Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Liberalism

Liberalism Liberalism Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 28th, 2011, 03:12 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 28th, 2011, 04:06 PM   #2
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,806
Liberalism?



How about the trigger-happy neoconservatism, which uses Islam for its excuse to be the world's cop? How about "The Fed" which eats away from the inside at our economic system for its NWO objectives?
imaginethat is online now  
Old June 28th, 2011, 04:15 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Liberalism?



How about the trigger-happy neoconservatism, which uses Islam for its excuse to be the world's cop? How about "The Fed" which eats away from the inside at our economic system for its NWO objectives?




Our government has used more than just Islam as the basis for sticking its nose in other peoples' business (i.e. "world's cop") for decades...



I'll respond more later...a few things have just come up and I have to go.



GWV
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old June 28th, 2011, 04:25 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
knowuryder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern California
Posts: 7,895
30 years of conservative economic policy, corporate welfare, favoring the rich, forcing people to negotiate their health care with a profit based system, celebrating stupidity and mocking our best and brightest as elitist, teaching our kids that art, music and theater are not important, keeping the masses ignorant with fundamentalist anti-science religion and embarking on a campaign of aggression for no other reason than to keep war profiteers happy is why this country is in the shitter....to blame liberals for that is laughable.
knowuryder is offline  
Old June 28th, 2011, 04:50 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowuryder View Post
30 years of conservative economic policy, corporate welfare, favoring the rich, forcing people to negotiate their health care with a profit based system, celebrating stupidity and mocking our best and brightest as elitist, teaching our kids that art, music and theater are not important, keeping the masses ignorant with fundamentalist anti-science religion and embarking on a campaign of aggression for no other reason than to keep war profiteers happy is why this country is in the shitter....to blame liberals for that is laughable.


Your understanding of what conservatism and liberalism in this day and age is grossly inaccurate.
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old June 28th, 2011, 05:07 PM   #6
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,806
Here's a suicide angle:





Quote:
Politics is a Scam – Why I Will Never Vote Again
Quote:
I had five seconds to make the secretive most powerful man in the world like me so I could potentially make millions. “James,” Bill McCluskey said to me, “this is Alan Quasha.” Bill was CEO of Brean Murray, one of the mini-banks I considered selling my fund of hedge funds to in 2006. We had a deal on the table and I was desperate at the time to make it work. The table was circular, there were papers on it with numbers, I was bullshitting every which way I could about “synergies”. Whatever. That was months later. But first I had to meet Alan Quasha, the owner of Brean Murray, at an event they were throwing, and he had to like me. Because…






(Have you heard of Alan Quasha before this post? And there he is with Ivan Boesky's daughter. Go figure.)



Alan Quasha squinted his eyes, shook my hand. He had no idea who I was. I certainly wasn’t anything like George W. Bush, the man Quasha had personally saved in 1986. The man Bush owes his sobriety to. In 1986 Bush was CEO of some oil company that was going down in flames. Possibly the worst oil company in Texas history.



Some calls were made and Quasha’s Harken Oil bought Bush’s company for millions of dollars. Then, of course, a few years later, Bush sold his shares in Quasha’s Harkin Oil right before Harkin Oil announced a mega-loss and the stock tanked. Bush used his profits to buy a stake in the Texas Rangers, sold that stake later for 10-15 million dollars and was finally able to follow his father’s sage advice (“don’t go into politics until you get rich” ***).



Let’s spell out what that means: if Alan Quasha called up W on September 12, 2001 in the middle of Bush pouring over maps of the jungles of Afghanistan to see where we would invade (do they have jungles in Afghanistan? Do we really need an “h” in Afghanistan?), Bush would say “hold all calls”, close the doors of the Oval Office and say “Hi Daddy Number 2?, to Quasha. He owed his life, his livelihood, the Texas Rangers, the Presidency, all to Alan Quasha and now I was shaking Quasha’s hand. I had five seconds to make Alan Quasha like me almost as much as he liked Bush so he would buy my company. Why? Alan Quasha was Chairman of Brean Murray.



