Home Depot Co-Founder Blasts Obama

Again with the distortions archer? Remember what happens when you intentionally distort what was said into something that wasn't? I compared the accuracy of saying that those men were democratically elected with the accuracy of saying that young men and women had given their lives to support the current distortion of the Constitution. What I didn't do was compare the dictators to our presidents.

Now, I might be of the opinion that FDR ruled as a dictator, which given the rapidity with which the 22nd Amendment was proposed and adopted I could make a pretty good case that I was not the sole holder of that opinion either then or now, but that, as they say, is a whole 'nuther subject.

And really, when you get right down to it, the people didn't elect the members of the Supreme Court who are the ones that made the decision that the Constitution allowed for the federal government to usurp the authority of the state governments with regards to their domestic authority over the individual welfare of the citizens of the free, independent and sovereign states that belonged to the union. Those justices were nominated and confirmed by the very same people who threatened the existing justices of the Supreme Court to either get with the program or be silenced by the addition of justices who would. What one might reasonably call a judicial coup d'etat. That is the untold story of the FDR years archer, just as there is an untold story regarding the democratic elections of Stalin, Saddam and Castro.

Ok....so who were you comparing the dictators to? enlighten me.

No one. Summarized enough for your tastes?

archer wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

Soulshiner wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] classical progressive habit [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] the DC government [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah]e fruits of their labor [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah].

[blah][blah][blah]government in DC [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] citizens of the states[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah]. The DC government [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] fruits of their labor [blah][blah][blah][blah].

[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] wannabe national government [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] federal government attempting to do something it was never intended to do - provide for the individual welfare [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah].

[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] What the authors of our Constitution knew, which self labeled progressives seem to ignore[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] men, the ones who pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] protecting the individual liberty that they had secured for themselves for their posterity.

[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] the Constitution left this task to the states [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah].

[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] The national executive has no time to micromanage the operation of the schools [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah].

[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] the wannabe national one, [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah].

[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] it isn't what we pay taxes to the government in DC for. [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] Association in this nation is voluntary, not compulsory. [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] No one is owed, or has a right to, the food that someone else grows[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] Compelling someone to participate in charity of another's choosing through the force of the government's ability to levy and collect taxes is as morally bankrupt [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] freedom of association is a protected right.

There.... I've distilled the usual Hamiltonian, 18th-century, Federalist, Sovereign Citizen bullsh*t down to its essence... It saves so much time....

And yes, actually, "provide for the general welfare" DOES allow the government to do what it does... And your continued denial of it is so much righty bullsh*t, and doesn't change the fact.

As I've said before, I'm still in awe of the fantasy world you live in... And I'm forever glad that you haven't got a chance of a snowball-in-hell of institutionalizing your selfish views into reality... I feel sorry for the sociopathic world you live in.

Yeah, we shouldn't have passed the "G.I. Bill of Rights" that guaranteed all those guys in the "Greatest Generation" the chance to go to college; and the "VA Loan" programs that helped most of them buy their houses and start their families....(which included us selfish Baby Boomers)... Humbug... Those bastards should have done it all themselves, and it wasn't a government function to take those tax-dollars from us to pay for it....

I feel sorry for you too... You'll go to your grave feeling like you were "cheated"....

Like I said before, sometimes I think anthrax is a higher life-form on the evolutionary scale.

Top ten post on 285.

It certainly highlights who the adults are.

Yes it does, until PrintSmith can learn how to post without all the unnecessary verbiage, he's still an adult wannabe.

It's become his standard debate procedure - when losing an argument, muddy the waters.

If that doesn't work, then obfuscate and deflect. (Notice how the subject of this thread has drifted?)

If that doesn't work, then shock and awe with long paragraphs and run-on sentences.

PrintSmith wrote: [blah]A[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah] FDR ruled as a dictator [blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah]

[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah]the people didn't elect the members of the Supreme Court who are the ones that made the decision that the Constitution allowed for the federal government to usurp the authority of the state governments with regards to their domestic authority over the individual welfare of the citizens of the free, independent and sovereign states that belonged to the union.[blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah][blah]

There.... Once again, I've distilled the usual Hamiltonian, 18th-century, Federalist, Sovereign Citizen bullsh*t down to its essence... It saves so much time.... And 10 extra points for getting "usurp", and "independent and sovereign" in the same sentence!! If this were Scrabble, you'd have quite a point score!

And yes, actually, "provide for the general welfare" DOES allow the government to do what it does. .. And your continued denial of it is so much righty bullsh*t, and doesn't change the fact.

As I've said before, I'm still in awe of the fantasy world you live in... And I'm forever glad that you haven't got a chance of a snowball-in-hell of institutionalizing your selfish views into reality... I feel sorry for the sociopathic world you live in.

