Listen to what Pete Stark, a very senior Democratic member of the House of Representatives from California thinks of our Constitution. Stark's view of an all powerful federal government whose power is not limited by the US Constitution is not out of the mainstream among Democratic members of Congress.
If you vote for
any Democrat in a national election, then
you are part of the problem because a Democratic vote is a vote to allow socialists like Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, and Nancy Pelosi set the legislative agenda - regardless of how good you believe an individual Democratic candidate is. These people are a cancer on our republic.
[YOUTUBE="Stark raving mad"]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W1-eBz8hyoE&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
The lady in the video makes a good point until she gets to the 13th Amendment. I'm not sure this exchange makes all Democrats socialists.
BillyB Wrote:The lady in the video makes a good point until she gets to the 13th Amendment. I'm not sure this exchange makes all Democrats socialists.
I wasn't thinking "Socialists" as a descriptive word, but I'd offend cavemaster if I used my word!
BillyB Wrote:The lady in the video makes a good point until she gets to the 13th Amendment. I'm not sure this exchange makes all Democrats socialists.
It does not make all Democrats socialists but every vote cast for a Democratic candidate for the US Senate or House of Representatives is a vote to give control of the legislative agenda to the socialists like Pelosi and Stark. Not all Democrats are socialists but most, if not all, of the socialists in Congress are Democrats.
thecavemaster Wrote:The idea that healthcare is a right within a society (an idea held up by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) can be morphed into slavery and the 13 Amendment?... delivered as a speech via question?... come on, Hoot... you are some piece of work... I bet you sleep at night just fine, which only suggests you live in some sort of conscience oblivion I've never even heard of....
I see that you have no comment on Stark's assertion, which he repeated for good measure, that the US Constitution is worthless and the federal government can do pretty much whatever it wants legislatively. The story here is not that the questioner could have made a better case against Obamacare, the story is Pete Stark's response. Do these socialists ever do or say anything that you can bring yourself to criticize?
thecavemaster Wrote:As concerns overall welfare of citizens, as concerns basic rights (considering healthcare as one) what resurfaces, Hoot, is once again the federalism/State's rights debate. What Stark stated, albeitly poorly, is an argument for federalism when it comes to many issues that bear directly on citizen's basic rights. Now, you may not think healthcare is a right, and that's your right, but the constant, propogandizing idiocy of "socialist, socialist, socialist" is ridiculous, making me wonder if your soul is in a lock box under Glen Beck's bed.
What is the average salary of an 0bama propagandist these days? Stark articulated the liberal Democrats' dim view of our Constitution very clearly. Like I said, he repeated his scorn for the document just to make sure that he was understood. The fact that you cannot even bring yourself to condemn Pete Stark's statement says much about your warped view of this nation.
Contrary to what Pete Stark said in the first video that I posted, he apparently does see a role for the US Constitution in folks everyday lives - provided said folks are illegal aliens simply trying to get a job here.
When our economy collapses, Democrats will have to answer for sending morons like Fortney "Pete" Stark to Congress for decades. How does this idiot manage to find his way home after a hard day at work squandering American tax dollars?
[YOUTUBE="Stark does see a role for the US Constitution after all"]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B-uP7LDteLw&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B-uP7LDteLw&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
Example: Missouri residents voted 3 to 1 that folks violating the mandatory health insurance provision should NOT face any penalty. This will pit state law against federal law, a battle that federal law often wins. Hoot, that is not socialism... that is state's rights/federalism being debated. Many of the things you bring up can be "draw a straight lined" to debates that have been occurring in this counrtry since its inception. Why must you demonize with words like "socialist"? At a certain time in our country, certain states residents would have voted 3 to 1 to keep African Americans "separate but equal." President Kennedy sent in federal troops to enforce federal law. Is that socialist? It seems to me, Hoot, that your philosophy often places you on the wrong side of history, as I see it anyway.
thecavemaster Wrote:Example: Missouri residents voted 3 to 1 that folks violating the mandatory health insurance provision should NOT face any penalty. This will pit state law against federal law, a battle that federal law often wins. Hoot, that is not socialism... that is state's rights/federalism being debated. Many of the things you bring up can be "draw a straight lined" to debates that have been occurring in this counrtry since its inception. Why must you demonize with words like "socialist"? At a certain time in our country, certain states residents would have voted 3 to 1 to keep African Americans "separate but equal." President Kennedy sent in federal troops to enforce federal law. Is that socialist? It seems to me, Hoot, that your philosophy often places you on the wrong side of history, as I see it anyway.
It is one thing to use federal troops to enforce a constitutional federal law, as JFK did, and quite another to cram an unconstitutional law down the collective throat of the American people like 0bama has done.
You may have forgotten 0bama and his socialist allies dismissing claims that 0bamacare would be a new tax on American citizens prior to the bill's passage. It probably has also escaped your notice that 0bama is now arguing that his cynical gift to his deadbeat constituents is indeed a new tax. Not being the least bit curious about 0bama's motives (or willingly ignorant thereof), you most likely have no clue as to why the 0bama regime flip-flopped on this issue.
The simple fact is that if the federal government can compel Americans to buy health insurance according to 0bama's mandate, nothing would stop it from forcing us all to buy a Government Motors Volt. Fortunately, the US Constitution does not allow the federal government to dictate purchasing decisions to us. However, it does allow the feds to levy a heavy tax burden on us - hence that thing that 0bama and his clueless lackeys once argued was not a tax is now a tax according to his own personal Justice Department.
Good for the Show Me state for showing Democrats just how angry the American electorate is at the socialists who foisted 0bamacare on us. I eagerly wait my turn at casting an early vote against 0bama in November.