off the rolls too.

Pre-existing conditions, preventative checkups and anything else the rest of the developed world does...

House Bill 2643 by Republican Rep. Justin Olson of Mesa stops state and local governments from using financial resources to enforce the Affordable Care Act.

http://phoenix.suntimes.com/phx-news/7/83/157813/senate-committee-passes-bills-blocking-federal-regulations


And today Gov Jar Jar Scott, he who BILKED the US government out of billions of dollars has decided no to expand Medicaid in our state because he can't "trust" Obama.

Seriously even Bob couldn't make up this much stupid!

[Green Arrow]

Schmucks couldn't even defend the Alamo.
Howey, brother, please tell me you're joking about that.

[Howey]

the rwnj's in our state won't be happy until they've kicked all those that have recently gotten health insurance off the rolls too.

Pre-existing conditions, preventative checkups and anything else the rest of the developed world does...

house bill 2643 by republican rep. Justin olson of mesa stops state and local governments from using financial resources to enforce the affordable care act.

http://phoenix.suntimes.com/phx-news/7/83/157813/senate-committee-passes-bills-blocking-federal-regulations

ding ding ding ding!

[Chris]

The rwnj's in our state won't be happy until they've kicked all those that have recently gotten health insurance off the rolls too.

Pre-existing conditions, preventative checkups and anything else the rest of the developed world does...

House Bill 2643 by Republican Rep. Justin Olson of Mesa stops state and local governments from using financial resources to enforce the Affordable Care Act.

http://phoenix.suntimes.com/phx-news/7/83/157813/senate-committee-passes-bills-blocking-federal-regulations



I thought states were supposed to be able to opt out.

[MisterVeritis]

Who's going to pay for the convention?
Typically the body that calls for the convention of states provides the place. The delegates expenses are paid for by each of the states. This way a state can have as many or as few delegates as they choose. Each state gets one vote.

There are organizations that have met and will continue to meet to settle the relevant details.

[zelmo1234]

Even? Maybe you can eat that oil and gas....:laugh:

Or they could trade with other states. You know like they do now.

We are talking about starving the government. And that would mean at least 3 states as well. CA, NY, and IL But the people in those states would catch on fast!

Government is not making anything better! that we all should be able to agree on, they are also acting like children both parties!

It is time they remember that they are not their to serve themselves, but to serve the people.

[MisterVeritis]

And today Gov Jar Jar Scott, he who BILKED the US government out of billions of dollars has decided no to expand Medicaid in our state because he can't "trust" Obama.

Seriously even @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) couldn't make up this much stupid!
Why do you want to bankrupt the states?

[zelmo1234]

I'm not sure they understand oil is traded on the global market. The best Texas could do is hurt their own trade.

This is really telling! Liberals have no idea where money comes from.

So you have a refinery in TX they are making gasoline and Diesel fuel who do they sell it to? Hint! Not the federal government.

So they continue to provide products to those states that are of like mind and are with holding funds and good from the feds. Those states that don't want to play ball? No soup for you! So the people of those states will have to pay a premium because their local governments are not withholding revenue from the feds. It is really up to them, which truck and tankers they fill

[zelmo1234]

They would need them. I remember reading several articles about if the south had won the Civil War. One thing I remember was the idea that Texas would have been invaded and taken over by Mexico and Alaska would have stayed Russian property. Without the American military to protect them, that could be a possibility. After all, do you think Texas or Alaska could fight off another nation by themselves?

Why would they have too? I think that if the military had a choice fighting for Obama or the people of TX 85% would choose TX

Contrary to popular left wing opinion, the people are not happy with the direction of the federal government.

[MisterVeritis]

In the case of the southern states that would save the federal government lots of money. The majority of the southern states receive considerably more back from the federal government than they send in.
That is an interesting statement. I wonder what that includes. Does it cover the expense of military installations and payrolls in the patriotic states? Does it cover government contracts to the people who build, operate, and maintain, the things the government buys? I live in Huntsville. When I moved here a decade ago this place had more PhDs and Masters degrees per capita than any place other than Washington DC. We are here because this is one of the wonderful places to solve hard problems. Alabama is certainly a patriotic state. Does your throw-away line include the expenses of contracting with senior engineers and scientists?

[Green Arrow]

Since everybody is ignoring the bit where I suggested a much better and wiser resolution to the problem than what is being floated by both sides on this thread, let me try a different tack.

Secession won't work. It will hurt the seceding states just as much (if not more) as it will hurt the federal government.

Cutting off money and other stuff to the states won't work. It will hurt the federal government just as much (if not more) as it will hurt the states.

Makes for good tough-guy rhetoric though.

[Howey]

Why do you want to bankrupt the states?

Where did I say that? It's federal money.

