Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Obama Supporters Need Not Apply

javaguru said:
The Preamble isn't legally binding; What is your point? What is your point in referencing Article I Section 8? Barry care doesn't impose a tax, it's a penalty based on his own words.
Click to expand...

Bold : Holy Shit! If you dont know what Art.1 Sec 8 Says then I guess its a moot point. I'm proving a point, but youre fucking LOST. ugggh... let me Barney it for you.

Article 1, Section 8 :
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Q. IF you dont provide health care for employee's then guess what?
A. You get taxed more to provide for America.
You Can call it a penalty, Barry can call it a penalty. But its a tax/price for NOT following the rule of law. This is noting new.

Now I'm done with Barrycare. We are talking Constitution.. Stop losing focus.

So you say the Preamble isn't legally binding. Now tell me Article 1 Section 8 isn't. :rolleyes:
 
brownbrown said:
Bold : Holy Shit! If you dont know what Art.1 Sec 8 Says then I guess its a moot point. I'm proving a point, but youre fucking LOST. ugggh... let me Barney it for you.

Article 1, Section 8 :
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Q. IF you dont provide health care for employee's then guess what?
A. You get taxed more to provide for America.
You Can call it a penalty, Barry can call it a penalty. But its a tax/price for NOT following the rule of law. This is noting new.

Now I'm done with Barrycare. We are talking Constitution.. Stop losing focus.

So you say the Preamble isn't legally binding. Now tell me Article 1 Section 8 isn't. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Read the Federalist Papers...:rolleseyes:


The entire point of the Constitution is to restrict how the government can control the people. I agree with the legitimate constitutional scholar I've posted, there is a 1 in 5 chance Barry care gets shot down...but the Supreme Court has ruled that someone raising wheat in their backyard for their own consumption was in violation of the of Fed law based on the Commerce Clause. The Commerce clause was created to prevent states from implementing tariffs and trade barriers between states....The Commerce Clause in modern times is being used to do things the framers never intended.

Do you think the founders imagined the Federal Government engaging in crony crapitalism...like Solyndra... or controlling health care? There were those that wanted a king and others that proposed a strong fed government but the smartest guys in the room moderated the instinct to create the document we have... I know people like you think that you really just need to elect really smart people and that is the solution to all our problems.
 
javaguru said:
Read the Federalist Papers...:rolleseyes:


The entire point of the Constitution is to restrict how the government can control the people. I agree with the legitimate constitutional scholar I've posted, there is a 1 in 5 chance Barry care gets shot down...but the Supreme Court has ruled that someone raising wheat in their backyard for their own consumption was in violation of the of Fed law based on the Commerce Clause. The Commerce clause was created to prevent states from implementing tariffs and trade barriers between states....The Commerce Clause in modern times is being used to do things the framers never intended.

Do you think the founders imagined the Federal Government engaging in crony crapitalism...like Solyndra... or controlling health care? There were those that wanted a king and others that proposed a strong fed government but the smartest guys in the room moderated the instinct to create the document we have... I know people like you think that you really just need to elect really smart people and that is the solution to all our problems.
Click to expand...

You CAN not Argue the point of the Constitution legitimately. You're just giving your OPINION of what the point was.

Of course you agree with your OWN definition. Although it was your OWN definition, I still entertained it and Responded to it with the Harvard Law Review article , and 12 years of Contributing to the body of Knowledge.
But you ignored answering my response....



I was Not talking about the commerce clause. I posted up the Entire part of the Constitution I was referencing. You're getting off point. The Congress shall have the power to impose taxes.. ect.



The modern world is TOTALLY different from the world the Framers lived in. And has TOTALLY different needs.

The founders didn't intend on crony capitolism. Like Halliburton, Blackwater/ XE, KBR, The Wallstreet Bailouts. <--Yea, more than Solyndra by far.

We are talking the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8, Legally binding?

Side note:
People like me? : you're making ASSumptions again. I'm a realist, and look at reality. I'm not polorized and just march in Lock step like the rest of the lemmings. ( I responed to the comment, it wasn't an invitation for you to lose focus and redirect because you cant responed to the previous statements.)
 
brownbrown said:
You CAN not Argue the point of the Constitution legitimately. You're just giving your OPINION of what the point was.

Of course you agree with your OWN definition. Although it was your OWN definition, I still entertained it and Responded to it with the Harvard Law Review article , and 12 years of Contributing to the body of Knowledge.
But you ignored answering my response....



I was Not talking about the commerce clause. I posted up the Entire part of the Constitution I was referencing. You're getting off point. The Congress shall have the power to impose taxes.. ect.



The modern world is TOTALLY different from the world the Framers lived in. And has TOTALLY different needs.

