Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Have Romney and Ryan read the Constitution lately?

Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 17, 2012, 7:57 a.m. EST by JackHall (413)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Somtimes I wonder if Romney and Ryan forgot what the Constitution is about. They are supposed to defend it against enemies foreign and domestic. Are they for the Constitution or do they want to be bean-counters and enablers for the 1%?

Listen to the latest anti-social, anti-collectivism, pro-individualist rhetoric coming from both of them and the Tea Party. It is just propaganda designed to justify union bashing and trashing and create division among the voters. I think the founders were pro-collectivist understanding the importance of unity as evidenced in the preamble. The words "me" and "I" are not in it. The Republicans and faux Tea Party have been marching off the map for quite awhile now.

The preamble to the Constitution says –

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

US Constitution


Tea Party Rhetoric

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qczuEplfAkQ [right click]

Ryan Republican Rhetoric vs Paycheck Fairness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oI72hVS3AQ&feature=fvwrel [right click]



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

You got their number. I think they've read it, they just don't give a shit

[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 11 years ago

They need to be told what the real issues are.

Max Keiser Vampire Banker Hunter part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2pDFmgejsQ&feature=youtu.be [right click]

Max Keiser Vampire Banker Hunter part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA6DKScMROQ&feature=youtu.be [right click]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

ok. cool.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 11 years ago

willard worships book of mormon
ryan worships book of ayn rand
torquemada worshiped the bible
binladen worshiped the koran

anyone who puts the words written by man ahead of what is right
should lead no one

[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 11 years ago

In the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, a concept advocated by Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 11 years ago

Yes, and Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Christian Bible, called the Jeffersonian Bible devoid of miracles, divine interventions, unsubstantiated reasons based solely on faith. As consequence there wasn't much left, but the golden rule stayed, which was co-opted by the Christians, so it wasn't theirs in the first place. That one came from man.

Also, Thomas Jefferson was NOT a Christian, rather deist. They believe in REASON.

He feared religion would try to make a power grab so he put up that wall of separation. He was adherent of the enlightenment which released us all from the shackles religion had us in. Yes, practice as you may, but keep it to your self and don't bring to government as if it contains any real wisdom.

Please check the facts. ANd----------------------------------->

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 11 years ago

Banks have made the power grab instead. The US is shackled by the national debt.

Max Keiser on Superstitious Trading http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGK4_ItBORc&feature=youtu.be [right click]

[-] 0 points by brudlo (-454) 11 years ago

houdini, people dont worship books.


[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 11 years ago

sounds more like a futbol game.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago


[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 11 years ago

A modern political science course

Bushisms 390 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWuIEIBN3sY&list=PL36D17D01D49B4319&feature=view_all [right click]


[-] -1 points by vitvitvit (5) 11 years ago

Uhhh, the founders definitely were not collectivist. PERIOD.

[-] 3 points by JackHall (413) 11 years ago

"...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." is not possible as individuals, but it is possible as the people(We).

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature (in the same way high context culture exists as the reverse of low context culture), and stresses the priority of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups (such as an "in-group", in what specific context it is defined). Collectivists usually focus on community, society, or nation.

Collectivism wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism [right click]

[-] 1 points by vitvitvit (5) 11 years ago

Federalist Paper # 41 by James Madison.

[-] 3 points by JackHall (413) 11 years ago

I suppose it can be said the Federalist Paper 41 refers to the individual States while collectivism may refer to individual persons. Fine. The Preamble still says we, the people, and not we, the States.

Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being. The States sent representatives to approve the Constitution. There is an interdpendence between the States, and an interdependence between individuals.

James Madison authored US Constitution and Bill of Rights, too. Signers of the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the United States, include 39 of 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention, and the convention's secretary, William Jackson, who signed the document to authenticate the results of the Convention's sessions. The Constitution, called the most important document in American history, describes the branches of the United States government and how the government should be operated. It was signed on September 17, 1787, in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, with all of the original Thirteen Colonies members sending representatives, with the exception of Rhode Island. Of the constitution's 40 signers, 23 were veterans of the Revolutionary War. Jonathan Dayton was the youngest to sign the Constitution, at the age of 26, while Benjamin Franklin, at the age of 81, was the oldest. Connecticut's Roger Sherman also signed the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation, making him the only person to sign all four documents. Six other signatories' names are on the Declaration of Independence, while another four are on the Articles of Confederation.

Signers of the Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signers_of_the_United_States_Constitution


A confederation in modern political terms is a permanent union of political units for common action in relation to other units. Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues (such as defense, foreign affairs, or a common currency), with the central government being required to provide support for all members.