Fast-forward about ten seconds. Alan Quasha had moved on. Now I was being introduced to Terry Mcauliffe. Terry was the Vice-Chairman of Brean Murray. Terry was known in most circles as “Bill Clinton’s best friend”. Terry raised the bulk of the money for the two Presidential campaigns that Bill was in (the first, of course, where he crushed Bush, the Elder). I’m guessing Terry also raised the money for all of Hillary’s political races. If Chelsea Clinton ever ran for Mayor of New York (now that Weiner is out of the running so you never know) I bet Terry would raise all the money for her race as well.



So there you have it. The biggest mastermind in Republican politics, the behind the scenes mover and shaker across the entire Bush family, was Chairman of the company. And the biggest mover-and-shaker in Democrat politics, was Vice Chairman. The war of values, between Democracy and Republicanism that our founders had fought for, had shed blood for, was over between them, if it ever even existed. Screw “The Federalist Papers”! Let’s make some money!



You see why your vote is useless? Not only is it useless, it’s scary. A female friend of mine told me: “it was like the biggest orgasm I had felt in the past 10 years of my marriage” when Obama became President.



But then what happened? Obama extended Bush’s tax cuts, kept Bush’s Secretary of Defense, extended the wars in Afganistan and Iraq, didn’t close Guantanamo Bay, and fought for a healthcare that’s now being disputed (and overturned) in every court in America. What else has he done? I can’t think of it. Planned Parenthood has less government funding now than under Bush. Africa has less funding from the US than under Bush (in fact, Obama has bombed Africa / Libya).






And yet we all fought so much. “Palin is an idiot!” “Biden can’t speak straight!” “Where’s Obama’s birth certificate!” “Is McCain senile?”! “!”!”!” Let’s fight in the streets and pass out pamphlets and wear buttons and lose friends (“I can’t believe he’s voting for Nader!”) and stick on bumper stickers that can never be scratched off once we realize they are as embarrassing as that magic dragon tattoo we got lasered across our backs when we were 17.



We fought so hard for beliefs we all thought we had and where do they all end up? Where does it all congeal together right before it flushes down the toilet?



Answer:



One is Chairman and the other is Vice-Chairman of the same company. They’re all laughing together. Slapping backs. Making Money. They are laughing at you and me, my friend. The war is over for them.



We voted them all in there, they served their time, and now they are minting money as if they own the printing press. I watched Quasha and McCaulliffe laugh, sitting next to each other when they used to pretend to be sitting so far apart.



They have no idea who I am, what I want out of life, what ideas I think are good or bad, or would save the world, or whatever. They were laughing as hard as they could just ten feet from me and I knew while I stood there watching them, hoping beyond hope that they would share some of the wealth, I knew that they were laughing at me.








http://www.jamesaltu...ver-vote-again/
imaginethat is online now  
Old June 29th, 2011, 04:28 AM   #7
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
The Clintons were certainly not the example of the uber liberal. Not really. They were far too comfortably corporately influenced and active in raising corporate dollars. So yes, Bill Clinton is much more cozy than Obama, with that set of ultra rich real power brokers that are beyond party , the super rich upper crust elites that run industry and the world. However, Obama is gaining on them and has surrounded himself with people as advisers who are fully versed with the NWO and it's army. That's why I laugh so hard when people accuse him of being a communist. Seriously? This man, who is so deep in Wall St. crony territory it isn't funny, this man who had or has quite a few republicans in very important cabinet posts, is no far left wing ideologue. He's not even a liberal.



Don't blame Islam for any of this. Blame the same old people that are always to blame in this present kind of caustic planetary atmosphere. That secretive group of international bankers holding the world by the purse strings, running countries and making wars. It is the money that runs the show and NOTHING else. Here's an interesting group to look into, and so very revealing when you simply read who runs it and what it does. The Carlyle Group.



waitingtables is offline  
Old June 30th, 2011, 02:57 AM   #8
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Right, actually Clinton ran as an FDR liberal but I think it was before he was sworn into office; he had a nice sit down with Allen Greenspan and Robert Ruben. Let’s just say they told him the facts of life and if Clinton went along with their conservative plan, he would be greatly rewarded. And he did
Fayt is offline  
Old July 2nd, 2011, 09:18 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Right, actually Clinton ran as an FDR liberal but I think it was before he was sworn into office; he had a nice sit down with Allen Greenspan and Robert Ruben. Let’s just say they told him the facts of life and if Clinton went along with their conservative plan, he would be greatly rewarded. And he did


You do realize that Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden during his presidency...and there were things he could have done to have stopped a lot of events that took place in the future; every Present over the past 40 years has made this country worse, especially Obama...internally more externally that is.