The founders didn't intend on crony capitolism. Like Halliburton, Blackwater/ XE, KBR, The Wallstreet Bailouts. <--Yea, more than Solyndra by far.

We are talking the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8, Legally binding?

Side note:
People like me? : you're making ASSumptions again. I'm a realist, and look at reality. I'm not polorized and just march in Lock step like the rest of the lemmings. ( I responed to the comment, it wasn't an invitation for you to lose focus and redirect because you cant responed to the previous statements.)
Click to expand...

Barry agrees with me on the Constitution and lamented in his lectures it wasn't a document that provided for what the Federal Government should do for you...Like the Constitution of the Soviet Union did by guaranteeing a job. It's common knowledge among legitimate legal scholars the document was designed to restrict the federal government....The Great Compromise.

There is a reason there were Amendments to The Constitution..

The Enumerated Powers...

IX and X Amendments...they trump...

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Bill of Rights were adopted because ass hats wanted unlimited authority.



It isn't my opinion the Constitution limits the federal government it's taught in every law school in the country.



I missed Barry's law review article...can you repost?

Finally, political theory isn't changed by technology. Founding principles are still sound and not only supported by science but also the data and experience. Thomas Jefferson dealt with a Muslim threat quite well. It's unfortunate for the United States that foreign policy has devolved to military force as our primary and only option to effect change.

I agree with John Quincy Adams....
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
 
Last edited:
Read some Adam Smith brownbrown...There is a reason he is mandatory reading in college unlike Barry...
"The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in
his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed
beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer
the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to
establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard
either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which
may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the
different members of a great society with as much ease as the
hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. "
-Adam Smith
 
If you want an authoritarian government...that's fine....I don't.

We can disagree but the data is on my side..you make emotional arguments and I only have data....

Another scholar on Barry...
 
Mr. dB said:
So you won't be voting GOP then...
Click to expand...

I haven't voted GOP since Bush the Elder or Dem ever for POTUS...I hope you won't be voting for Barry.He just signed a bi-partisan bill that hands over any American citizen ACCUSED of a "terrorist act" to the U.S. military for indefinite detention in gitmo...

I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson.
 
javaguru said:
1. Barry agrees with me on the Constitution and lamented in his lectures it wasn't a document that provided for what the Federal Government should do for you...Like the Constitution of the Soviet Union did by guaranteeing a job. It's common knowledge among legitimate legal scholars the document was designed to restrict the federal government....The Great Compromise.

There is a reason there were Amendments to The Constitution..

The Enumerated Powers...

IX and X Amendments...they trump...

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Bill of Rights were adopted because ass hats wanted unlimited authority.



2. It isn't my opinion the Constitution limits the federal government it's taught in every law school in the country.



3.I missed Barry's law review article...can you repost?

4.Finally, political theory isn't changed by technology. Founding principles are still sound and not only supported by science but also the data and experience. Thomas Jefferson dealt with a Muslim threat quite well. It's unfortunate for the United States that foreign policy has devolved to military force as our primary and only option to effect change.

I agree with John Quincy Adams....
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
Click to expand...
1. I'm NOT talking about the purpose of the Constitution . Is Article 1 Section 8 LEGALLY BINDING? You just can answer a single question?
2. Your OPINION is what the definition of Scholar is. And the Fucking point of the Constitution was to ESTABLISH an American government and Divide the power in said government So no one person or Group had full control. THAT was the MAIN purpose. Plain and Simple.
You said the Purpose of the Constitution was to Limit government : That was not the purpose.

3. I didnt post the article. I told you what he had published in the Harvard Law Review, and that he has contributed to the body of knowledge by teaching for 12 years. That is all. I just entertained your INCORRECT definition of Scholar .... and I proved my point with the REAL definiton of Scholar and Your incorrect one.

4. Politcal theory has changed, but that is not the point. America has changed, and what America's needs are today are different in Many ways.
 
brownbrown said:
1. I'm NOT talking about the purpose of the Constitution . Is Article 1 Section 8 LEGALLY BINDING? You just can answer a single question?
2. Your OPINION is what the definition of Scholar is. And the Fucking point of the Constitution was to ESTABLISH an American government and Divide the power in said government So no one person or Group had full control. THAT was the MAIN purpose. Plain and Simple.
You said the Purpose of the Constitution was to Limit government : That was not the purpose.

3. I didnt post the article. I told you what he had published in the Harvard Law Review, and that he has contributed to the body of knowledge by teaching for 12 years. That is all. I just entertained your INCORRECT definition of Scholar .... and I proved my point with the REAL definiton of Scholar and Your incorrect one.

4. Politcal theory has changed, but that is not the point. America has changed, and what America's needs are today are different in Many ways.
Click to expand...
You can't ignore the Bill of Rights and other Amendments...Based on your logic I should enslave me some blacks because slavery increased the "general welfare" based on the economic realities of the south during that era...

