The "Shut 'er downers"

Wow, you're stuck on stupid.

First is time. How much time do you believe it would take to repeal every law that isn't currently being violated?

Secondly, if you repeal a law then someone will be waiting to take advantage of the fact that a certain practice is no longer illegal.

 

except that republicans have used this to draw the district lines to favor themselves. What they'll do is carve out an area heavily populated by minorities and call that "a district." Theyll then draw a neighboring district with just a few more conservatives than democrats. This isn't democracy. It's just rigging the system. The house of representatives (unlike the senate) should represent the people equally. When one party wins the minority of votes, but the majority of seats, you know that people aren't being represented equally at all.

 

nah--the democrats have more than enough votes in the senate. any riders the republicans put will be stripped and will return to the house as a clean bill. Upon return to the house, the republicans will face the lose-lose scenario i previously described.

 

The democrats are the ones who want that. The democrats in Georgia were the ones who supported that dumb plan to create a minority majority district to give themselves a safe seat at the expense of white liberals who were relegated to being voiceless. Mother Jones did an article about it. The VRA up until recently required that there be minority majority districts in some states. Please don't pretend that the republicans are the ones who are behind creating all these minority-majority districts. It is completely devoid of truth.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry but we don't have national elections for House seats and never have and never will. This has nothing to do with the GOP. It is about the Constitution. You are basically arguing that whichever party gets the most votes nationally gets all the seats in the House as there would be no way to equitably divide seats prorated on a national scale.

 

How much was spent to pass the unneeded laws to begin with. That is a very circular argument.

I may be stuck on stupid, but that is the most asinine thing I have seen on this fora. Let's make a law against everything, then we can arrest and incarcerate anyone for a law they may break in the future. As many as you seem to be taking, I truly hope those crazy pills aren't too expensive.

 

Okay.


did that.

Explain where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to spend money on any of the following:

Education.
Health.
Welfare.

Oh. Wait. The Constitution does not explicitly allow any of that . ALL the persons framing the Constitution agreed that the actual enumeration of Congressional powers absolutely meant that Congressional power was limited to those, and only those, explicit powers, and all additional powers were reserved to the states and the people. Funny, that's exactly what the Tenth Amendment says.

Anyone ever tell you that the Tenth Amendment was part of the Constitution? It's in a section called "The Bill of Rights". You should read those sometime, too.

After the Bill of Rights, there's some more Amendments. You should pay attention to the 13th, since it outlaws involuntary servitude, and hence makes it unlawful for Congress to FORCE individual actions, such as the purchase of "insurance"..

Just because your socialist masters want to use you to destroy your own freedoms doesn't mean you have to do it. You may look and act the role that Stalin called "useful idiots", but you can stop any time you want to.

Remember, the first step towards growing up and freedom is to say "I won't". MessiahCare, and you fascists, are attempting to take the freedom of refusal away.

 

And yet the Supreme Court doesn't seem to agree with your narrow interpretation. I'm sure you must have an explanation for that too.

 

Explain what is to stop the Americans in the House from ignoring the Senate vomit and simply writing a bill that says: "Fully fund the military, and only the military", and shipping it to the Senate where Hairy No Discernible Negro Dialect Reid will face the choice of cutting off the military or passing it on to King Obama, Racist, Fascist, Traitor and Incompetent, to sign or veto?

Explain what is to stop the Americans in the House from ignoring the Senate vomit and simply writing a bill that says: "Fully fund Social Security, and only Social Security", and shipping it to the Senate where Hairy No Discernible Negro Dialect Reid will face the choice of cutting off the military or passing it on to King Obama, Racist, Fascist, Traitor and Incompetent, to sign or veto?

Explain what is to stop the Americans in the House from ignoring the Senate vomit and simply writing a bill that says: "Fully fund Medicare, and only Medicare", and shipping it to the Senate where Hairy No Discernible Negro Dialect Reid will face the choice of cutting off the military or passing it on to King Obama, Racist, Fascist, Traitor and Incompetent, to sign or veto?

Explain what is to stop the Americans in the House from ignoring the Senate vomit and simply writing a bill that says: "Fully fund the Department of Education, and only the Department of Education ", and shipping it to the Senate where Hairy No Discernible Negro Dialect Reid will face the choice of cutting off the military or passing it on to King Obama, Racist, Fascist, Traitor and Incompetent, to sign or veto?

Explain what is to stop the Americans in the House from ignoring the Senate vomit and simply writing a bill that says: "Do not fund the IRS until MessiahCare is repealed ", and shipping it to the Senate where Hairy No Discernible Negro Dialect Reid will face the choice of cutting off the military or passing it on to King Obama, Racist, Fascist, Traitor and Incompetent, to sign or veto?

When Hairy No Discernible Negro Dialect Reid refuses to move those bills through the Senate, who's at fault for "shutting down the government?

When King Obama, Racist, Fascist, Traitor and Incompetent vetoes them, who's fault is it?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, children always run to an authority figure when they can't form their own arguments.

We adults are used to that.