GWV
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2011, 01:39 AM   #10
Bye, Ya better behave.
 
Fayt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Not in MD
Posts: 13,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt' timestamp='1309431447' post='340071

Right, actually Clinton ran as an FDR liberal but I think it was before he was sworn into office; he had a nice sit down with Allen Greenspan and Robert Ruben. Let’s just say they told him the facts of life and if Clinton went along with their conservative plan, he would be greatly rewarded. And he did


You do realize that Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden during his presidency...and there were things he could have done to have stopped a lot of events that took place in the future; every Present over the past 40 years has made this country worse, especially Obama...internally more externally that is.



GWV


Actually there were no evidence that Bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens at the time. We can still blame Bush for 9/11.



http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/cli...ing-bin-laden/



And actually Bill Clinton created about 23 million jobs before he left office and Obama saved millions of jobs after Bush destroyed our economy implementing Reaganomics again. As mentioned before no president is perfect but it's fact that democratic presidents are better with dealing with the economy than republicans.
Fayt is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2011, 05:05 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayt View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV' timestamp='1309670307' post='340362

[quote name='Fayt' timestamp='1309431447' post='340071']

Right, actually Clinton ran as an FDR liberal but I think it was before he was sworn into office; he had a nice sit down with Allen Greenspan and Robert Ruben. Let’s just say they told him the facts of life and if Clinton went along with their conservative plan, he would be greatly rewarded. And he did


You do realize that Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden during his presidency...and there were things he could have done to have stopped a lot of events that took place in the future; every Present over the past 40 years has made this country worse, especially Obama...internally more externally that is.



GWV


Actually there were no evidence that Bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens at the time. We can still blame Bush for 9/11.



http://www.factcheck...ling-bin-laden/



And actually Bill Clinton created about 23 million jobs before he left office and Obama saved millions of jobs after Bush destroyed our economy implementing Reaganomics again. As mentioned before no president is perfect but it's fact that democratic presidents are better with dealing with the economy than republicans.

[/quote]





Obama didn't save any jobs other than GROSSLY HIGH PAYING "GOVERNMENT" jobs for his 'illegal' (i.e. unconstitutional and unconventional czar positions hired based on friendship and the Peter Principle. Over time many of those so-called "czars" quit or resigned due to public scrutiny of their true lives or intentions.



gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2011, 05:21 PM   #12
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,368
Perhaps you could provide a link to that information please. I would appreciate you providing the evidence to back up your claims on that.



Before I come here and call you out on it being a lie, please.
waitingtables is offline  
Old July 3rd, 2011, 10:26 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
Perhaps you could provide a link to that information please. I would appreciate you providing the evidence to back up your claims on that.



Before I come here and call you out on it being a lie, please.




Are you serous?!?!



Do you not watch let alone listen to the news?



There have been many controversial individuals whom Obama has improperly appointed as czars into positions for which they were not qualified.



If you are truly that blind and need to be educated on the obvious, then say so.



I will links news stories and cite books that cover the FACTS of this to educate you in your proclaimed ignorance of these common knowledge facts!



GWV







gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old July 4th, 2011, 12:02 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Liberalism?



How about the trigger-happy neoconservatism, which uses Islam for its excuse to be the world's cop? How about "The Fed" which eats away from the inside at our economic system for its NWO objectives?


Neo (New) Conservative (an adherence to the OLD, the established status quo)? What idiocy. Only a progressive would attempt to insult someone by calling them OLD and NEW in the same breath.
Ralph is offline  
Old July 4th, 2011, 08:36 AM   #15
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1309306007' post='339895

Liberalism?



How about the trigger-happy neoconservatism, which uses Islam for its excuse to be the world's cop? How about "The Fed" which eats away from the inside at our economic system for its NWO objectives?


Neo (New) Conservative (an adherence to the OLD, the established status quo)? What idiocy. Only a progressive would attempt to insult someone by calling them OLD and NEW in the same breath.


Maybe in your world of labels you believe that you've made some sense. You haven't.



If in 2011 you haven't figured out the difference between the conservatism of our Founders, and this ugly, trigger-happy impostor known as neoconservatism, you have some homework to do. Once you do your homework, then you, like I, will understand the insult of neoconservatives claiming to be conservative.