Confederation wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation

The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

Federalist Paper 41 http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

[-] 0 points by vitvitvit (5) 11 years ago

Here, listen to an expert on Constitutional Law. Served in the White House. Explains it in detail.


Well worth your time. Goes into the technical specifics of the general welfare clause.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

There weren't any Randians either, and the term collectivist wasn't even coined yet..

[-] 0 points by vitvitvit (5) 11 years ago

"I think the founders were pro-collectivist understanding the importance of unity as evidenced in the preamble."

Udder cowsheit.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

G'wan......Yer just makin' shit up now.

[+] -5 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

Man, you guys are really worried, aren't ya? Well, that may not have occurred if the Dems hadn't choked the economic life out of us. There was the opportunity to good - undaunted, you flaunted. And we won't be denied; if not now, when? That's the only question.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Repub 1% plutocrats crashed the economy. The dems have started the recovery that repubs have slowed by obstructing every jobs bill Dems have submitted.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

Wall Street crashed the economy. Not just one party of a political system that is bough on both sides of the aisle. Bought by the 1%. The narrative is non-negotiable.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Conservative wall st banksters crashed the economy in collusion with Bush and the republicans in congress. It was a last gift from Bush and the party to their base (the 1% plutocrats). The banksters (& repubs) told the dems that if they didn't give them a trillion dollars they would stop lending money. They mugged us. Where were you.?

The dems balked and defeated the give away and the banksters crashed the stock market. I don't know what your talkin about. The dems changed the plan added some accountability, cut the number in half & got some money for their constituents (gm, chrysler).

We were mugged! by the right wing conservative wall st banksters with their puppets the repubs. The repubs figured they would lose the election anyway might as well get one more gift and who knows they might be able to squeeze out an election win if they could convince people the dems crashed the economy. Only idiots and repub zombies believe that.

That is how I remember it. Do we disagree?

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

The Dems removed Glass Steagall.

Wall Street crashed the economy. Not just one party of a political system that is bough on both sides of the aisle. Bought by the 1%. The Narrative is non-negotiable.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

You are wrong. Phil Graham (head of the Senate finance Committee), replaced it with Graham-Leach-Bliley. His wife created the Enron Loophole and he works for UBS since leaving the Senate. Google it.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

Who signed the bill?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Clinton did, to his perpetual shame? But Graham made a trade with him and was the leader of the mob that sneaked it through both bodies on Christmas Eve, Merry Christmas. It got him a plumb job with UBS, tax free income for life and some goodies? I am of the persuasion that Congress and the President are mutually responsible for the consequences of their combined action or inaction. Now, for example, there is a virtually unprecedented conspiracy to force absolute inaction to fix the economy by the GOP, who then gives Obama ALL of the credit. What exactly would he have done with the support of Congress? It probably wouldn't have been the right thing (many sell outs) but better than what actually happened? Also, probably. Glass Steagall, was necessary for its time but as they say in debate, not sufficient. It had already been engineered around to a considerable extent and it did not cover dark pools, derivatives, and credit default swaps, so we were headed for problems that accelerated rapidly without it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Glass Steagall was removed by Dems & Republicans. It was removed with a democratic presidential signature (Clinton). So obviously it was a mistake to repeal Glass Steagall, And as such a failur for asny dem who voted for it.

Repealing Glass Steagal (like all weakening of regulations) was solid conservative/republican dogma/policy.

Strengthening regulations is obviously progressive/democratic dogma/policy.

So Although some dems betrayed progressive principles when they voted for (or signed) this conservative policy it is inaccurate to claim "dems removed it" Republicans did as well, and it was repub policy. And it is unfair to ignore the republican roots of that mistake.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

I'm not buying big government, I simply can't afford it. I want "economy."

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Perhaps there are coupons we can clip.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

haha... funny you should mention that, you know who clips coupons? - It's the middle class who spend far more than they make; it's their way of emotionally compensating for their ridiculous spending habits.

In America, which is, amazingly enough, in respect to the lower echelons one of the richest countries in the world, it would seem to me that we could at least eat well. I'm buying... you clip, and to each his own.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Eating well.. THAT would be revolutionary! Imagine what would happen if put aside processed food sweetened with corn syrup and bathed in preservatives to be shipped all over the planet?

The health costs would drop exponentially, Air quality would improve from the reduction in shipping, More local farms should mean less chem in fertilizer, and cleaner runoff would improve water quality.

A revolution. Wasn't there A lost "imagine" lyric about this?

"imagine no processed food

it ain't impossible

No corn syrup, & preservatives.

diets that are responsible"

I could be wrong.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

It IS revolutionary... I say that because most employ frugality in food shopping.

How many farms do you think we can fit in NYC? And that's the reason food travels the world, preserved.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

NYC and all cities MUST figure out a way to grow food closer to home. There farms 20 miles out of NYC, so that is better than shipping fr midwest or cross country.