Yeah, we shouldn't have passed the "G.I. Bill of Rights" that guaranteed all those guys in the "Greatest Generation" the chance to go to college; and the "VA Loan" programs that helped most of them buy their houses and start their families....(which included us selfish Baby Boomers)... Humbug... Those bastards should have done it all themselves, and it wasn't a government function to take those tax-dollars from us to pay for it....

I feel sorry for you too... You'll go to your grave feeling like you were "cheated"....

Like I said before, sometimes I think anthrax is a higher life-form on the evolutionary scale.

Isn't it funny how he never addresses the issue of the "G.I. Bill of Rights", and "VA Loan Program", (to name two).... I suppose screwing over the WWII vets since it was done with collected tax-dollars was OK with you too, huh? Or were they sufficiently "deserving" that you're okay with that...just not okay with all the other uses of it? How far does your hypocrisy go?

Nor does your continued reliance upon a course set by the justices of the Supreme Court after the judicial [/icoup d'etat[/i] was conducted change the fact that FDR and Congress engaged in precisely that action. The reason we have a Supreme Court today that rules according to ideology rather than the Constitution has its origin in this very act by FDR and the cabal of Democrats in Congress at that time.

Kate wrote: It's become his standard debate procedure - when losing an argument, muddy the waters.

If that doesn't work, then obfuscate and deflect. (Notice how the subject of this thread has drifted?)

If that doesn't work, then shock and awe with long paragraphs and run-on sentences.

Debate necessarily contains information from which a reasoned conclusion can be drawn Kate, not simply insults and gross exaggerations of what was said in an attempt to introduce an argument against what wasn't said. Witness the gross exaggeration of archer from a few pages back that attempted to turn the argument from taxes levied to effect redistribution of wealth to an argument of all taxes.

LJ can't argue against the merits of what I offer so she settles for attempting to silence me instead. Her offerings are little different in nature from the cry of "Heretic" once commonly heard - and even less effective at preventing others from seeing the nature of the argument I present regardless of how many other regressives chime in with a parroting call of "Heretic" themselves.

Kate wrote: It's become his standard debate procedure - when losing an argument, muddy the waters.

If that doesn't work, then obfuscate and deflect. (Notice how the subject of this thread has drifted?)

If that doesn't work, then shock and awe with long paragraphs and run-on sentences.

Debate necessarily contains information from which a reasoned conclusion can be drawn Kate, not simply insults and gross exaggerations of what was said in an attempt to introduce an argument against what wasn't said. Witness the gross exaggeration of archer from a few pages back that attempted to turn the argument from taxes levied to effect redistribution of wealth to an argument of all taxes.

LJ can't argue against the merits of what I offer so she settles for attempting to silence me instead. Her offerings are little different in nature from the cry of "Heretic" once commonly heard - and even less effective at preventing others from seeing the nature of the argument I present regardless of how many other regressives chime in with a parroting call of "Heretic" themselves.

Successive administrations had exactly the same constitutional rights to undo whatever FDR put in place if they didn't like it... He didn't pass any new Amendments giving extra powers that I'm aware of. So, if they didn't like it, they the same Constitutional mechanism to change that he did to implement it in the first place...i.e., a Congressional majority... He proposed Justices, and he had the votes to do it. You don't like the outcome? Vote in a new set of justices... But your incessant whining is tiresome... and you need to get over it... Hamilton lost.

PS: How did he happen to HAVE that huge majority in Congress?... Oh wait... He came in after Herbert Hoover started the Depression, and the people were fed up with the incompetence of the REPUBLICAN administration that destroyed the economy. So, they cleaned house, and kicked out all of the Republicans... Dang... That must hurt.

PrintSmith wrote:

Kate wrote: It's become his standard debate procedure - when losing an argument, muddy the waters.

If that doesn't work, then obfuscate and deflect. (Notice how the subject of this thread has drifted?)

If that doesn't work, then shock and awe with long paragraphs and run-on sentences.

Debate necessarily contains information from which a reasoned conclusion can be drawn Kate, not simply insults and gross exaggerations of what was said in an attempt to introduce an argument against what wasn't said. Witness the gross exaggeration of archer from a few pages back that attempted to turn the argument from taxes levied to effect redistribution of wealth to an argument of all taxes.

LJ can't argue against the merits of what I offer so she settles for attempting to silence me instead. Her offerings are little different in nature from the cry of "Heretic" once commonly heard - and even less effective at preventing others from seeing the nature of the argument I present regardless of how many other regressives chime in with a parroting call of "Heretic" themselves.

As you have demonstrated on this forum so often, you will distort an argument to serve your preconceived conclusion. No amount of logic will convince you of an argument once your position has been taken. You have even proven my point about your debate style by trying to muddy the waters - again - in the first paragraph of your reply above.

Care to bring up the "John Quincy Adams was a founding father" argument again?