Barry was the editor of the Harvard Law Review...the editor doesn't publish. Post the article reference because you're the only person on the planet that thinks he was published in a law review article. I just posted the definition every legitimate university requires for faculty.Hell, I posted someone talking about why Barry specifically never qualified to be faculty; He's an intellectually blunt object...
 
javaguru said:
Based on your logic I should enslave me some blacks because slavery increased the "general welfare" based on the economic realities of the south during that era...
Click to expand...

kinda, you're almost there

substitute "females" for "blaques"



just sayin'
 
javaguru said:
You can't ignore the Bill of Rights and other Amendments...Based on your logic I should enslave me some blacks because slavery increased the "general welfare" based on the economic realities of the south during that era...

Barry was the editor of the Harvard Law Review...the editor doesn't publish. Post the article reference because you're the only person on the planet that thinks he was published in a law review article. I just posted the definition every legitimate university requires for faculty.Hell, I posted someone talking about why Barry specifically never qualified to be faculty; He's an intellectually blunt object...
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring it. I'm asking you a question. That you refuse to answer. Because you cant admit when youre wrong.

Based on my logic you just went full retard. But no, general welfare included the Blacks back then and keeping slavery wouldnt increase their "general welfare". The Whole point if the word General is to include most everyone in the country. So your try to throw the question off course again was weak.
Shit you couldn't even admit your definiton was NOT the definiton.
You just say "thats what they ask of faculty". Okay, that doesnt make it the definition. That makes it a requirement for a job aplication.

Now you're calling a person you've never met an intellectually blunt object.

Obama Article : 823 of Volume 103 of the Review.
As president of the Review he wrote that article.
So your wrong again.
 
binö said:
-staggering debt
-unwavering high UE
-bond rating downgrade
-solyndra
-shovel ready jobs
-fast and furious
-obamacare
-complete failure to be a political uniter in any sense of the word (recall he ran on this premise)
lotsa reasons to claim O is a failure, pick any one.
Click to expand...

Fast and furious, NDAA
 
lolol..
brownbrown said:
I'm not ignoring it. I'm asking you a question. That you refuse to answer. Because you cant admit when youre wrong.

Based on my logic you just went full retard. But no, general welfare included the Blacks back then and keeping slavery wouldnt increase their "general welfare". The Whole point if the word General is to include most everyone in the country. So your try to throw the question off course again was weak.
Shit you couldn't even admit your definiton was NOT the definiton.
You just say "thats what they ask of faculty". Okay, that doesnt make it the definition. That makes it a requirement for a job aplication.

Now you're calling a person you've never met an intellectually blunt object.

Obama Article : 823 of Volume 103 of the Review.
As president of the Review he wrote that article.
So your wrong again.
Click to expand...
LMAO..an unattributed and unsigned article as a law student on a well established legal issue...lmao. Way to go Barry, as typical, he took the easy out, "Can a fetus sue."

I can admit when I'm wrong, the law review article is a recent addition but just shows his lack of intellectual ambition.

Like I posted, he made no contribution to the body of legal knowledge and that's why he never made professor status.

We're talking about the definition of a scholar...

If you accept the basic definition of a scholar then I am constitutional scholar as well. Merriam -Webster definition...

Scholar - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher

a person who has done advanced study in a special field
a learned person

In the real world a scholar has to have made a contribution to their field that is significant. Barry never met the threshold even with twelve years as a lecturer...His own colleagues judged him an ideologue unwilling to engage in an exchange of ideas and not worthy of professorship even though he had all the pre-requites they look for in people they want to promote.
 
Last edited:
OP here again. Not reading all you guys narratives. Still think Barry the Kenyan citizen is a clown. Makes promises he can't keep and doesn't afraid of anything.
 
javaguru said:
Article 1 Section 8 requires a declared war by congress....What do you not understand about a Declared war?
Click to expand...
AGAIN you try to change the subject....


The first PARAGRAPH :

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

ref. U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


Shit you are Narcissistic. The answer will be "YES" or "NO" it's not that complicated.

What do you not understand about the comment "The first paragraph".
 
lol.Bill of rights...trumps your post and even Barry agrees with me...He wanted an affirmative bill of rights like the Soviet Constitution. If you want to guarantee a job to everyone then there is a process to amend.
 
javaguru said:
lol.Bill of rights...trumps your post and even Barry agrees with me...He wanted an affirmative bill of rights like the Soviet Constitution. If you want to guarantee a job to everyone then there is a process to amend.
Click to expand...
So the Constitution isn't legally binding?

Youre changing the subject again. But I'll entertain your comment.
Germany Guarantees jobs for everyone and They are doing better than we are.

Now. If we were talking about the bill of rights I'd take that answer. But we are talking the Constitution of the United States of America.
Is Article 1 section 8 legally binding?