[zelmo1234]

ok...follow the money. Who is sending to Washington & who is receiving it from Washington. People who advocate for splitting the nation for whatever reason don't think about the fact that the money would stay with liberal, predominately democratic north. If the right wants to establish their own nation, they need to figure out how to change those facts. The south is loyally republican....as long as DC keeps sending those pork chops. Cut off that, and you might just lose their support.

Not really they have large population and are dependent on natural gas and oil. they don't have it. they also don't have the capacity to refine it!

Also much of the food is grown in the south and the plains states, very conservative. So the liberal states have to buy fossil fuels and food, that transfers the money.

sure they have the banking sectors and industrial sectors and that means a lot of people and wages. but they need what the fly over country produces

[PolWatch]

That is an interesting statement. I wonder what that includes. Does it cover the expense of military installations and payrolls in the patriotic states? Does it cover government contracts to the people who build, operate, and maintain, the things the government buys? I live in Huntsville. When I moved here a decade ago this place had more PhDs and Masters degrees per capita than any place other than Washington DC. We are here because this is one of the wonderful places to solve hard problems. Alabama is certainly a patriotic state. Does your throw-away line include the expenses of contracting with senior engineers and scientists?

I believe the figures include all federal monies. Having lived & worked in the Huntsville area I wonder how many of those contracted scientists would remain in the case of secession? How many of those federal employees would stay? This is another idea like the me too Alabama illegal immigration laws. Talk big and fall flat.

[Bob]

And today Gov Jar Jar Scott, he who BILKED the US government out of billions of dollars has decided no to expand Medicaid in our state because he can't "trust" Obama.

Seriously even @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) couldn't make up this much stupid!

So, in your world that is how you get more reputation?

[zelmo1234]

Since everybody is ignoring the bit where I suggested a much better and wiser resolution to the problem than what is being floated by both sides on this thread, let me try a different tack.

Secession won't work. It will hurt the seceding states just as much (if not more) as it will hurt the federal government.

Cutting off money and other stuff to the states won't work. It will hurt the federal government just as much (if not more) as it will hurt the states.

Makes for good tough-guy rhetoric though.

Oh! sure, use logic against us, Party pooper! :)

It is just fun to think that we could actually take back the government and force it to work for the people, instead of against them.

[Bob]

I believe the figures include all federal monies. Having lived & worked in the Huntsville area I wonder how many of those contracted scientists would remain in the case of secession? How many of those federal employees would stay? This is another idea like the me too Alabama illegal immigration laws. Talk big and fall flat.

Is Alabama on the verge of leaving the union again?

[zelmo1234]

I believe the figures include all federal monies. Having lived & worked in the Huntsville area I wonder how many of those contracted scientists would remain in the case of secession? How many of those federal employees would stay? This is another idea like the me too Alabama illegal immigration laws. Talk big and fall flat.

It is actually the poor states in this case that would come out ok? because they have been poor and know how to deal with it

what would happen in NYC when there is NO food! So in a situation where the system falls apart you head for the hills (country) it is your only chance.

[MisterVeritis]

Schmucks couldn't even defend the Alamo.
I have been there.

On one side we find a national army unit of about 2,000 trained soldiers supported by artillery batteries with ample supplies. On the other we find about 200 volunteers who fight from inside the walls of a mission. The Texians held out for two weeks. They killed about 600 of the Mexican soldiers. It is unclear how many were wounded. All of the Texian defenders were killed.

As a result of that battle additional forces were gathered and the Mexican national army was defeated.

Expect something similar if it should come to it.

Schmucks indeed.

[Polecat]

Employers should refuse to serve as unpaid labor on behalf of the IRS and quit collecting tax.

[MisterVeritis]

I doubt there would be as much talk of secession if people realized that.
The federal government has enormous wealth in the form of lands. All of those lands (except a very small amount) are within the states. Other than that the government must seize wealth from the productive. Cut that money off and the federal government is nothing.

[MisterVeritis]

The final moral way to resolve the federal problem, and likely now the only way to resolve the federal problem, is to completely reset the system and start over from scratch. Much like the founders did with the British Crown.
Rebellions nearly always end badly for everybody.

First we must try to set up the Article V Convention of States to propose amendments. If that fails some future generation will revolt.

[Howey]

I have been there.

On one side we find a national army unit of about 2,000 trained soldiers supported by artillery batteries with ample supplies. On the other we find about 200 volunteers who fight from inside the walls of a mission. The Texians held out for two weeks. They killed about 600 of the Mexican soldiers. It is unclear how many were wounded. All of the Texian defenders were killed.

As a result of that battle additional forces were gathered and the Mexican national army was defeated.

Expect something similar if it should come to it.

Schmucks indeed.

You were at the Alamo?

Dayum!