While you are doing the homework you need to do, take a look at the Fed, its history, and its influence.
imaginethat is online now  
Old July 4th, 2011, 08:40 AM   #16
Not Believing My Eyes....
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 29,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1309742465' post='340406

Perhaps you could provide a link to that information please. I would appreciate you providing the evidence to back up your claims on that.



Before I come here and call you out on it being a lie, please.




Are you serous?!?!



Do you not watch let alone listen to the news?



There have been many controversial individuals whom Obama has improperly appointed as czars into positions for which they were not qualified.



If you are truly that blind and need to be educated on the obvious, then say so.



I will links news stories and cite books that cover the FACTS of this to educate you in your proclaimed ignorance of these common knowledge facts!



GWV


Remembering that your claim was: "Obama didn't save any jobs other than GROSSLY HIGH PAYING "GOVERNMENT" jobs...."



imaginethat is online now  
Old July 4th, 2011, 08:48 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
gulfwar_veteran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV' timestamp='1309760811' post='340428

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1309742465' post='340406']

Perhaps you could provide a link to that information please. I would appreciate you providing the evidence to back up your claims on that.



Before I come here and call you out on it being a lie, please.




Are you serous?!?!



Do you not watch let alone listen to the news?



There have been many controversial individuals whom Obama has improperly appointed as czars into positions for which they were not qualified.



If you are truly that blind and need to be educated on the obvious, then say so.



I will links news stories and cite books that cover the FACTS of this to educate you in your proclaimed ignorance of these common knowledge facts!



GWV


Remembering that your claim was: "Obama didn't save any jobs other than GROSSLY HIGH PAYING "GOVERNMENT" jobs...."





[/quote]





Allright allright...after I have my coffee (I just woke up and turned the bloody computer no), have a pastry or two, and finish my monthly budget for this month; I will return with links, references to books, etc. substantiating my generalized claim.



Until then...enjoy the popcorn! Don't put too much salt on it, unless it's sea salt, otherwise it's bad for you (so is the butter).



GWV
gulfwar_veteran is offline  
Old July 4th, 2011, 10:39 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph' timestamp='1309766569' post='340434

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1309306007' post='339895']

Liberalism?



How about the trigger-happy neoconservatism, which uses Islam for its excuse to be the world's cop? How about "The Fed" which eats away from the inside at our economic system for its NWO objectives?


Neo (New) Conservative (an adherence to the OLD, the established status quo)? What idiocy. Only a progressive would attempt to insult someone by calling them OLD and NEW in the same breath.


Maybe in your world of labels you believe that you've made some sense. You haven't.



If in 2011 you haven't figured out the difference between the conservatism of our Founders, and this ugly, trigger-happy impostor known as neoconservatism, you have some homework to do. Once you do your homework, then you, like I, will understand the insult of neoconservatives claiming to be conservative.



While you are doing the homework you need to do, take a look at the Fed, its history, and its influence.

[/quote]



Conservatism of our Fathers? More LIBERAL LOGIC? There were CONSERVATIVES at the birth of our nation (those that demanded an adherence to the status que)? Really? Indeed they were, they were, called BRITISH loyalists. Our founding fathers were REVOLUTIONARIES....far removed from a conservative ideology that was satisfied with the OLD tried and TRUE system. I find it amusing when someone attempts to define something they do not even have the intelligence to comprehend. A Conservative is not defined by labels but rather by actions, The primary trait of an American Conservative is the principle of applying the Constitution as the Standard of Calibration that it was intended to be.



It is a PROGRESSIVE ideology that demands the right to CHANGE the constitution via opinion only void of any REPRESENTATION from the REPUBLIC...i.e, We the PEOPLE. Why do they self professes to have the authority to CHANGE THE STANDARD CONTRACT AGREEMENT made up among the STATES/WE THE PEOPLE, the United States Constitution, where there is no Authority to REVIEW THE CONSTITUTION void of representation, might less INTERPRET that contract, COMPACT AGREEMENT, changing the TEXT by opinion? Because they always lose the battle of ideologies at the polling place.....the only way to implement their FASCISM is by circumventing the PEOPLE's voice, by using the COURT SYSTEM in an errant application of treason.