BTW, Keep in mind I remember you debating the legality FOR this section, about the other statements of this EXACT article and section on Libya.

If you cant Man up and answer I will understand.
 
No, you8're aretarded
brownbrown said:
So the Constitution isn't legally binding?

Youre changing the subject again. But I'll entertain your comment.
Germany Guarantees jobs for everyone and They are doing better than we are.

Now. If we were talking about the bill of rights I'd take that answer. But we are talking the Constitution of the United States of America.
Is Article 1 section 8 legally binding?

BTW, Keep in mind I remember you debating the legality FOR this section, about the other statements of this EXACT article and section on Libya.

If you cant Man up and answer I will understand.
Click to expand...
No, you just don't understand legal scholarship...
 
javaguru said:
No, you8're aretarded
No, you just don't understand legal scholarship...
Click to expand...

Lolololololllol
You litterally cant answer the question. Is your personality that flawed?
Instead of answering, you say "You just dont understand"
You Dont have a J.D. , your not a scholar, and you dont fool me with any of your claims and rhetoric.

To you you're great (narcissism). But in reality you're really weak.

If you can't answer its fine, but I'll remember this when you try to cry the legality of the constitution again.


DrOiD BioNiC EF App!
 
What is your question?
brownbrown said:
Lolololololllol
You litterally cant answer the question. Is your personality that flawed?
Instead of answering, you say "You just dont understand"
You Dont have a J.D. , your not a scholar, and you dont fool me with any of your claims and rhetoric.

To you you're great (narcissism). But in reality you're really weak.

If you can't answer its fine, but I'll remember this when you try to cry the legality of the constitution again.


DrOiD BioNiC EF App!
Click to expand...

What is your question? I will answer? You continue to answer with platitudes...I have a plethora of Barry quotes claiming he's a "Constitutionalists."
 
javaguru said:
What is your question?

What is your question? I will answer? You continue to answer with platitudes...I have a plethora of Barry quotes claiming he's a "Constitutionalists."
Click to expand...
Are you fucking seriously asking me what the fucking question is?


brownbrown said:
So the Constitution isn't legally binding?
Click to expand...
brownbrown said:
Article 1 section 8 legally binding?
DrOiD BioNiC EF App!
Click to expand...
brownbrown said:
1. I'm NOT talking about the purpose of the Constitution . Is Article 1 Section 8 LEGALLY BINDING? You just can answer a single question?
Click to expand...
brownbrown said:
We are talking the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8, Legally binding?
Click to expand...
brownbrown said:
So you say the Preamble isn't legally binding. Now tell me Article 1 Section 8 isn't. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



AGAIN

javaguru said:
You're using the preamble to bootstrap, ain't legally binding. See, the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
brownbrown said:
Article 1 section 8, legally binding...
You Fail.
Click to expand...


for your ref. :
brownbrown said:
Article 1, Section 8 :
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

So you say the Preamble isn't legally binding. Now tell me Article 1 Section 8 isn't. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your trying to spin in circles. Constantly Changing the subject, Asking me what the question is more than once. It's pretty sad Coffee
 
binö said:
but the president hasn't even poasted up his own the coward locked them up along with his wife's.
michelle is the only first lady i'd bang though, besides jaclyn kennedy and maybe a younger nance regan
Click to expand...

this is beyond comprehesion
do over and see teacher
we'll discuss language limitations in Costa Rica
 
binö said:
honest abe's wife wasn't easy on the eyes, i hope he got some quality on the side...
and Bush jr's wife was proly pretty hot in her prime...michele just strikes me as a good fuk...arrogant/elitist/snobby piggy like her is proly super loud and fun.
Click to expand...

A mutha fuckin' plus
 
binö said:
*straight
or
*str8

and yea i love the tang...michelle can look good imo, sometimes frumpy though.
i like the thick darker ladies always have.
but i despise the womans politics and arrogance
Click to expand...

so she's just a fuck doll in your mind
one could do much better
C-
 
Spartacus said:
this is beyond comprehesion
do over and see teacher
we'll discuss language limitations in Costa Rica
Click to expand...

a young nance you would hit this
Nancy%20Reagan%20%20NRPOSE.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JimAbs43
Podcast Evolutionary.org UG Supplements #29- Can support supplements benefit you off cycle too?
Replies
7
Views
323
Arabian
Arabian
D
which support supplement while using tren?
Replies
8
Views
759
2Thick
2Thick
U
#1 support supplement you like?
Replies
7
Views
630
chesty
chesty
J
using support supplements between cycles?
Replies
2
Views
632
the_alcatraz
the_alcatraz
K
guy at GNC said I need kidney support
Replies
11
Views
1K
Arabian
Arabian
Top Bottom