However the "urban farm" movement has begun. It is in it's infancy. It will & must spread. I would support, wiping out the suburbs of Nassau cnty to return them back to farms. I support growing produce in multi level (even skyscaper) buildings, and using large roof tops as well.

If these efforts are inadequate to feed all city residents then other options will emerge. We must bring food production closer to the consumer for the sake of the populations and the planet.

"It's the only way to be sure"

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

Ohh, what to do, what to do... that's farm boy speak from the very heart of PA, just in case you've never heard it. My advice, sell NYC to whoever wants it, and then fill all water lanes with flesh eating bacteria.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Well that's just childish, useless offensiveness. Please refrain from this type of meaningless comments. Try to contribute in a subtantive way to these very important issues.

[-] 1 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

I suspect the Guv'nuh had similar thoughts but that didn't stop me from expressing that brainstorm. Although I will admit it was in a former time and I expressed it in slightly different terms: a, give NY to the people who want it b, construct a moat of the Cross Island and patrol it with with PBR's.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

Be serious.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago


[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

Pataki? Label him as you will

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

be serious

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

tell it two the parties

[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

I have to be honest, I no longer recall if it was the governor or the mayor. And my advice was couched in more descriptive terms.


[-] 2 points by JackHall (413) 11 years ago

I'm concerned. Isn't everybody? Two foreign wars, tax cuts, Medicare Drug Act, botched 9-11 investigation and net job loss and economic meltdown under Bush still stifle the economy.

Romney and Ryan are mere rodeo clowns wanting to open the gates to turn the bullls and bears loose on the audience.

The problems with 9-11, banks too big to fail, fraud, deregulation, incompetence and corruption are not part of the political debate. Nobody has gone to jail for wrecking the economy. Not even charged. Glass-Steagall must be restored. Sarbane-Oxley needs enforcement. There should be an audit on every government agency. The $2.3 trillion from the Pentagon is still missing. There's enough loose change floating around in Government to create jobs and lower taxes.

Max Keiser on Too Big to Fail


[+] -4 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

Read the Constitution lately... if you yourself had read the Constitution lately you would definitely not be voting for Obama - but who cares - we don't have a Constitution any longer; it's useless to even consider a Constitutional defense any longer. Which is funny because in today's deluded media circus we still hear of it everyday - it's GONE - it will not be returning. Thank you very much.

And you rant... the real problem is that you don't have any problems.

[-] 1 points by JackHall (413) 11 years ago

Congress several times has rejected amnesty for illegal aliens, but Obama’s plan allows immigrants who can prove they arrived in the U.S. before they reached 16, and now are 30 or younger, to obtain special permission to work in the U.S. Is Obama’s using an executive order the issue? Is this a Constitutional crisis?

There wouldn’t even be an Obama illegal alien amnesty plan, if Reagan didn’t have one first. This is what we get with Republicans with dumb ideas. How can you believe in smaller government when giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens? He should have just said “No!”.

According to Ronald Reagan himself, as told to his trusted long-time friend and U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, the biggest mistake of his presidency was signing the l986 amnesty for what turned out to be more than half the five million illegal immigrants in the country. Reagan was uncomfortable with the amnesty but was persuaded by some of the leaders of his own party (still living) that it would only affect a small number of illegal immigrants and would assure that Congress would follow through with more vigorous enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. The misnamed Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was touted by its supporters as “comprehensive immigration reform” that would grant amnesty only to a few long-settled immigrants and strengthen border security and internal immigration enforcement against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants.

Reagan’s Biggest Mistake

http://conservativetimes.org/?p=10638 [right click]

Congress has been wrong on quite a few laws it did pass. The resolutions that approved the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were based on “flawed” intelligence and fear, resulted in the needless slaughter of thousands human beings and are major contributors to the current national debt.

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Gramm Leach Bliley Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act [right click]

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) (Pub.L. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, enacted April 20, 2005), is a legislative act that made several significant changes to the United States Bankruptcy Code. Referred to colloquially as the "New Bankruptcy Law", the Act of Congress attempts to, among other things, make it more difficult for some consumers to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7; some of these consumers may instead utilize Chapter 13.

This law makes it much harder for households to get out from under their consumer debt. The result: More people being forced to walk away from their homes, leaving lenders holding the bag. Perversely, a law intended to help the financial industry may be damaging the housing sector, creditors and borrowers alike.

Which special interest group benefitted from this legislation? The banks of course benefitted at the expense of ordinary people. In 2005 the banks lead US Congress to strip the ordinary citizen taxpayers of protection from predatory lending. In 2008 the big banks that got even bigger because of GLB needed ordinary citizen taxpayers to bail them out of the trouble with TARP. The finance sector and Congress have been eating the middle class long enough. But no Republican President has stood up against the banks on behalf of the consumer. Neither will Romney.