[MisterVeritis]

Doesn't seem to be working.

What do you mean? Quite a bit has to be coordinated. In 2014 three or four states petitioned the Congress. In 2015 the best estimate is an additional 15 will petition the Congress. It requires 34 states. Urgency is important. I would like to see it happen before the end of 2015 but believe 2017 is more likely.

[Bob]

Right, that's what I thought. Sensenbrenner voted for the reauths, associated changes and all. Then public opinion turned against his baby and he "turned" against it to save face.

Is this where I am supposed to tell you that I don't give a shit?

Seems like you do it.

[MisterVeritis]

I can't wait to see the federal government cut the states off from everything. EVERYTHING! After all that's what the secessionist traitors want. Then I'm going to sit back and watch them come groveling back to the government on hands and knees, begging for a little military protection, food for their people, environmental help for their smoggy skies and some kind of healthcare.

This is naive.

Where do you think the federal government gets the wealth it squanders? Your statement does remind me that very few people have any idea about what is real. If there was to be a war between the states and the federal government the feds would lose. Wealth resides in the states and the people. It is about time for us to realize it and behave, once again, as free men and women.

[MisterVeritis]

I'd rather the federal government cut off the states. They'll he back in six months.
You have it backwards. Money flows from the people to the feds. Way too much money is stolen from the productive. Without us the feds die in about two months.

[MisterVeritis]

Do you think that the Feds collect taxes without the help of the States? I have to send my taxes to the feds if the state I live in wants a convention all they need to do is give me another address and it is not like they are going to allow the IRS to operate within its borders.

I would hope that you can see that the current policies of the federal government sponsored by this administration are leading to a very dangerous future.
The money is taken out of your paycheck and give to the feds. It is time we stop that as well. I want everyone to receive an itemized bill that must be paid every month.

[MisterVeritis]

ok...follow the money. Who is sending to Washington & who is receiving it from Washington. People who advocate for splitting the nation for whatever reason don't think about the fact that the money would stay with liberal, predominantly democratic north. If the right wants to establish their own nation, they need to figure out how to change those facts. The south is loyally republican....as long as DC keeps sending those pork chops. Cut off that, and you might just lose their support.
You have it backwards. Wealth flows from the people within the states. Cut the flow of wealth and the Leviathan collapses under its own ponderous weight.

I suppose it is possible that every liberal democrat would side with the feds and against their states. It would be a sight to see to have all of you liberals reaching into your own pockets for a change.

[MisterVeritis]

The rwnj's in our state won't be happy until they've kicked all those that have recently gotten health insurance off the rolls too.

Pre-existing conditions, preventative checkups and anything else the rest of the developed world does...

House Bill 2643 by Republican Rep. Justin Olson of Mesa stops state and local governments from using financial resources to enforce the Affordable Care Act.

http://phoenix.suntimes.com/phx-news/7/83/157813/senate-committee-passes-bills-blocking-federal-regulations
This sounds good to me. The sooner this monster is slain the sooner we can restore health care. If you are fortunate and live in one of the 30 or so states that did not set up a state exchange you may be (unwittingly) part of the solution.

[nic34]

You have it backwards. Wealth flows from the people within the states. Cut the flow of wealth and the Leviathan collapses under its own ponderous weight.

I suppose it is possible that every liberal democrat would side with the feds and against their states. It would be a site to see to have all of you liberals reaching into your own pockets for a change.

It would be a sight to see corporations do the same.

[MisterVeritis]

Personally, I'd rather we all shut the hell up about secession and cutting off money or oil or what have you, and all sit down at the table like adults and find amicable solutions.

All this posturing by the federal and state governments and their respective backers is just childish and unproductive. Get the hell over yourselves.
Cool beans. That and five dollars might buy you a good cup of coffee. Get the hell over yourself.

[Green Arrow]

Is this where I am supposed to tell you that I don't give a shit?

Seems like you do it.

You don't need to tell me that you don't care about the bad things Republicans do, we've already covered the fact that you fell asleep on Republicans.

[Bob]

You don't need to tell me that you don't care about the bad things Republicans do, we've already covered the fact that you fell asleep on Republicans.

How often do you braid your pigtails?

[MisterVeritis]

Where did I say that? It's federal money.
I do not blame you directly. It is a trick. Remember Gruber?

All of that money comes from the people. Most of it flows from the people to the federal government who decide what doctors can charge.


Medicaid in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) is a social health care program for families and individuals with low income and limited resources. The Health Insurance Association of America describes Medicaid as a "government insurance program for persons of all ages whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for health care." (America's Health Insurance Plans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Health_Insurance_Plans) (HIAA), pg. 232). Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with low income in the United States. It is a means-tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_test) program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments and managed by the states,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid#cite_note-1) with each state currently having broad leeway to determine who is eligible for its implementation of the program.