A prime example would be the Amendment the goof folk of California ratified and placed into STATE LAW, an amendment....denouncing Homosexuality marriage as IMMORAL. THE PEOPLE spoke, where the United States Constitution was silent....as MARRIAGE is not addressed as a PROTECTED HUMAN RIGHT...because marriage is nothing but a religious tradition, not a human right that is required to LIVE. Thus, THE PEOPLE have never included marriage in the Federal Constitution, because it is a STATE MATTER.



Even the Constitution points out the FACT that when the Constitution is silent, that Silence belongs to who.....BIG BROTHER SCOTUS, a division of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT....no, All Silence, words not written belong to the STATES/PEOPLES, Amendment 10. If Marriage is addressed in the Constitution in clear UNAMBIGUOUS TEXT....point it out, you cannot because it is not. Thus.....states have every right to define the tradition known as marriage. California PASSED a state amendment, the most liberal state in the union, REJECTING homosexual marriage. In comes Big Brother to RE-DEFINE the constitution (image that.....the very party whom the STATES were protecting themselves from.....an OVER REACHING CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, as the Constitution is nothing but a Contract agreed upon among the States placing limits upon BIG BROTHER, informing him there are certain things HE cannot do, and Certain Things He must Do in recognizing the PEOPLE's/STATES freedom)....as I said, imagine that THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT professing to have the authority to change that CONTRACT....without any representation whatsoever from the PEOPLE, by simply opining a NEW LAW from the BENCH.



The People of California passed a law, an amendment to their own state constitution, it effected no other state....yet BIG BROTHER attempted to VACATE the people's voice at the ballot box and replace their voice with a Totalitarian Edict from the BENCH.....by pretending that MARRIAGE is addressed in the Constitution. Can they point o the Words where this subject is addressed? No....they must MAKE it up and pretentiously dictate the fabrication under the Guise of Judicial Review. The only problem? They are reviewing the STANDARD, the Constitution where they have no lot nor part in the matter because they themselves WORK for BIG BROTHER......the very reason the Constitution was drafted and placed into the form of a binding contract was to PROHIBIT BIG BROTHER from claiming powers that he does not possess.



There are 18 enumerated powers THE STATES allowed the Central Government....18, they are expressly detailed in Article One Section Eight. Anyone.....show us which one of those powers that SCOTUS uses to find the authorization to CHANGE the CONSTITUTION by opinion...i.e., REVIEW the constitution, there is no such authority. When the Constitution needs changed, it is not subject to change by Court Opinion, as the Courts by Majority are nothing but non elected CIVIL SERVANTS whose duty it is to REVIEW written representative law, from both the State and Federal Level and compare that in a VERBATIM (as the Constitution is a binding LITERAL CONTRACT, a compact agreement, signed and ratified by the STATES, along with all amendments thereof by a required SUPER MAJORITY of the STATES). The only method to address any supposed ambiguity is through the mandated process of amendment. Society has changed over the years. When the Constitution was first drafted and placed into law as the Standard that calibrates all law......society accepted only WHITE property owners as having the right to Vote, Society accepted the industry of slave trading as a tool of commerce. The constitution was designed with the intent of having it evolve along with society. And it does....it works, that process of evolution is called Amending the Constitution to reflect a changing morality. There would be no civil right, no women's rights, and slavery would still be legal, and left up to the decisions of each individual STATE, but THE PEOPLE..i.e., evolved, and when they did, THIS FREE SOCIETY evolved the Constitution via Representative Will, and it takes a 75% super majority to CHANGE the constitution and evolve it. THE PEOPLE must be included in the process NOT CIRCUMVENTED, and by passed like BIG BOTHER did to the good people of California...who clearly were not ready BY the required super majority to accept homosexual marriage.





Again. Show us in the Constitution where SCOTUS gets the authority to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION to mean anything they OPINE it to be. Why have a Standard of Calibration if that STANDARD is subject to change by the voice of the one whom it was designed to protect THE PEOPLE from?





Now that's a CONSERVATIVE view of what defines a conservative. I often find that its best not to allow some DICK HEAD define who you are. Especially a DICK HEAD who leans so far left, that he/she must stand on one leg to relieve themselves.
Ralph is offline  
Old July 4th, 2011, 10:45 AM   #19
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWV View Post
Obama didn't save any jobs other than GROSSLY HIGH PAYING "GOVERNMENT" jobs for his 'illegal' (i.e. unconstitutional and unconventional czar positions hired based on friendship and the Peter Principle.






THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009

SEVENTH QUARTERLY REPORT

JULY 1, 2011



  1. CEA estimates that as of the first quarter of 2011, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.4 and 3.6 million.
  2. Following implementation of the ARRA, the trajectory of the economy changed significantly. Real GDP began to grow steadily starting in the third quarter of 2009 and private payroll employment increased on net by 1.7 million from the start of 2010 to the end of the first quarter of 2011.
  3. The two established CEA methods of estimating the impact of the fiscal stimulus suggest that the ARRA has raised the level of GDP as of the first quarter of 2011, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.3 and 3.2 percent. These estimates are very similar to those of a wide range of other analysts, including the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

http://www.whitehous...arra_report.pdf
garysher is offline  
Old July 4th, 2011, 10:46 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph' timestamp='1309766569' post='340434

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1309306007' post='339895']

Liberalism?



How about the trigger-happy neoconservatism, which uses Islam for its excuse to be the world's cop? How about "The Fed" which eats away from the inside at our economic system for its NWO objectives?


Neo (New) Conservative (an adherence to the OLD, the established status quo)? What idiocy. Only a progressive would attempt to insult someone by calling them OLD and NEW in the same breath.


Maybe in your world of labels you believe that you've made some sense. You haven't.



If in 2011 you haven't figured out the difference between the conservatism of our Founders, and this ugly, trigger-happy impostor known as neoconservatism, you have some homework to do. Once you do your homework, then you, like I, will understand the insult of neoconservatives claiming to be conservative.



While you are doing the homework you need to do, take a look at the Fed, its history, and its influence.

[/quote]



Conservatism of our Fathers? More LIBERAL LOGIC? There were CONSERVATIVES at the birth of our nation (those that demanded an adherence to the status que)? Really? Indeed they were they were, called BRITISH loyalists. Our founding fathers were REVOLUTIONARIES....far removed from a conservative ideology that was satisfied with the OLD tried and TRUE system. I find it amusing when someone attempts to define something they do not even have the intelligence to comprehend. A Conservative is not defined by labels but rather by actions, The primary trait of an American Conservative is the principle of applying the Constitution as the Standard of Calibration that it was intended to be.



It is a PROGRESSIVE ideology that demands the right to CHANGE the constitution via opinion only void of any REPRESENTATION from the REPUBLIC...i.e, We the PEOPLE. Why do they self professes to have the authority to CHANGE THE STANDARD CONTRACT AGREEMENT made up among the STATES/WE THE PEOPLE, the United States Constitution, where there is no Authority to REVIEW THE CONSTITUTION void of representation, might less INTERPRET that contract, COMPACT AGREEMENT, changing the TEXT by opinion? Because they always lose the battle of ideologies at the polling place.....the only way to implement their FASCISM is by circumventing the PEOPLE's voice, by using the COURT SYSTEM in an errant application of treason.



A prime example would be the Amendment the goof folk of California ratified and placed into STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW....denouncing Homosexuality marriage as IMMORAL. THE PEOPLE spoke, where the United States Constitution was silent....as MARRIAGE is not addressed as a PROTECTED HUMAN RIGHT...because marriage is nothing but a religious tradition, not a human right that is required to LIVE. Thus, THE PEOPLE have never included marriage in the Federal Constitution, because it is a STATE MATTER.



Even the Constitution points out the FACT that when the Constitution is silent, that Silence belongs to who.....BIG BROTHER SCOTUS, a division of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT....no, All Silence, words not written belong to the STATES/PEOPLES, Amendment 10.



If Marriage is addressed in the Constitution in clear UNAMBIGUOUS TEXT....point it out, you cannot because it is not. Thus.....states have every right to define the tradition known as marriage. California PASSED a state amendment, the most liberal state in the union, REJECTING homosexual marriage.



In comes Big Brother to RE-DEFINE the constitution (image that.....the very party whom the STATES were protecting themselves from.....an OVER REACHING CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, as the Constitution is nothing but a Contract agreed upon among the States placing limits upon BIG BROTHER, informing him there are certain things HE cannot do, and Certain Things He must Do in recognizing the PEOPLE's/STATES freedom)....as I said, imagine that THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT professing to have the authority to change that CONTRACT....without any representation whatsoever from the PEOPLE, by simply opining a NEW LAW, new words in the constitution that did not exist previously from the BENCH.



