Capitalism and the Constitution

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Enuf about Bush. He's no longer president, just a diversion by liberals, including Barry, who have no good explanation for why the positive change he promised isn't happening. Let's stay on track and examine the stance of the guy who's president now.

"Staying on track" would be talking about whether or not economic systems are referred to in the Constitution.

Read your own OP. I quote from it:

It seems that many of the people who are attending congressional town hall meetings these days have some sort of problem with the idea that our current president is not adhering to the U.S. Constitution.

Talking about our CURRENT president's view of the Constitution is directly on topic, and so am I.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Sofiyya

[rebeccajo 14]

Enuf about Bush. He's no longer president, just a diversion by liberals, including Barry, who have no good explanation for why the positive change he promised isn't happening. Let's stay on track and examine the stance of the guy who's president now.

"Staying on track" would be talking about whether or not economic systems are referred to in the Constitution.

Read your own OP. I quote from it:

It seems that many of the people who are attending congressional town hall meetings these days have some sort of problem with the idea that our current president is not adhering to the U.S. Constitution.

Talking about our CURRENT president's view of the Constitution is directly on topic, and so am I.

Tsk Tsk. I would have thought with your media background you'd know better than to twist context. I'd also think your reading comprehension would be better.

"It seems that many of the people who are attending congressional town hall meetings these days have some sort of problem with the idea that our current president is not adhering to the U.S. Constitution. They seem to connect this idea with their bogeyman, socialism."

It's also helpful to apply context to the entire clip of the President talking about a flawed Constitution. His arguments aren't radical nor are they anything that has not been said before by other Constitutional scholars.

And it's also helpful to remember that he has the same protections granted the rest of us - he's allowed to say what he thinks. Freedom of Speech and all that jazz, you know.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Enuf about Bush. He's no longer president, just a diversion by liberals, including Barry, who have no good explanation for why the positive change he promised isn't happening. Let's stay on track and examine the stance of the guy who's president now.

"Staying on track" would be talking about whether or not economic systems are referred to in the Constitution.

Read your own OP. I quote from it:

It seems that many of the people who are attending congressional town hall meetings these days have some sort of problem with the idea that our current president is not adhering to the U.S. Constitution.

Talking about our CURRENT president's view of the Constitution is directly on topic, and so am I.

Tsk Tsk. I would have thought with your media background you'd know better than to twist context. I'd also think your reading comprehension would be better.

"It seems that many of the people who are attending congressional town hall meetings these days have some sort of problem with the idea that our current president is not adhering to the U.S. Constitution. They seem to connect this idea with their bogeyman, socialism."

It's also helpful to apply context to the entire clip of the President talking about a flawed Constitution. His arguments aren't radical nor are they anything that has not been said before by other Constitutional scholars.

And it's also helpful to remember that he has the same protections granted the rest of us - he's allowed to say what he thinks. Freedom of Speech and all that jazz, you know.

Free speech isn't the issue.

I provided the entire clip as well as a snippet to provide context.

You don't see his views as radical because they agree with yours.

Please respond with something relevant and on target coz, so far, you aren't hitting the mark. My original post addresses the concept in your flawed OP that the Constitution has nothing to do with economics, is merely an org chart, and that Obama is overstepping his Constitutional boundaries.

Would you like to discuss the issues you raise, or continue to obfuscate so you can defend Obama? If so, I'l defend the nation instead.

[rebeccajo 14]

I used the piece because it's simple. I like it. It's to the point.

What is there to discuss?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Amazing how people can manipulate other people just by removing portions of the media. Heck, you can turn an opposer into proponents just by removing words.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I used the piece because it's simple. I like it. It's to the point.

What is there to discuss?

Oh. So, you posted it here without expecting to discuss it. OK. That explains why you think it's simple, and can't discuss it.

Next time, warn us that you're just posting and don't expect any discussion of the topic, please. I'll be more than happy to comply.

[rebeccajo 14]

I used the piece because it's simple. I like it. It's to the point.

What is there to discuss?

Oh. So, you posted it here without expecting to discuss it. OK. That explains why you think it's simple, and can't discuss it.

Next time, warn us that you're just posting and don't expect any discussion of the topic, please. I'll be more than happy to comply.

I'm happy to discuss it.

But I'm not willing to have a battle of wits with an unarmed individual.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I used the piece because it's simple. I like it. It's to the point.

What is there to discuss?

Oh. So, you posted it here without expecting to discuss it. OK. That explains why you think it's simple, and can't discuss it.

Next time, warn us that you're just posting and don't expect any discussion of the topic, please. I'll be more than happy to comply.

I'm happy to discuss it.

But I'm not willing to have a battle of wits with an unarmed individual.

I see. This is a bait thread.

Since you have nothing to say, you just want to attack. Well, then, that stupid article is quite fitting to your analytical incapabilities and underwhelming intellect. Good choice, rj!

[rebeccajo 14]

I used the piece because it's simple. I like it. It's to the point.

What is there to discuss?

Oh. So, you posted it here without expecting to discuss it. OK. That explains why you think it's simple, and can't discuss it.

Next time, warn us that you're just posting and don't expect any discussion of the topic, please. I'll be more than happy to comply.

I'm happy to discuss it.

But I'm not willing to have a battle of wits with an unarmed individual.

I see. This is a bait thread.

Since you have nothing to say, you just want to attack. Well, then, that stupid article is quite fitting to your analytical incapabilities and underwhelming intellect. Good choice, rj!

It's not a bait thread. As I said earlier (go back for a re-read in case you missed it) I put up the link because it is succinct and to the point.

I have nothing to debate. If other people want to debate it, they can.

[natty bumppo 289]

do I need to re-bait the hook?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

do I need to re-bait the hook?

You'll probably hurt yourself.

[natty bumppo 289]

do I need to re-bait the hook?

You'll probably hurt yourself.

because of you?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

do I need to re-bait the hook?

You'll probably hurt yourself.

because of you?

No, because of you.

[natty bumppo 289]

do I need to re-bait the hook?

You'll probably hurt yourself.

because of you?

No, because of you.

too late ...

you bit ... hook line and sinker ....

[spookyturtle 9,465]

do I need to re-bait the hook?

You'll probably hurt yourself.

because of you?

No, because of you.

too late ...

you bit ... hook line and sinker ....

Whatever you say.