In past periods of economic turbulence, American households were able to escape mountains of bad debt—and keep their homes—by declaring bankruptcy. During the weak growth years from 2001 to 2003, for example, nonbusiness bankruptcy petitions averaged roughly 1.5 million per year. Lenders complained bitterly that bankruptcy was too easy, but because financially stressed Americans could write off their credit card and other consumer debt, they had more money available to pay their mortgages.

New Bankruptcy Law of 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act [right click]

Bankruptcy Reforms

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-10-28/bankruptcy-reform-bites-back [right click]

Romney promises he will unleash the banks to create their own laws, remove onerous regulation, as if the US Congress and the other two branches of federal government, which are also wholly owned subsidiaries of the finance sector were taking too long to convert the country to rule by the banking class. Well, he’s a Republican.

Congress has been adept at kicking cans down the road, but illegal aliens are not cans to be kicked. Reagan had an illegal alien amnesty program that was flawed, too. But when we have government that is elected by campaign contributions coming from the largesse of the .01% to 1% that supports both sides of the aisle in Congress with campaign contributions, and the Executive and Judicial branches, the fate of our democracy may be in the hands of the poor. Obama clearly understands that something has to be done, despite the do-nothing Congress. He's taken action. The President is not supposed to be the obedient servant of the US Congress.

George W. Bush's use of signing statements was and is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions[dubious – discuss]) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements — for example, his signing statement attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto; the Supreme Court had previously ruled such vetoes as unconstitutional in the 1998 case, Clinton v. City of New York.

Previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. George W. Bush's 130 signing statements contain at least 1,100 challenges.

Presidential Signing Statements

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Controversy_over_George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_signing_statements [right click]

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

That's a pretty good post; I'll check out your links. We're on the same page; we're just arguing the proper placement of political center. I'm going stage right, hell or high water.

I was of the belief that Reagan also raised legal immigration quotas and that Clinton had sought to reverse them. I considered this one of his more intelligent thoughts. Truthfully there does not seem to be much intelligence in government of any persuasion.

[-] 1 points by ThomasKent (131) 11 years ago

We don't have a Constitution? That is the problem. Without a Constitution there would be anarchy. Is the country on the path to anarchy? Everyone will not get there at the same time or all at once. Some have already arrived.

Definition-Anarchy is political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the constitution will be followed by years of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

Could 9-11terror attacks be the signs of anarchy trickling down from up there?

Max Keiser Vampire Banker Hunter part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2pDFmgejsQ&feature=youtu.be

Max Keiser Vampire Banker Hunter part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA6DKScMROQ&feature=youtu.be

No criminal case is likely in MF Global investigation


Is DOJ running out the clock on MF Global investigation


[-] 0 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

You need to pay attention - we no longer have those Constitutional rights and it's almost all due to presidents that wanted to enhance their political position.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Actually what is happening is the 1% are getting most of the increase in wages over the past 40 years. Inflation masks the fact that the bottom 90% received just a 3% increase over 4 decades.

Don't believe the party line of either party. Look at the facts. Tell me who is benefiting and I will show you who is choking the life out of us.


[-] -3 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

Silly... that's just plain silliness.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Present you facts then.

[-] -3 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

I am the fact; everywhere around me there are living and breathing facts - working class lifestyle and overall assets have increased tenfold, perhaps even to twenty times; never before in the entire history of mankind have we advanced the condition of all so incredulously. The tide is beginning to reverse itself because government has mismanaged, period. Your worldview itself is the the product of our prosperity.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

You are not a fact. Show me the real facts that prove assets have increased 10 times. They certainly haven't for the poor and middle class over the last 40 years.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

If you leave out inflation, then assets have increased significantly. Leaving out inflation is the only way the pro-WallStreet group can make an argument. It's false but it's all they have.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Exactly. A dollar in 1968 is only worth 15 cents today. Inflation is the invisible mask that hides the reality of economic stagnation.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 11 years ago

I like to think of the gap between wages and inflation as the place the 1% sticks the siphoning nozzle.

[+] -4 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

Open your eyes, look around; the problem is that you have not had the years of experience doing that.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

No facts equals no reality. Enjoy your illusion.

[-] -1 points by funkytown (-374) 11 years ago

You need to get out more.

[-] 1 points by ThomasKent (131) 11 years ago

Well, you can buy a banana for $1 sometimes. A cup of coffee is around $2. Inflation is a product of Wall St and banks too big to fail.

Max Keiser on Too Big to Fail