The People of California passed a law, an amendment to their own state constitution, it effected no other state....yet BIG BROTHER attempted to VACATE the people's voice at the ballot box and replace their voice with a Totalitarian Edict from the BENCH.....by pretending that MARRIAGE is addressed in the Constitution. Can they point to the Words where this subject is addressed? No....they must MAKE it up and pretentiously dictate the fabrication under the Guise of Judicial Review. The only problem? They are reviewing the STANDARD, the Constitution where they have no lot nor part in the matter because they themselves WORK for BIG BROTHER......the very reason the Constitution was drafted and placed into the form of a binding contract was to PROHIBIT BIG BROTHER from claiming powers that he does not possess.



There are 18 enumerated powers THE STATES allowed the Central Government....18, they are expressly detailed in Article One Section Eight. Anyone.....show us which one of those powers that SCOTUS uses to find the authorization to CHANGE the CONSTITUTION by opinion...i.e., REVIEW the constitution, there is no such authority. When the Constitution needs changed, it is not subject to change by Court Opinion, as the Courts by Majority are nothing but non elected CIVIL SERVANTS whose duty it is to REVIEW written representative law, from both the State and Federal Level and compare that in a VERBATIM (as the Constitution is a binding LITERAL CONTRACT, a compact agreement, signed and ratified by the STATES, along with all amendments thereof by a required SUPER MAJORITY of the STATES).



The only method to address any supposed ambiguity is through the mandated process of amendment. If any CONTRACT can be subject to change by a LAWYER, or JUDGE......why have a contract in the first place, what does it establish or calibrate? Nothing. So why not just come and declare the true intent. PROGRESSIVES demand the right to have SCTOUS make law instead of arbitrating WRITTEN law that is represented by the PEOPLE. QUESTION? How can words not WRITTEN (like marriage in the constitution is NOT WRITTEN) come under the courts authority to REVIEW? How does that work? How do you review a subject that was never placed into written format....i.e, LAW? You cannot. If you make new words where there was none....and attempt to tell everyone that is the NEW LAW. What have you done? You have legislated law from the Bench, expressly in contradiction ONCE AGAIN of the CONSTITUTION as only the PEOPLES representatives have that authority. That's far removed from FREEDOM or SELF GOVERNMENT, its Despotism, whether the totalitarian, unrepresented edicts come from ONE DESPOT or 9, or 12......despotism and fascism is still despotism and fascism.



Society has changed over the years. When the Constitution was first drafted and placed into law as the Standard that calibrates all law......society accepted only WHITE property owners as having the right to Vote, Society accepted the industry of slave trading as a tool of commerce. The constitution was designed with the intent of having it evolve along with society. And it does....it works, that process of evolution is called Amending the Constitution to reflect a changing morality. There would be no civil right, no women's rights, and slavery would still be legal, and left up to the decisions of each individual STATE, but THE PEOPLE..i.e., evolved, and when they did, THIS FREE SOCIETY evolved the Constitution via Representative Will, and it takes a 75% super majority to CHANGE the constitution and evolve it. THE PEOPLE must be included in the process NOT CIRCUMVENTED, and by passed like BIG BOTHER did to the good people of California...who clearly were not REPRESENTED.





Again. Show us in the Constitution where SCOTUS gets the authority to INTERPRET the CONSTITUTION to mean anything they OPINE it to be. Why have a Standard of Calibration if that STANDARD is subject to change by the voice of the one whom it was designed to protect THE PEOPLE from?





Now that's a CONSERVATIVE view of what defines a conservative. I often find that its best not to allow some DICK HEAD define who you are. Especially a DICK HEAD who leans so far left, that he/she must stand on one leg to relieve themselves.
Ralph is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Liberalism

Tags
suicide, west


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WEST NILE VIRUS dusty Current Events 2 August 18th, 2012 05:48 PM
West won’t win Afghan war Ludin Warfare 0 September 20th, 2006 07:51 PM
West Point Graduates Against The War intangible child Warfare 0 May 22nd, 2006 08:56 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.