A few things. It is currently jointly funded. The feds want to greatly expand eligibility. That means more people, like you, perhaps, must be paid for by more people like me. The feds increase my taxes to pay for it. In a few years under the current arrangement the states must pay 10% of the costs for the people who come in under the expansion. It will bankrupt the states.

It will also bankrupt the productive people who pay most of the income taxes.

I do not believe you understand where federal money comes from. Obama does not have a stash.

[MisterVeritis]

It would be a sight to see corporations do the same.
Smart people know that corporations are tax collectors for the state. Dumb people believe they must be forced to pay/collect more.

[MisterVeritis]

Since everybody is ignoring the bit where I suggested a much better and wiser resolution to the problem than what is being floated by both sides on this thread, let me try a different tack.

Secession won't work. It will hurt the seceding states just as much (if not more) as it will hurt the federal government.

Cutting off money and other stuff to the states won't work. It will hurt the federal government just as much (if not more) as it will hurt the states.

Makes for good tough-guy rhetoric though.
And this brings us to the three options. Capitulation. Rebellion. Article V Convention of States to propose amendments.

For full disclosure I am working in my state to get the petition legislation passed and submitted.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe the figures include all federal monies. Having lived & worked in the Huntsville area I wonder how many of those contracted scientists would remain in the case of secession? How many of those federal employees would stay? This is another idea like the me too Alabama illegal immigration laws. Talk big and fall flat.
Try to stay focused.

You want it to sound like liberals are providing all of the money to we poor southerners. I was gently moving you toward seeing that the lie you repeated was a mere shadow of the truth which is more complicated.

Now what happens to me and all of my very smart friends if the federal government continues its battles against the states and the people? I do not know. Some would continue to support the feds. Some always will. Some would seek opportunities in the non-government sector. We are smart enough to individually figure out what is best for us.

Doing what is right really bothers you.

[MisterVeritis]

Is Alabama on the verge of leaving the union again?
Not so far as I can tell. But when one argument fails it is simple enough to add another argument.

I believe the one remaining lawful path is through the state legislators in the Constitutional Article V process.

[MisterVeritis]

You were at the Alamo?

Dayum!
I was at the Alamo. I have been all over the grounds a few times. I lived nearby for about a decade.

You do know it is an actual place, don't you?

[MisterVeritis]

It would be a sight to see corporations do the same.
LOL. True enough. I noted and corrected site to sight after you posted this.

[Bob]

Try to stay focused.

You want it to sound like liberals are providing all of the money to we poor southerners. I was gently moving you toward seeing that the lie you repeated was a mere shadow of the truth which is more complicated.

Now what happens to me and all of my very smart friends if the federal government continues its battles against the states and the people? I do not know. Some would continue to support the feds. Some always will. Some would seek opportunities in the non-government sector. We are smart enough to individually figure out what is best for us.

Doing what is right really bothers you.

The left hardly knows how to take it when we give them concise and truthful comments.

[Bob]

I was at the Alamo. I have been all over the grounds a few times. I lived nearby for about a decade.

You do know it is an actual place, don't you?

They think it is the title of a movie. LOL

[Green Arrow]

How often do you braid your pigtails?

My hair is too short for pigtails.

[Bob]

ok...follow the money. Who is sending to Washington & who is receiving it from Washington. People who advocate for splitting the nation for whatever reason don't think about the fact that the money would stay with liberal, predominately democratic north. If the right wants to establish their own nation, they need to figure out how to change those facts. The south is loyally republican....as long as DC keeps sending those pork chops. Cut off that, and you might just lose their support.

I think your message means the South is leaving the union.

This is news to me.

[Bob]

Schmucks couldn't even defend the Alamo.

Those "Schmucks" defended it well before the Civil War.

[PolWatch]

I think your message means the South is leaving the union.

This is news to me.

I'm not surprised. The question of GA's hairstyle has you preoccupied.

[Bob]

I'm not surprised. The question of GA's hairstyle has you preoccupied.

Yes, that lad has a butch cut. Actually, I took off and shopped at the store. Had to see who posts like you post, to annoy me.

[Peter1469]

:shocked:

[Green Arrow]

Yes, that lad has a butch cut. Actually, I took off and shopped at the store. Had to see who posts like you post, to annoy me.

What you erroneously call a "butch cut" is actually called a "buzz cut."

No charge for that lesson in hairstyles.

[Bob]

What you erroneously call a "butch cut" is actually called a "buzz cut."

No charge for that lesson in hairstyles.

Why don't you buzz off. No charge for that lesson.

[Green Arrow]

Why don't you buzz off. No charge for that lesson.

Hey, pal, you came at me, not the other way around.