Explain why MessiahCare is in violation of the Originations Clause. Do not argue that it isn't, because that's a total fail, just explain what the problem is.

 

So you're saying it's okay for King Obama to completely ignore the US borders, because he needs more people to vote for him.

- - - Updated - - -

The House passed a CR that funded all essential and Constitutional aspects of the federal government.

The Senate will reject this bill.

Who's fault is it that the government will be shut down again?

Obama's of course.

 

Really?

You mean the States didn't have to ratify the Twenty-First Amendment? It would have been okay to just ignore the Volkstead Act instead?

Explain how what you advocate is different from Rule by Men, not Rule by Law.

 

No.

The Senate existed to provide THE STATES with a direct voice in the federal government.

The House was constituted to give the "rural interests", aka "the people" their voice.

The Seventeenth Amendment destroyed the Republic. After the death of the republic of the United States of America, the "progressives", aka the socialists, imposed ever higher rates of taxation, ever larger FEDERAL bureaucracies, and stripped ever more power away from the states.

There is NO WAY a Senate representing The STATES would have allowed the federal government to impose seat belt laws. Nor would the word "commerce" have come to mean "manufacturing, agriculture, rape, gun ownership, and chewing gum", as it does now under the government the fascists have built up over the decades.

Also, your ignorance of the Constitution is frankly amazing. You learned all you don't know from a public school, recently. The Constitution calls for a decennial census to make adjustments to the apportionment of seats.

 

I see, so we should leave constitutional interpretations to amateur scholars like yourself rather than the constitutionally designated authority. That all makes perfect sense now, I don't know why I didn't see it before.

 

In your mind, clearly. Your demonizing the President is a knee-jerk inevitability, but normal folks objectively assess the matter and recognize that it is otherwise.

With 1995 and 1996 providing cogent examples of public reaction and Newtie's consequent fall from power in their minds, Repub leaders like McConnell and Boehner recognize the danger to the Party posed by the kamikaze faction.

Edify Hillary: Sabotage the workings of self-governance and wreak havoc with the economy.

 

The funding was voted on. You don't like the results of the vote. Welcome to the club.

 

That's only a partial result, the Senate will restore the funding and send it back.
Then the House will approve the funding, and it will go to the president to be signed into law.

Great theatre, but without any real substance.

 

"Aberrant hyper partisan notions" ?.....LOL! That's what the bill IS, and why it has no support in the House. I'm merely pointing that out. You're like the guy legislating your Christian compassion for the poor while simultaneously condemning school prayer. What hypocrisy.

 

No good labor can justly be called vain or theatrical, regardless the outcome.

 

Obamacare was ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court last year and the majority of voters re-elected Obama last November so why didn't the House fund it?

Furthermore the Senate and House usually disagree about funding. That's why there are usually negotiations during conference committee.

 

Gee, I wonder why Obama- Hillary- and Billary and all the Demon-crats and the unions all of Congress and their staff- are begging to not be put into the great Goverment -IRS, run Healthcre plan. Why is Obama and all the groups I mentioned running away from Obamacare??. Simple question, why me and not them? Commonsense tells me there is something wrong here. Could it be, that these elites know full well that putting your life in the hands of politicians- is a-kin to suicide.

Take Obamacare and put it where you will need a Colon-ass-copy to find it.---

 

The Affordable Care Act's conservative principles were espoused by the Heritage Foundation, promoted by the Newt, enacted and touted by the most recent GOP Presidential nominee, and had actually been endorsed by TP darling Jim DeMint as well as GOP bigwigs Grassley, Graham, Hatch, and Frist.

Before the angry White guys hatched the nutty notion that it is now a social plot engineered by a foreign-born Muslim, what is now the law of the land had passed both Houses of Congress, was enacted by the President's signature, and declared constitutionally proper by the Supreme Court. The only viable reform that a Repub had pushed since Nixon hardly had a "partisan" pedigree.

Whether you actually believe children parroting the divine intervention scripts of the world's various religions should be imposed by the State is hardly germane.



.

 

you are wrong on every count. The senate is designed to support rural interests, since the smaller rural states of the south get as much of a say as the larger more urban states in the north. The House is designed to support urban interests, since larger more urban northern states get a larger voice than smaller southern states.

And the 17th amendment won't save you today. many state legislatures are now dominated by liberals (thanks to the tea party, which has scared voters away with their extremist rhetoric and ideas)

 

when the bill returns to the house, it will be put to an up or down vote
there will be no more return trips to the senate

 

the republicans were responsible for gerrymandering the present district lines, so can't really blame the democrats on this one

that's not what im arguing. I'm arguing that it should be proportional. If in NY House races, for example, 60% of voters voted democrat and 40% of voters voted republican, then democrats should have 60% of the seats and republicans 40%. But it should not be 40% democrat and 60% republican, which represents the opposite of what the voters wanted. You can draw the districts however you want. But they should not be allowed to skew the numbers that much, so as to overturn the will of the people.

 

How did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

No business can charge "whatever they want" in a free market economy where did you learn otherwise?

Was the most successful in the world until government started getting involved.

Care to elaborate?